» New “trolley lines” will connect to two light rail stations and activate region’s most urban district outside of downtown.

St. Louis’ successful bid for a $25 million grant to partially fund the construction of a new streetcar line in the city’s Loop district is being hailed in the local press as the latest achievement of a man who has in just a few of decades taken what was once a downtrodden street and transformed it into one of the city’s most active commercial areas. Joe Edwards — the “mayor” of the Delmar Loop — started a restaurant, then restored a concert hall, then opened a hotel and a bowling alley, and recently he has been the primary proponent of this rail project.

From that perspective, it makes sense that of the nine streetcar systems* the federal government has funded this year (thanks to the TIGER and Urban Circulator grants), only St. Louis will be constructing a line outside of its downtown. The rest, including Fort Worth, whose project I described earlier this month, will have their new street-running trains in the center-city.

But the Loop, which straddles the City of St. Louis and University City (both in St. Louis County), is as vital as the downtowns of many smaller cities, and it’s arguably only indirectly served by rapid transit. Its heart is roughly a half-mile from the Delmar and University City Metrolink light rail stations; Mr. Edwards will clearly see his business improve by having streetcars run in front of his enterprises, to and from the rapid transit stations and to the Missouri History Museum in Forest Park.

The 2.2-mile, $44 million St. Louis project has been planned for for more than a decade. It will run along Delmar Boulevard and DeBaliviere Avenue. Construction is planned to begin at the end of 2011, with service sometime in 2012. Vehicles will be designed to include batteries, allowing them to run through some sections without an overhead catenary. Depending on the progress of other cities, this could make St. Louis the first city in the U.S. to experiment with this sort of alternative propulsion for rail vehicles.

To the credit of the streetcar system proponents, they have raised much of the local money for the project themselves, leaving St. Louis County to dedicate its voter-approved transit expansion program to bus rapid transit, light rail, and commuter rail routes serving less-served places in the metropolitan area. It would probably be unreasonable to suggest using region-wide funds for a streetcar project running in communities so close to existing rapid transit.

But to partially make up the $19 million in construction costs not being sponsored by the federal government, the streetcar will get $5 to 8 million from private sources in addition to $6 million from the East-West Gateway Council of Governments (the local MPO). Operations will be covered by a transportation tax residents in the surrounding area approved by 97%. This strong show of local support, both financial and political, is likely one of the reasons St. Louis won the grant from the U.S. DOT over so many competitors.

From an operations perspective, the project won’t do much to improve access, since its most distant station is less than a mile from an existing Metrolink stop. With nine proposed stations on the short line and vehicles running only every ten minutes, it will in many cases be faster to walk. The historic-looking vehicles will not have low floors, meaning they won’t be able to provide nowadays essential handicapped access; just as bad, they will have no capacity advantages over traditional buses (unfortunately a routine problem for most U.S. streetcar programs).

Edwards, the neighborhood developer, has been a proponent of eventually extending the streetcar route all the way to the riverfront, mirroring the route of the city’s old trolley network. Yet this would needlessly duplicate the services already provided by Metrolink. Rather, extensions south along Big Bend Boulevard, passing by the University City Metrolink Station, the two campuses of Washington University, and reaching Richmond Heights, could be truly valuable since it would encourage transit use by students for local-area commutes and connect dense areas with a corridor not currently serviced by rapid transit.

But the program isn’t — at least at the beginning — ready to support significant increases in the number of vehicles using the line. The section of the line on DeBaliviere (leading up to Forest Park) and part of the route on Delmar will be built with only one lane for the streetcars (though it will be separated from automobile traffic, unlike the other sections). This limits frequency since trains heading in both directions will use the same right-of-way.

These are, however, the consequences of what are in transport terms still relativity small investments; similar criticisms could probably be lobbed at many of the other starter streetcar lines currently being developed in the U.S. It’s expensive to invest in a new rail line — putting in the maintenance shops, buying the vehicles, maintaining the track — so even a short line racks up cash in no time. Only so much can be built at such a low budget as is being made possible by these federal grants.

Moreover, whether transport planners like it or not, these systems are in reality a lot more oriented towards fulfilling economic development goals than providing increased mobility. More transportation of any sort, even if it doesn’t seem particularly useful for many people, will encourage investment in new construction or redevelopment. For Mr. Edwards and the community he’s helped develop around Delmar Boulevard, there’s no reason to complain.

* Dallas modern, Detroit, New Orleans, Portland, Tucson (TIGER); Cincinnati, Charlotte, Dallas M-Line, Fort Worth, St. Louis (Urban Circulator)

» Federal government commits to funding share for project, but the city isn’t yet ready for full investment. Should Washington be promising money for under-planned programs?

Last week, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded Fort Worth $25 million to begin work on a new inner-city streetcar line, putting it in the ranks of a small group of lucky cities that received similar funds from Washington, including Charlotte, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. The grant, according to the government, will go to a 2.5-mile one-way rail loop through the center city with 20 to 25 stations, to be served by three vehicles.

The exact route has yet to be defined, because the city is in the midst of a large-scale study of six potential corridors extending from the office district into the surrounding neighborhoods. The routes all connect to the Intermodal Transit Center east of downtown, where streetcars would meet up with Trinity Railroad Express commuter trains, Amtrak, and local buses. In order to receive the federal grant, the city is required to provide at least a 20% local match.

Fort Worth’s luck in receiving funds over a whole host of competing cities hasn’t prevented some local politicians from criticizing the project and questioning whether the city should move ahead with the line. Councilman Jungus Jordan, a long-time streetcar opponent, suggested last week that other infrastructure investments were more critical to the future of the city. The council still must approve a source of local funds — likely to be based in a form of tax-increment financing in the affected districts — to ensure the rail program’s successful implementation.

If opposition is fomented, the current schedule for the program could be pushed aside and a dream for a rail line through the center city could be set aside, just as it has been repeatedly over the past decade. But if all goes well, the city estimates that it will be able to recommend phasing for the system by September; the initial segment could be up and running in four years. The DOT’s claim that it is sponsoring a “streetcar loop” doesn’t mean that a route has been determined; Fort Worth could alter its preferred alignment and still collect the federal grant, presumably as long as the line connects the Intermodal Transit Center with the business district.

The Obama Administration is making a policy of prioritizing streetcar connections between intercity rail stations and office areas, as proven by grants to do so in Detroit, New Orleans, and Tucson. The Fort Worth line would fit well within that effort and encourage the extension of the city’s “livable,” walkable areas — now the stated end goal of the DOT in approving new transportation projects.

But the situation in Fort Worth suggests that the DOT may be putting too much trust in the potential of some local governments to move forward on planning construction projects and to establish revenue sources apart from those provided by the federal government.

Unlike the streetcar lines proposed for Charlotte and Cincinnati, which are basically ready for construction, Fort Worth’s line is under-planned. The fact that the city has yet to settle on a final alignment is problematic since it means that Washington is agreeing to finance a project that has yet to be fully defined. Is that sound policy?

Under the New Starts process, which admittedly funds much larger capital projects, transit authorities must undergo years of studies and public review before receiving money for construction from the federal government. By the time the DOT has signed a full funding grant agreement, ensuring financial support for a defined percentage of costs, transit agencies have had to justify their choice of transportation mode, choose a specific alignments, pick stop locations, establish estimated ridership figures, and guarantee local financial support for the rest of the project’s cost.

Fort Worth, not required to do so under the Urban Circulator program from which it received funding, has done none of that so far. But it will have to go through many of the same steps before it can begin laying tracks in the street.

To some extent, that’s good news, since it means that the federal government won’t be as severe in the future about distributing money to public transportation projects, which have traditionally been forced to submit to a far more rigorous evaluation process than highway projects. On the other hand, there’s a lot of merit to the idea that Washington shouldn’t be throwing money around willy-nilly; why should Fort Worth get funds if it’s years away from using them? Shouldn’t the government wait to award money until when cities are ready to use it for construction?

But the under-preparedness of this Texas city may be a reflection of the federal government’s attempts to speed the grant distribution process beyond the capacity of local governments that had no access to cash for streetcar lines just two years ago. There was little federal planning money available until recently to pay for studies considering these types of projects. I can only hope that in the future that the DOT can be a bit more exacting in allocating construction dollars only to cities that are prepared to take advantage of them.

» With municipal and state funds aligned for transit project, a more livable downtown on its way.

Cincinnati is thinking seriously about how to make its proposed streetcar system a vital element of a growing downtown, not simply a trophy piece to parade around in demonstration of its progress. The city’s Planning Commission has taken a major step in that direction by signaling its support last week to significantly reducing parking requirements in areas within two blocks of future streetcar stops. The city council will have to approve the decision for the zoning code to be altered.

If it goes through with the change, Cincinnati will be demonstrating its support for a new type of urban living and promoting a model for other cities looking into funding inner-city transit systems like streetcars.

With $86.5 million currently reserved for the project and $25 million more likely to be awarded to it by the federal government later this month, Ohio’s southern metropolis is virtually assured to have a streetcar system up and running in the next three years. Cincinnati hopes that the streetcar will help spur regeneration of the communities along the line, including the riverfront area, downtown, and Over the Rhine, three areas that have significant potential thanks to beautiful existing building stock intermixed with vacant plots.

Yet a streetcar in itself will provide no guarantee that those neighborhoods will see redevelopment. Transit may encourage some people to build new housing and retail, but it certainly compels no one to do so. Just as problematic, even if the new construction comes, there is no promise from future residents or office users that they will actually use the streetcars to get around; the vehicles could be underused if implemented poorly.

That’s why the city’s decision to reduce parking minimums would be a reassuring sign that local planners understand the necessity of designing neighborhoods to encourage transit use. Today, the city requires one to two parking spaces per housing unit, even for apartment buildings constructed right downtown. The new law, if approved as likely later this year, will halve those requirements in all new construction within 600 feet of streetcar stations, even reducing them to nil in some cases for buildings with six or fewer units.

As the Cincinnati Streetcar Blog points out, this change may have the positive effect of reducing the cost of new development in Cincinnati by allowing builders to avoid building underground garages or acquiring adjacent sites for surface parking. This will reduce not only the initial investment necessary to construct in neighborhoods near the streetcar but also the cost of individual purchasing or renting, making it more likely that there will be a market for new housing in the area.

In turn, by reducing the number of parking spaces per unit, the city is encouraging people who live in downtown areas to use transit to get around — and they’ll be getting a high-quality service through the center city with the new streetcar, so that shouldn’t be much of a problem. Though some may argue that Cincinnati could have gone a step further and eliminated all parking minimums to areas near the streetcar, the initial line is short and won’t even reach the University of Cincinnati north of downtown; if and when the system is expanded, the city council may want to reevaluate the use of parking minimums at all along this corridor.

What seems likely is that by making it more difficult for people to park their cars when they decide to live in apartments along the line, they will also be more likely to take advantage of the streetcar system, take advantage of nearby retail, and generally lead a walking life. Such communities are more likely to be self-sufficient in the long-term because of support for local shops and restaurants, and they will contribute to Cincinnati’s clear interest in developing for itself the image of being an “urban” city. This is a net positive for a place that is investing a large amount of local funds in this project.

Other cities planning new modern streetcar systems — Detroit, Dallas, Tucson, and Washington, for instance, have lines mostly funded — should examine Cincinnati’s proposed zoning changes and evaluate whether they could enact similar alterations in their municipal parking requirements to encourage around the new transit lines the creation of inner-city neighborhoods in which automobile use comes second to walking and alternative transportation.

Image above: Downtown Cincinnati, from Flickr user Sonnett

» After tumultuous council session last week, first line is mostly funded and will be ready for service in 2012. Eight more corridors in the District are also planned.

Compared to the massive, multi-billion dollar investment made over thirty years in the construction of Washington’s Metrorail network, the 37-mile streetcar system that the city’s Department of Transportation is planning pretty much spare change. These more limited ambitions are a reflection of tighter times, a realization of the fact that save some unforeseen technological advance, the era of big expansions of American rapid transit networks has mostly come to an end.

Yet the decision by District DOT chair Gabe Klein to announce a framework last year for the construction of eight streetcar lines illustrates a maturing of thinking about the American city in general. By highlighting eight routes spread out along 37 miles that plug holes between Metrorail stops and that provide access to now rail-less portions of the inner-city, the city will be making it increasingly feasible to live without a car throughout Washington. And with streetcars, the District is choosing to emphasize occasional and non-work users in a way not nearly as simple as with the commuting-focused, downtown-oriented subway system.

Washington began construction on the first line last year along H Street and Benning Road in the northeast quadrant of the city, choosing to include new tracks (but not catenary) along with an overall street renovation project. But that corridor, which would ultimately extend east to the Benning Road Metrorail station across the Anacostia River and west to Union Station with services by 2012, has been subject to numerous debates in the U.S. capital city. Most importantly, a ban on overhead wire in parts of the historic core is still in effect, making the installation of traditional streetcars impossible.

One city councilperson almost managed to remove funding to install overhead catenary last week in an overnight move, though an intense citizen campaign restored $47 million in local funds over the course of the next two years. Along with the expected receipt of a federal urban circulator grant later this year, that will be enough to get streetcars running from Union Station to Benning Road — though there won’t be enough vehicles for full service initially. Meanwhile, twelve of the council’s thirteen members announced their support for a resolution that would allow overhead wires on this first corridor, though that bill won’t be up for a vote for some time.

Washington must come up with a long-term plan for streetcar vehicles that do not rely on overhead wire (some alternatives have recently been presented by vehicle manufacturers Alstom and Bombardier). Combined with the need to find an estimated $1.5 billion in financing to construct the complete eight-line network and buy an adequate number of vehicles, D.C. has a number of milestones to pass before it will benefit from a full-scale streetcar system.

But the District’s project, if implemented correctly, could play an important role in the development of this newly growing metropolis. The eight lines highlighted for construction are relatively well-planned and will hit the right spots for this city.

As the map to the left above demonstrates, the existing Metrorail system has a number of major gaps in Washington itself, and it fails to provide efficient crosstown routes. Its service to the relatively densely populated near Northeast (such as to the Trinidad neighborhood) is entirely absent, and inhabitants of areas along north Georgia Avenue and many of the sections of the city on the south side of the Anacostia have no rail connections. Meanwhile, you can’t get from one side of town to the other without going through the central business district — an especially big problem for people trying to get from Congress Heights to Deanwood, for instance.

The streetcar lines planned, as the map on the right above shows, will fill in many of those gaps, allowing neighborhood-to-neighborhood connections currently not simple by rail. Most of the lines — with the notable exception of the southern portion of line I’ve referred to in the top map as Route 5 — would provide services to areas currently without easy rail transit access. In a place hoping to expand its population further and spur new development, these new streetcar lines seem well laid out.

None of the chosen corridors is likely dense enough to merit a new Metrorail connection, which means that the choice of streetcars is both fiscally sound and proportionate to demand.

The overall network, as shown below, provides much greater transit coverage of the region’s center city, though certain dense areas, specifically those along Wisconsin Avenue between Georgetown University and Tenleytown Metro Station, would remain unserved by rail even with the streetcar system’s full implementation. That said, the city is considering just that extension, along with a continuation of the Georgia Avenue line to Silver Spring and a connection further into Southeast D.C.

(I’ve included on the maps shown here the Columbia Pike Streetcar and Potomac Yards Transitway Rapid Bus proposed for Northern Virginia.)

Despite the justifiable excitement about getting this streetcar network off the ground, the District has a lot of work to do before it makes it a vital and well-used portion of the region’s transit system. Metrorail has been incredibly successful relative to most other new United States transportation systems; these streetcar lines should be designed to reinforce that high transit ridership.

Current plans, however, do not provide adequate demonstration of the city’s resolve to do just that. The way that streetcar tracks have been installed along H Street and Benning Road thus far has been sub-par: streets designs will ensure that vehicles are stuck within, behind, and between traffic when they begin running in 2012. These problems could have been avoided had steps been taken to seal the streetcar corridor from surrounding automobiles, something that can be accomplished relatively cheaply. I hope that future corridors will avoid future problems of this sort.

I also want to emphasize the importance of legibility in transit network design. One of the significant upsides of Metro is the system’s clear signage; its maps make figuring out how to get from one place in the region to another quite simple. Streetcar lines should be directly incorporated into the Metro map and labeled as simply as possible. I’ve provided an example for how that might be done at the top of this post. The streetcar names (#1-10) are my invention, but something of that sort must be instituted to encourage ease of use for occasional and frequent passengers alike.

I’ve avoided here the whole question of whether streetcar technology makes a good investment; it’s a discussion with meritorious arguments on both sides. Washington has been pushing actively to improve its express bus services, and recently won a national grant to do just that. But streetcars do have two major advantages over buses that could be particularly applicable to Washington’s plans: One, they’re more politically palatable, enough to make full funding and support from governmental leaders actually conceivable, not nearly as true for a series of bus lanes; Two, they have the potential to offer higher capacity than buses at lower operations costs.

But Washington — at least as of now — has not demonstrated itself particularly interested in taking advantage of the latter asset. The streetcars the DOT has purchased are only 66 feet long — about the length of an articulated bus, far shorter than, say, the Parisian T3 vehicles, at 143 feet long. District planners may be underestimating demand for some of their routes — some could produce high ridership if planned correctly — but they may also be constrained by the fact that these trains will be sharing lanes with cars. Either way, relying on such short vehicles negates some of the benefits of this rail-based technology.

All the talk about streetcars avoids a pressing problem facing D.C.: Metrorail is reaching capacity, and there are a number of significant expansion projects both in Washington and in the near suburbs that would greatly enhance and improve the existing system. Yet with the recession pulling tightly at the purse strings of both Maryland and Virginia, the potential for regional agreement on new projects seems unlikely. This is particularly true because of those states’ respective huge commitments to the Purple Line and Silver Line projects, both of which will be under construction over the next few years.

So Washington’s government is making the right choice in choosing to invest in this cheaper mode for the time being. If regional transit demand is greater over the long-term, a multi-state solution for funding must be found — but in the meantime, this focus on locally-funded streetcars makes sense.

» Initial downtown-Over the Rhine line could begin construction later this year, but Cincinnati faces stiff competition from cities across the country fighting for limited federal funds.

Over the past week, Cincinnati has assembled $86.5 million for its new rail project, leaving it about $40 million away from constructing the first modern streetcar in the Midwest. The infusion of funds from municipal, state, and private sources brings it closer to receiving federal aid for the program. The streetcar was endorsed by voters last fall when they reelected pro-transit Mayor Mark Mallory and simultaneously rejected a local group’s call to block all funding for rail projects in the city.

In approving $64 million in bonds and $2.6 million in direct grants, the city council boosted Cincinnati’s competitiveness for U.S. transit funding dramatically. After the council’s action, Ohio’s Department of Transportation chipped in $15 million; the OKI Regional Council of Governments approved $4 million. Duke Energy, a major local employer, has already pledged $3.5 million to the project as part of a lawsuit settlement.

U.S. Department of Transportation officials have stated repeatedly that the government will give preference to cities that have allocated non-federal funds to transportation projects. The Ohio city has applied for one of the government’s $25 million urban circulator grants, planned for release next month. It will also apply for a TIGER discretionary transportation grant during the summer and may enter its project into the Small Starts capital funding process.

Cincinnati, lacking local funds for the streetcar project until this week, had its $60 million request for a slice of the first phase of the DOT’s TIGER grants refused in February. Dallas, Detroit, New Orleans, Portland, and Tucson, all of which have committed local funding, received federal dollars for their streetcar lines in that process. Among cities that have yet to receive grants from Washington, Milwaukee, Oklahoma City, Seattle, West Sacramento, and the District of Columbia all have made inroads in assembling revenue from non-federal sources, making them likely candidates for U.S. aid.

Cincinnati’s $128 million project, which would connect the Banks riverfront development with the Uptown district and the University of Cincinnati, now joins that select group.

The proposed streetcar line is expected to attract about daily 4,600 riders, not impossible considering it will run directly through the heart of downtown and its almost 100,000 jobs. The corridor’s preliminary terminus — at the southern extent of the University of Cincinnati — is likely to be a large passenger generator, as is the increasingly gentrifying Over the Rhine neighborhood just north of downtown. The Banks, at the southern end of the route, is a one-billion-dollar redevelopment of former industrial land along the Ohio River that already includes a museum and two stadiums; once it is finished in 2018, it will feature a major park, hundreds of housing units and thousands of square feet of office space.

The area is currently home to a transit center, but it is lightly used except during sports events.

Though downtown Cincinnati is growing, it is not entirely developed; 92 acres there are still used for parking, and plenty of potential building sites are vacant. The streetcar is projected to produce $4 million in additional annual tax revenues because of the new construction it spurs.

If the city isn’t able to assemble all of the necessary funding immediately, it may eliminate the connection to Uptown in the first phase and reduce construction costs to $102 million, though that action would severely limit the system’s effectiveness by eliminating service to the thousands of students at the university.

Nevertheless, thanks to a dedicated mayor and a willing city council, Cincinnati has responded to the federal government’s instructions to allocate local funds to the streetcar project; other cities could learn from its example. The DOT now has a responsibility to follow through with a grant later this year.

» Twenty years after first receiving a federal appropriation to construct a rail transit system, Wisconsin’s biggest city may finally move forward.

Today, after decades of conflict over the future of transit for the City of Milwaukee, a public transportation study committee will vote on whether to advance plans for a two-mile streetcar project, bringing Wisconsin closer to its first modern streetcar system than ever before.

Congress awarded the city $289 million in 1991 to promote a new transit system for this city of 600,000 people, but thanks to infighting between local officials over whether to invest in rail or bus services, none of the money was spent on construction, and the federal aid was reduced to $91.5 million in 1999. And yet disagreements between Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and Mayor Tom Barrett continued, making any kind of progress impossible.

That’s why Congress stepped in last March, determining that the city would be allowed to spend 60% of its appropriation on rail and 40% on bus rapid transit, forcing the conflicting leaders into compromise. Thus the city established a local transit study group called Milwaukee Connector to consider what routes would be most appropriate for serving the city’s downtown. Today, that committee will get the first word on the recommended alignment and vote on its future implementation.

The two-mile initial route would cost $64.6 million — $9.7 million of which would come from locally sourced tax-increment financing and the rest from the federal aid — and extend from the newly renovated Milwaukee Intermodal Center to the Lower East Side neighborhood, via the downtown business district and City Hall. If the city receives an additional $25 million inner-city circulator grant from the federal Department of Transportation, the route could be extended to 3.6 miles, northeast along the Lake Michigan waterfront and northwest along the west side of the Milwaukee River. That grant, for which the city applied earlier this spring, could be released this summer.

The first phase is expected to attract 3,800 riders a day by 2015 and provide service every ten to fifteen minutes.

Future extensions could continue in all directions from downtown, with the city setting its sights particularly on a route that would head north to the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee. There are no obvious sources of funds for those extensions, which are not likely to be planned until construction has been completed on the first phase of the project.

Though the Milwaukee Connector group has the primary decision-making power on this project, it may also have to be approved by other local, state, and federal officials if construction is to begin as planned by next year. Daily operations could commence by 2013, coinciding with the planned opening of intercity rail services to the state capital in Madison. Talgo, the Spanish train manufacturer, plans to build trains in a factory in Milwaukee.

If the Madison-Milwaukee line and improved Milwaukee-Chicago services attract an increasing patronage, the streetcar system could play an important role in distributing passengers through downtown once they’ve arrived. The decision to extend the rail system’s routes from the Intermodal Station was a sound one.

The city has set itself a pretty strong foundation for future system growth with a well-routed initial streetcar corridor that would reach most of the downtown’s major destinations. That said, the first phase of the route will be too short to make a major dent in the commuting patterns of many of Milwaukee’s inhabitants; trains arriving every ten minutes along such a short route will have a hard time competing with pedestrians. Future lines into the relatively dense residential zones surrounding the center city on three sides may prove more productive in doing so.

Nevertheless, the fact that the city has been able to cobble together a proposal that meets the funding guidelines established by the existing federal appropriation suggests that Milwaukee is almost guaranteed to get streetcars within the next few years — quite an achievement for a city that has dragged its feet for decades.

Image above: Milwaukee Streetcar recommended alignment, from Milwaukee Connector

» The Motor City must get its priorities straight to move ahead with a new transit system.

After receiving millions of dollars in commitments from private foundations and a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Detroit’s planned M-1 Streetcar is virtually assured of completion as planned in 2013. The $125 million project will be the first major transit investment in this vast city since the opening of the one-way downtown People Mover loop in 1987. Construction is planned to commence by the end of this year.

But that 3.4-mile line, running in lanes shared with automobiles along Woodward Avenue between downtown’s Campus Martius and the New Center at Grand Avenue, will make just a blip in what is a huge, sprawling region housing more than four million inhabitants. As a result, Wayne County (whose seat is Detroit) and its neighbors Macomb and Oakland Counties have recently advanced a plan for expanding transit access throughout, focusing on an extension of the Woodward rail project and series of bus rapid transit lines. With suburban interests holding major sway in the process, the extended bus lines appear likely to be built before the inner-city rail project.

The previously prioritized effort to build a commuter rail line between Detroit and Ann Arbor is apparently on the far back burner, put off in favor of high-speed rail, for which Michigan has recently received funds.

Politicians and businesspeople from Macomb and Oakland Counties, representing a large section of the region’s population, have been quick to point out the limitations in the Woodward Streetcar line: at a total cost of $425 million, it will cover only nine route miles, all within the city of Detroit. For about twice that cost, advocates of a “Golden Triangle” bus system argue that they could build a 67-mile network of lane-separated lines along Woodward Avenue, Gratiot Avenue, and M-59, connecting downtown Detroit with Pontiac and Clinton.

In theory, this program of investments would encourage increasing transit ridership in the region, a first step before making much larger investments in rail.

And it is true that far more people will be within commuting distance of the three-line bus system than would be close to even the longer light rail line; Detroit’s residential density is relatively evenly distributed throughout the city, not concentrated in the core (parts of which the mayor has recently announced plans to transform into farmland). Meanwhile, the fact that downtown remains a significant jobs center means that getting commuters in from across the region is an important step. Finally, buses may actually provide faster service than rail because at least as currently envisioned, the streetcars will be held up in traffic because they’ll be sharing their lanes with cars.

Simultaneously, the fact that a large number of low-wage jobs are located in the suburbs even as low-income people live in the city indicates that improving such connections is essential to promote greater equality of mobility. If local buses were designed to interface efficiently with the bus rapid transit lines, many of the commuting problems currently faced by the residents of the city’s least favorable neighborhoods would be assuaged.

Buses are unlikely to produce the build-up Detroit desperately needs, but current plans for the Woodward Streetcar line are not adequate to spur the type of intense developmental activity for which the city is currently pushing because of widely spaced station stops and a lack of independent rights-of-way. This implies that many of the aesthetic and perceptual advantages of rail-based transit will be lost when implemented in the Detroit context and suggests that at least from a transportation perspective, improvements in bus service would be a more effective use of funds.

On the other hand, the proposed Golden Triangle makes no effort whatsoever to concentrate transit offerings within a reasonable radius of the urban center. The extremely high amount of vacant land in Detroit means that investments in new public services need to be concentrated, not spread further out. If the city commits to encouraging people to live directly adjacent to the Woodward line (or even forces them to do so by means of cutting off electricity or water to certain under-populated neighborhoods), it could not only ensure that the transit line is well used, but also that the city is economizing by densifying its public service provision around a specific corridor.

There are, in other words, advantages of both approaches — the bus rapid transit plan acts more appropriately as a direct improvement over the status quo, while the streetcar opens up potential avenues for a denser type of city — but Detroit and its region only have the funds to pay for one, at least in the short term. With high unemployment and continued population loss, the city must make a choice. Once it does so, however, it must make sure that it backs its decision with appropriate measures to guarantee the future success of the transit network.

» With approval on Friday, council will endorse 30-year proposal for street-running rail after neglecting the project for a year. The city is expected to move forward with one route in the fall.

When Minneapolis released its seven-line network plan for urban streetcars back in 2007, the city appeared to be at the head of its game, likely to follow Portland as one of the first U.S. cities to develop a modern trolley system.

Unfortunately, when the economic crisis hit and the lack of interest from the Bush Administration made clear to the city’s leaders that the only way their project would be built would be to sponsor it entirely with local funds, the program was “filed” away, to be revived at some more prosperous time. In the meantime, after Ray LaHood took reigns of the federal Department of Transportation, Detroit, Dallas, Tucson, Portland, and New Orleans received millions of dollars for their respective streetcar lines and other cities have applied for $130 million in inner city circulator grants the DOT expects to reward later this year.

All of which leaves Minneapolis a little behind in the game.

Nevertheless, tomorrow the City Council is expected to approve the 30-year vision for local rail transit corridors first laid out in 2007 and passed by the Public Works and Transportation Committee last week. In addition, it will take the first step in readying one “starter” corridor for further planning later this year, with plans to eventually ask Washington to fund 50% of construction costs.

The Minneapolis streetcar route network would extend the reach of the region’s existing and planned rapid transit lines by connecting stations in the city’s dense urban core.

Three routes would run along Hennepin Avenue through downtown, allowing a transfer to the Hiawatha Light Rail line at 5th Street and extending south to Lake Street along Hennepin Avenue, north to 44th Avenue along Central Avenue, and east to the University of Minnesota along University Avenue, connecting to the planned Central Corridor light rail line.

Three other routes would also connect to the light rail line at 5th Street and transform the existing Nicollet Transit Mall into a streetcar route. Lines would extend south along Nicollet Avenue to 46th Street, southeast along Chicago Avenue to 38th Street, and northwest along Washington Avenue towards Crystal Lake, linking to the planned Bottineau Transitway.

A final corridor would renovate the Midtown Greenway by adding east-west streetcar service from the Lake Street Hiawatha Line Station to the planned Southwest Transitway just west of Lake Calhoun.

These routes are well-designed because they don’t duplicate existing or planned light rail lines and they limit themselves to the city’s densest areas — exactly where streetcar lines should go if they’re going to attract adequate ridership and spur increased development. Six of the seven lines would directly replace popular bus routes. If constructed correctly, the lines could make up for some of the region’s bad decision-making in route alignments for light rail lines.

The seven-corridor network described by the city’s planners, however, is a long way off, primarily because its several-hundred-million cost is out of reach. As a result, the city has developed a series of starter lines that could be implemented more quickly, short segments with respective construction costs of $100 million or less that could be built in a few years and extended later on. Each would provide access just to the city’s downtown and not be long enough to replace any existing bus service.

The council will narrow the potential lines to two or three this summer after conducting further research on the project and then select one line for investment this fall. None of the corridors could be built today unless the federal government steps in with significant monetary support. If the city commits adequate financial aid for the project and if it is capable of submitting an application by September, it seems likely to win a grant from the National Infrastructure Investment Program (formerly TIGER) for construction beginning in early 2012.

A funding study released last week indicates that one line could be funded if the city increases revenues through a 12.5% increase in parking fees downtown as well as either through a dedicated TIF tax-reallocation district in affected areas or a special streetcar benefit zone assessment. The latter two options would encourage the construction of streetcar lines through the wealthiest areas of the city since it would rely on moving any increases in area property tax receipts from the city’s general fund to streetcar construction. The parking surcharge, which would increase the cost of downtown spaces by about $50 a year, would require state legislation to be implemented.

Minneapolis could advance its status among a large field of competitors for limited federal streetcar funds by proving that it has a reliable local revenue source. (A majority of urban areas demanding grants have made no such commitment.) Once it has settled on a preliminary route, the council should approve such a financial device quickly. Of course, long-term financing for the entire network is not assured.

Initial planning documents show that the city is likely to pursue a combination of the Hennepin Avenue and Central/University Lines, a 2.3-mile alignment that would cost about $100 million to construct and which would link the Walker Art Center southwest of downtown with the East Bank of the Mississippi River, via downtown. Other routes are either too short to provide adequate benefits and provide a model for future expansion, or, in the case of the Midtown Greenway, too expensive to implement without an additional revenue source (because of the lack of adequate property tax revenues).

The Hennepin Avenue line is an appropriate selection for a starting segment, running roughly perpendicular to the existing light rail corridor downtown and reaching some of the city’s busiest neighborhoods. A Nicollet Line, the other serious contender for initial construction, would likely disrupt bus service along the downtown mall, not necessarily a good idea. But, if selected, the Hennepin project should be prioritized to reach the vibrant Uptown Midtown district south of existing route plans as soon as possible; it may even make sense to build that southern link before connecting the line north over the Mississippi, in opposition to current proposals.

» Five-to-six mile system would connect downtown redevelopment areas to other inner-city neighborhoods.

Few American cities have as ambitious an urban reconstruction plan as Oklahoma City, which intends not only to reroute the primary highway through town but then also to rebuild the area adjacent to the Oklahoma River, doubling the size of the downtown core. The project, called Core to Shore, is notable in the degree to which it prioritizes the construction of dense, walkable neighborhoods through the use of government funds to spur private investment.

Until late last year, however, it lacked a significant public transportation element, unsurprising since the capital of this Plains state has never had the concentration of employment or housing to make the implementation of major new transit lines truly necessary.

But Republican Mayor Mick Cornett liked the idea of integrating a streetcar into the redevelopment plans, and so he worked to include it in a referendum approved by voters last December, pushing a $130 million public transportation plan towards reality.

Yesterday, Oklahoma City councilors endorsed a partnership with the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments with the goal of determining where exactly the streetcars will run, and how they’ll be integrated into the existing and future transportation system at a new centralized transit hub. It will be the first serious plan for transit improvements in this city in forty years.

The Modern Transit Project has been lobbying for a streetcar system for several years, arguing that it would serve as a useful addition to the transportation offerings downtown and serve as a connector between local bus, intercity bus, and intercity rail offerings, each of which is currently located in different parts of town. The group’s proposal for the roughly six-mile line (sketched out above) would stretch north along two branches from Union Station, where intercity buses converge, to the State Capitol Complex to the northeast and the Oklahoma Heritage Museum to the northeast, passing most of downtown’s major destinations and connecting two hospitals. The eastern branch would include a stop at the Santa Fe station where Amtrak trains call and the western branch would feature a connection to the bus transfer center.

This alignment, however, is just a proposal: the city-chartered partnership will estimate capital and operations costs of potential lines by late this year or early 2011, with final decisions about spending by the city council to be made thereafter.

Mayor Cornett was a major proponent of the MAPS 3 campaign, third in a series of measures designed to garner public support for specific projects through a local regional sales tax that will be in effect for seven years and nine months. MAPS, passed in the early 1990s, resulted in a series of public infrastructure improvements, and MAPS for Kids, passed in 2001, paid for new schools. But the $777 million MAPS 3, which will replace a sports facilities sales tax set to expire at the end of this month (when MAPS 3 collection will begin), was primarily focused on downtown improvements.

In addition to $130 million dedicated to transit (of which $120 100 million would go to the streetcar), $130 million will go to a new central park in the center of the redevelopment area; $280 million to the construction of a new convention center; and several hundred million dollars more to upgrades to sidewalks, trails, the Oklahoma River parkland, the local fairgrounds, and the completion of new senior centers.

The public approved the program by a 54% majority.

Unlike most transit plans, which are developed as stand-alone projects, Oklahoma City’s interest in integrating its streetcar directly into its downtown redevelopment is refreshing. Though one may dispute the value of rebuilding Interstate 40 in a new trench just blocks from its former location (especially since the new right-of-way removes existing rail capacity), the decision by the city to build a broad new boulevard in the place of the old freeway is undoubtedly a good one: it will extend development potential south of downtown and improve the city’s overall walkability.

In addition, the decision by the city to use tax revenue collected now to fund the rail line, rather than bonds to be paid back later, makes the MAPS 3 program significantly more fiscally responsible than most urban transit programs, which typically rely on the accumulation of municipal debt. This decision will ensure that the streetcar does not weigh down on the city’s budget over the next few decades, leaving possibilities open for further transit investments.

The strong electoral endorsement of the streetcar program last December through the MAPS 3 vote certainly can’t hurt, either.

Indeed, the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments is already at work on a light rail plan that would link downtown with Tinker Air Force Base, Edmond, Norman, and other suburban communities. Planning for these lines has only just begun. Oklahoma City’s leaders, of course, also want connections to the nation’s future high-speed rail network, with a goal of eventually connecting the city with Dallas and Kansas City. Of the projects currently being discussed, though, that’s the one that’s furthest off.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood’s announcement that he would award $130 million to streetcar projects across the country early next year excited transit advocates, who hope that the mode will soon become a frequent sight in American cities. Indeed, there are plenty of towns seriously considering building streetcar lines — at least 45 in North America as of the most recent count. Since streetcars, like local buses, run in lanes shared with automobiles, implementing them efficiently requires studying traffic patterns and attempting to find ways to avoid problems that could impair the efficiency of transit service. When the first projects get off the ground in 2010, one hopes that they’ll be built right.

Among those cities thus far that have committed to spending some of their own money — rather than just hoping the federal government will pick up 100% of the tab — is Washington, D.C. Though it has yet to secure all of the necessary funds for the massive system it plans to build, the city has already begun installing track on H Street and Benning Road Northeast, a prime corridor for improved transit investments. Once it assembles the necessary financing, it will add overhead catenary and begin running the service, potentially in two years.

The District has posted some relevant photographs on its Facebook page, and the images are indicative of the problems this corridor will encounter once it begins carrying trams. Of course, Washington isn’t alone, because streetcars face some fundamental difficulties as a result of the fact that they share their rights-of-way with automobiles. But its decisions about how streetcar tracks will be installed will plague the service provided by the vehicles and ultimately limit their utility.

Below, I have documented some of the quotidian situations that will result in delayed traffic as a result of the design of the District’s streetcar system. None of the problems are unique to streetcars — in fact, they’re shared with any vehicle that must share its running way with automobiles, including buses. But streetcars are put in a particular predicament in each of the cases noted below because, unlike buses, they can’t change lanes. If systems are designed with major flaws, such as those illustrated below, this means that these trains will operate at significantly lower speeds than equivalent buses; the result: a big investment investment in public transportation could actually mean less mobility.

But take note, other cities: these structural issues can be resolved through better designed streets.

Entering streetcar lane: The most obvious problem with streetcars, of course, is that they run in the street. That makes their construction relatively cheap, since tracks can simply be laid in a preexisting roadway. But because the streets are shared, cars can weave in and out of lanes, including those used by trains. This will force streetcar drivers to operate their vehicles overly cautiously and at limited speeds. By the same measure, while a bus has the ability to change lanes to pass stopped or slow cars, a streetcar is forced to maintain its course, even if that means getting stuck. There is no way to solve this problem unless some of the streetcar’s path is made limited-access.

Blocked turn lane: Because D.C.’s system is designed with left-turn lanes to the left of the median-operated streetcar, cars have to pass through the streetcar lane in order to take a left at intersections. When there are too many cars and streetcars in that lane heading straight rather than left, cars from lanes further to the left will have trouble making the turn to the left-most lane. This could be a problem especially if there is reticence among some drivers to operate in the streetcar lane; they will remain in the middle lane until the last possible moment, where they may get stuck. Cities with streetcars hoping to combat this problem could install signage encouraging drivers to stay out of the streetcar lane most of the time, while also encouraging people hoping to turn left to move over as quickly as possible.

Too many turners: If D.C. gives its left-turn drivers their own signals, it could mean streetcars are held up by the number of cars waiting for a green light because of the limited length of the left-turn lane, which would push some left-turners into the streetcar lane. Even if the traffic light for vehicles heading straight is green, streetcars would be blocked in the above situation; this could force streetcars to wait for the next light cycle. At intersections with high expected rates of left turns, D.C. would benefit from longer left-turn lanes than what is currently being built. Alternatively, it could eliminate some left-hand turns and encourage drivers to take alternate routes to reach their final destinations.

Blocked turns: On the other hand, if Washington’s system does not have separate left-turn lights, through streetcar traffic could be significantly affected by left-turn drivers, especially if their cars are in turn blocked by pedestrians crossing in the allowed travel direction. This problem will be most prevalent at intersections with significant pedestrian and left-turn traffic; there, a separate left-turn signal might be necessary — as long as left-turn lanes are adequately long and streetcars are given signal priority before left-turning cars.

Stuck at the light: Because of the shortness of the left turn lanes, two streetcars in a row (possible on several of the corridors D.C. is studying for its system, since they’ll service multiple lines) could block the possibility of left turns by automobiles entirely when stopped at a red light. If left-turn lanes were lengthened to ensure they are longer than at least two streetcars plus a car, this would solve the problem.

Stuck at the station: Whether stations are positioned before the signal or after, when they stop to pick up passengers, streetcars will slow down following traffic (including other streetcars), especially if surrounding traffic is heavy. This occurs with buses as well, but since their stations are in the lower-speed outside lanes, their effect 0n surrounding traffic is more limited than median-running streetcars. On the other hand, if streetcar stops are timed with red lights ahead, changing to green once passenger pick-up and drop-off has terminated, this problem could be eliminated.

Conclusions: The fundamental problems with all of these approaches is that they encourage car traffic to move more quickly, effectively limiting any attempt to provide streetcars with a time advantage. To get a streetcar to move more quickly, the traffic system must be designed to move all vehicles more quickly, because they share the same lanes.

This raises questions about the value of streetcars in general — wouldn’t it make more sense to operate these trains more like light rail?  Cities could do just that simply by installing cheap ground-level barriers between streetcar and car lanes, and eliminating the left-turn lanes to the left of the streetcars (or moving the trams to the outside lanes), all while instituting aggressive signal priority. These approaches would dramatically improve the efficiency and speed of streetcars and provide them a relative advantage over automobile traffic, which would be limited by fewer travel lanes than before, ultimately leading to more public transportation usage. That’s a valuable goal.