Who Blames Roger Rabbit?

Mixed traffic streetcars are all the rage right now. Just in the past week Tuscon, Arizona started operations and Washington, D.C. started training for new lines. Dozens of other cities are planning or proposing similar systems. These are almost all bad projects because the trains operate in mixed traffic. The D.C. system, while on it's first day, highlights some of the problems:

On a day when the District wanted to show how four streetcars operating together for the first time on H Street Northeast would blend with the usual traffic flow, the system encountered the kinds of problems that have raised questions about whether streetcars will be able to efficiently move people once passenger service begins this year.
...
Starting at the intersection of H and 3rd Streets Northeast, the first streetcar, piloted by D.C. native Saundra Harrison, lurched into traffic on its fixed track shortly after 10 a.m. 

“Today I guess there are just more people watching,” said an excited Harrison, who has been operating the streetcars on the isolated Anacostia test track.

Her excitement was short-lived. She maneuvered the hulking red and gray vehicle just a few blocks before she had to stop. A fire truck and ambulance were blocking the tracks in the heart of the H Street commercial district, tending to an injured pedestrian.

 Of course keeping a clear lane is a matter of enforcement, but I'm starting to think that Roger Rabbit is to blame for such blind support for mixed traffic streetcars, and that's a shame.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit? was a movie that helped popularize the myth that there was a grand conspiracy, masterminded by General Motors, to demolish the streetcar systems of the U.S., in particular the Red Cars (error fixed) in Los Angeles. This conspiracy myth has been popularized for decades. It is not true. It follows that if the main reason streetcars disappeared is because of nefarious action on the part of an auto company, then simply building new streetcar systems will help regain what was lost. This if/then scenario assumes away operational deficiencies that are the true reason streetcars failed. Which leads to today's mixed traffic systems.

If the dominant narrative about the decline of streetcars focused on operational problems (including not enough fare revenue to support maintenance) I doubt there would be the enthusiasm for mixed traffic streetcars we see today, and perhaps we could focus on more important public investment for transit. We should blame Roger Rabbit.

Nostalgia for Elevators

Streetcars are all the rage these days. Here is a recent story from NPR about the nostalgic value of the rail systems. In the story Timothy Borchers, executive director of Atlanta's streetcar project, states:

But supporters are banking streetcars will work. "It's what built cities originally and it's what's building cities again," says Borchers of the streetcar project.

This is not a unique sentiment surrounding streetcars. Obviously cities existed long before streetcars, so these comments just consider the modern, post-industrial city. Streetcars were part of a wealth of technological changes that occurred in part thanks to electrification. Another technological change was the invention of the elevator, and the elevator had a much more dramatic effect on cities and urban form. Streetcars and other surface transportation allowed for development across large areas of land, but no one built particularly tall buildings because people wouldn't walk up more than five or six floors. With the elevator, skyscrapers were built and very high density became possible. Cities can be dense and vibrant without streetcars, but they can't be dense and vibrant without elevators. Let's give credit where credit is due.

Elevators are under appreciated as a mode of transport, which really is how things ought to be. We appreciate elevators for their utility, not nostalgia or amorphous other benefits. The value of elevators, just like the value of any transport system, is derived from whether we can get where we want to go when we want to get there. We've even managed to eliminate the driver and fully automate them! If only everything could work so well.

Los Angeles's Streetcar Project Doubled in Cost, Service Will Be Less than Promised

The LA Times has a story about new cost estimates for LA's downtown streetcar project. Originally estimated at $125 million, it will now cost about $250 million because of unaccounted costs of moving utilities and some other things. The story has many interesting and distressing tidbits that may have lessons for streetcar investment (and much transport investment).

First, the good people of California and specifically Los Angeles need to stop being lied to about projects they are expected to vote on. Proposition 1A, which voters passed to provide nearly $10 billion to the state's high speed rail project, promised voters a train that has unreasonable cost and service characteristics. The downtown LA streetcar used a popular vote to raise taxes on land* to pay for what was supposed to be half of the cost of the project. Now that vote represents one-quarter of the cost, and no one knows where the balance will come from. In the story Councilmember Huizar's office says they will "aggressively pursue" other federal grants. I hope somebody has a better idea than that.

I say that the people were lied to because moving utilities is a well-known major cost associated with downtown surface rail projects. Perhaps someone thought that the utility companies would just move the utilities out of their own volition, but this is unlikely as utility relocation is subject to lawsuits and has been a big deal for other downtown LA rail projects. I do hope there is a charitable explanation as to why utility relocation was left off the initial cost estimates.

Second, the use of propositions for these projects is straining the credibility of the public sector. Not only are costs double from initial estimates, but now service will be less than promised. From the story:

"We're not losing any sleep over these numbers," Jessica Wethington McLean, the executive director for Bringing Back Broadway, told officials. "They represent a 100% perfect solution, which is very unlikely."
She referred to the expectation that engineers will modify the plans to make them more efficient. That could involve reducing the number of streetcar stops or slightly shifting the tracks to dodge utility lines.

I'm pleased that advocates for the streetcar don't care how much it costs. Bully for them. But since service is now going to be reduced with fewer stations or less convenient track alignments mean that the benefits of the system are also reduced (if the benefits are not reduced because of these expected changes than the features to be eliminated should have never been considered). Whatever the benefit-cost ratio was before, it is much worse now. Somebody should have an inkling to reconsider the project based on new information about costs and benefits. If not, then why bother with all the studies, voting, etc.? And for $250 million for a couple of miles of surface rail shouldn't you get a 100% perfect solution? That's a lot of money for compromise.




*The land tax falls disproportionately on businesses and commercial properties, which did not get to vote for the proposition. There are larger issues of representation associated with the special taxing districts commonly used to pay for these streetcar projects that I won't get into here.

Has There Ever Been a Streetcar Feasibility Study That Found Streetcars Unfeasible?

I ask this as a serious question: Does a streetcar study exist that concludes that a streetcar is unfeasible? Check out the studies that show up from a Google search (link). Without spending too much time looking at all of them, I don't see one that offers a critical assessment of streetcars. In fact, if you read them and believe what is written you must conclude that cities are insane and loony and ignoring their fiduciary responsibility not to immediately build as many streetcar lines as possible. Yet cities don't build like crazy--not even Rock Hill, South Carolina, which seems to accept a minimum return on investment of $14 for each $1 spent.

Obviously feasibility studies will take place after projects pass an initial discussion, so there should be some bias toward positive assessments. But it is unreasonable to expect that all feasibility studies will conclude that streetcars are a good investment. If all projects are feasible there really isn't any good reason to keep doing these studies. I do wonder if we would be better off without any type of feasibility justification as currently practiced. Streetcar projects, like many transport projects and other types of economic development investment, are justified on political grounds rather than economic grounds.

Consider stadium deals for pro sports teams. These deals have long been discredited as poor investment by the public, yet they remain popular even when a feasibility study makes clear they are a bad deal. Example: Santa Clara Feasibility Study for a new 49ers Stadium presented these two key takeaways:

• No benefit from NFL events.
• All profits stay with 49ers
• "hidden costs" add up:
• City loses $111 million

And here is the website for Santa Clara's brand new NFL stadium! It opens next year. (Most feasibility studies for new stadiums in the Bay Area supported new construction. For example, here.)

So I wonder if any streetcar feasibility studies have been negative, and as an extension, I wonder why we continue to expect these types of studies that either confirm biases or are ignored. It seems like a lot of excess effort with nothing to show for it.

UPDATE: Alon Levy notes that the Red Hook Streetcar  Feasibility Study guided against the project. I'll admit I didn't review that one as I was more focused on smaller cities. A more accurate question is do any streetcar feasibility studies exist outside of New York City that find streetcars unfeasible.

The Kansas City Experiment on Transport Infrastructure Investment

Kansas City (the Missouri one) presents an interesting natural experiment on the effect of transportation infrastructure investment and economic performance. There are two main investments occurring with each investment focused on a very different technology. First, the city is aggressively pursuing a streetcar system with the hope of encouraging downtown development. Second, Google is installing Google Fiber, an ultra high speed Internet service. These two strategies represent two very different approaches to economic development, and figuring out which approach has a greater (if any) effect on the local or regional economy can help guide future public and private investment decisions.

The streetcar project is a two mile, $102 million rail line mostly along Main Street. Last December voters of a special downtown streetcar district approved a 25 year property and sales tax increase to help fund the project:

Voters approved, 351 to 198, a 1-cent sales tax increase, and 344 to 206 property tax increases to help pay for a $100 million, two-mile streetcar system. It will run from River Market to Union Station, primarily on Main Street.
The tax increases, authorized for 25 years, will apply only within the defined boundaries of a downtown streetcar district. That covers roughly River Market, the Central Business District, the Crossroads and Crown Center.
Yet already, Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders is floating the possibility of a broader countywide transit tax that might alleviate some of the burden on downtown.
Wednesday’s results occurred in an unusual mail-in election and involved only registered voters living within the streetcar district.
The city hopes to begin construction next year and start running the streetcars in 2015.

 Local officials are extremely optimistic about the outcome:

“This is going to be a game changer for our city, especially our downtown,” City Councilwoman Jan Marcason said.
“It will be historic,” Mayor Sly James said. “This is only a beginning.”
Supporters emphasized that just running streetcars through two miles of downtown was never the goal. They hope Wednesday’s results springboard a more extensive system of streetcars running to the Plaza and the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and along east-west corridors such as 12th Street or 18th Street.

To place downtown Kansas City in a bit of context, here is Strongtowns' Charles Marohn explaining current traffic and pedestrian conditions in Kansas City:


Looking at the Google project, here is a description of the service:

Google Fiber is a project to build an experimental broadband internet network infrastructure using fiber-optic communication[1] in Kansas City, Kansas, and Kansas City, Missouri; the location was chosen following a competitive selection process.[2] Over 1,100 communities applied to be the first recipient of the technology.[3] On March 30, 2011, Google announced that Kansas City, Kansas will be the first community where the new network would be deployed.[4]
After building an infrastructure of the network, in July 2012, Google announced pricing for Google Fiber. The service will offer three options. These include a free broadband internet option, a 1 Gbps internet option for $70 per month and a version that includes television service for $120 per month. The internet service includes 1 terabyte of Google Drive service and the television service includes a 2 terabyte DVR recorder in addition to the Google Drive service. The DVR will record up to eight live television shows simultaneously. The television options also includes a Nexus 7 tablet that will act as a remote control for the system. In addition, television service will also stream live program content on iPad and Android tablet computers. Neighborhoods that receive the service will be selected through demand from Kansas City area residents and Google has set up a website to pre-register for the service.[5]

Early anecdotes and media stories suggest that the Google Fiber service is already having an impact on the local economy. Here is one article, and here is another. From the latter:

Soon no one will snicker when Kansas City residents proudly refer to their city as the “Silicon Prairie.” As the Associated Press reports, the presence of Google’s (GOOG) high-speed fiber network has turned Kansas City into a major attraction for tech startups that want to take advantage of the fastest Internet connectivity in the United States. According to the AP, “several startup-friendly locations… have sprouted up in Kansas City in recent months” in residential buildings that give entrepreneurs room for “working on their ideas for the next high-tech startup.”

These news stories should not be treated as rigorous evidence any more than stories promoting streetcars. Yet it is the case that these two transportation infrastructure investments are both expected to be transformative for the local and regional economy. I have my own ideas about which one is more likely to prove a successful investment, but the Kansas City experiment should be closely followed to help inform what types of investment in new transport networks should be made in the upcoming decades.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/12/3962799/kc-streetcar-taxes-pass-overwhelmingly.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/12/12/3962799/kc-streetcar-taxes-pass-overwhelmingly.html#storylink=cpy

Streetcars as Economic Development Tool in Milwaukee

The Mayor of Milwaukee wants to build a $65 million two-mile streetcar system according to this LA Times article. From the story:

Mayor Tom Barrett is the prime mover behind Milwaukee's plan to build a brand-new streetcar system. Bright, modern vehicles would traverse a two-mile route through the city's east side, downtown and historic Third Ward, a former warehouse area now popular for its shops and restaurants.
Barrett, who believes flashy streetcars can revitalize Milwaukee's city front, points to the popularity of the 10-year-old system in Portland, Ore. Today's streetcars, Barrett says, are more about attracting attention than providing transportation.
"I look at this as an economic development tool," Barrett said. "Look at Portland. That system has aided in spurring development and growth, which is what all communities are looking for now."

This attitude is the wrong way to think about transport investment. Transport investment should be about moving people and things, not indirect attempts at industrial, labor or development policy. Contrary to the Mayor's claims, there isn't any evidence that streetcars boost local economies, including in Portland. There may be some redistributive effects as certain types of firms spatially sort and other go out of business during construction, but overall the effect is pretty much zero. Milwaukee has wide roads and lots of parking. Lack of transport access isn't the main problem for economic development there.