In the never-ending process of building and rebuilding our cities, we make choices about what’s important - where we live, where we work, how we get from place to place. Every choice we make is accompanied by consequences, some intended, some not. And some of the nastiest consequences of our rottenest choices stay with us in our marred urban places for a very, very long time.
Our city, Rochester, has made some really bad choices in the last half century. Every city has done similarly. Not every city has torn itself down, built an expressway moat, paved all of downtown for parking, moved every bit of retail to the suburbs (with a few notable exceptions, thankfully), and ignored its best natural assets, it’s true, but every city does have a few lulus.
Our beloved Inner Loop.
And now our city is about to spend $132,000,000 on a couple more stinkers. A bus barn downtown for our lamest kind of bus system, and a huge subsidy for about 750 jobs in a new corporate headquarters downtown. I have written about both these projects here, and so I won’t revisit those discussions again.
Instead, I want to think for a moment about what would happen if we took that money and made a few different choices.
A recent visitor to our city, urbanist and Brookings Fellow Christopher Leinberger, observed that Rochester is being “lapped” by many other cities of similar size, and many with fewer assets. We fall further behind in assuring the vitality, value, and usefulness of our city, and region, with every passing day. Our priorities are really screwed up.
And what does Mr. Leinberger say is the most powerful tool in transforming cities, and in creating new value and vitality downtown? Transit. He calls transit, and transit tools, the rudder that steers the ship that is the city, and region.
So how could the $132m be put to better use here, creating greater value and reinvigorating our urbanism? Just two examples are amazing, and instructive.
First, Cincinnati. Population of the city: 335,000. Population of the region: 2.2 million. Bigger than Rochester, but not so much bigger: about a third larger in the city, and about twice the size in the region.
Cincy is planning a streetcar for its downtown. The alignment is set for the first phase, and the cost of the 5 mile system has been pegged at around $100 million. Already developers are investing in sites and projects along the route. The system is estimated to increase property values downtown by something like $380 million, and the system is estimated to spark $1.4 billion in development once it’s up and rolling. This is a return on investment of about $14 for every dollar in. Not bad.
The second example, Portland, is the poster child for investing in change that makes radical improvements to urban value, and quality. Their streetcar system, with a cost of $149 million, has now induced over $3.5 billion dollars in economic development. So the folks in Cincy are being conservative, as they should be, but realistic about the impact that fixed guideway rail transit (streetcars) can have on their urban future.
I have been doing transportation work across my entire career: I am a fully qualified transit geek. But I am not urging our City Council and leadership (three mayors in the last month – not bad, yes?) to swap the mistakes they are about to make for streetcars because I like to play with trains.
No, I am asking our leadership to change course because I have an abiding passion for cities, this one included, and a belief that this place can be so much better if we shift our thinking, realign our priorities, and start making good choices for our future.
Will the upcoming investment here of $132 million in our two downtown projects create value for our city? Yes. I’m not sure how to calculate what will happen, but will we see over $1.8 billion in new value created, at the rate of $14 out for every $1 in, as in Cincy? No. Will we see our downtown revitalized? No. Will we be making an investment that will change the course of our city and our region? No.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel. At the moment, it’s an oncoming train. We can change that.
Great post Mr. Decker! There are so many benefits to diversifying our transit system with rail options. It’s head-spinning. Lowering oil dependency for starters. It’s greener, cleaner, and more attractive. It can move greater numbers of people and provide greater access to jobs for a greater number of people. It’s proven to be a magnet for development in small cities all over the country. It’s smoother, quiet, quick & extremely reliable. Everyone’s heard all of this before. So what in the world is holding us back?!
Let’s not forget the Broad Street canal project—estimated to cost upwards of $65 million and the City has already adopted that plan.
I think we need draft a proposal!
Let’s come up with 2-4 options for a 3-4 mile streetcar alignment in various parts of the City. What would you say that would cost? $60-$80MM? We do a cost and ROI analysis for each route and pick the one we think will create the most long term economic development over it’s lifetime. THEN we compare the potential ROI to the Paetec project ($80MM), the RTS terminal ($50MM), the RBTL theater ($70MM), and the Broad Street canal ($65MM). Let’s do an honest comparison and let the chips fall where they may.
Okay Howard, that’s your assignment
By the way, do you mind if I cross-post this article at Reconnect Rochester?
Mike, thanks for the kind words. And of course, feel free to cross-post this piece.
There are, as you suggest, many ways to spin the benefits of enhanced transit here. The one consistent word in every analysis is value – enhanced transit increases value economically, physically, environmentally, from the perspective of social justice – slice it how you will.
And so what we need to do, as we prepare to spend each precious dollar on our city, is to analyze for value. The projects you list, and which I have parsed in other posts, do add value. But if we are trying for the most value for our struggling city, which ones do the most? And do the most over the longest haul, with the possiblity of leaving us with a next Rochester that is fit for us, and for our children.
Not only would enhanced transit involving streetcars help downtown and portend substantial economic development, it would free us to revise the operational system of our bus transit, and make that system work much more beneficially. Not that it would take much….
Laying out options is a connect-the-dots proposition. Let’s take a look at the the key destinations downtown, and in downtown adjacent areas, and pick a few routes that would tie these together. Easy as pie….
Every city that plans a streetcar system understands that the system will get built in pieces, phases. Another question worth exploring is: what would a full system look like, and where should we start? We should start where we can gain the greatest benefit in value, and let the value unroll as the system is deployed.
My pencil is sharpened. When do we start?
About four miles of streetcar would cover most of the key downtown venues and form the basis for expansions to the edge of the city as well as such connectors as downtown to U of R and RIT. All this would cost about what the Mortimer St. bus Barn is going to cost, and let’s remember that the Barn will not get one, single bus off Main St. They’ll just be blocking the turning lanes. You cannot solve routing and scheduling issues with a building. And it takes the fixed investment of rail to induce Transit Oriented Development. Midtown? We have a chance to not keep trying to bring the suburbs downtown. I hope we don’t blow it again.
Hi Howard, another great article! I wish government officials would actually take the time to read your web page and get an informed and educated view of the city’s situation. There are very important facts that they can take away from it. One of which is the Return On Investment (ROI) of a light rail system.
At a recent Regional Transit Authority (RTA) meeting that Mike and I attended, I brought up the question about transportation dictating land use. The answer I got was suprising to me. Pretty much a long version of “It Can’t”. Even failing to recognise the statement he made about a company that moved to Avon because there was a railroad already there that could be immediately used. I also got the impression that the RTA spends a significant amount of time trying to predict land use so they can develop transportation for it. Am I the only one who thinks this is backwards? Let’s be honest, no one is going to build somewhere if there is no way to get there.
If local, regional and state agencies looked at the successes of places such as Portland, they would rethink their policies on transportation. But, I have read a few articles where some cites were used as ineffective examples. Well, they should be examples of how it doesn’t matter how good an idea is, if it’s implimented improperly, it won’t work. But (as you stated) a 14:1 ROI needs to be explored. There needs to be a major shift in the thinking of these agencies.
Something else I would like to comment on. The article states Mr. Leinberger, “observed that Rochester is being “lapped” by many other cities of similar size, and many with fewer assets”. The Key word in this statement for me is “assets”. As many know, I have been doing a lot of research regarding Rochester’s history, urban design, new technologies, transit, etc. What I found suprised me. I always knew that the city in particular does not use the assets it has to the best ability. But I am starting to discover that there is so much more than I originally thought. Here is a partial list of what I am refering to, some of which I already knew.
Natural: Example; the Genesee river. The city greatly underutilizes this asset. I could write a book about how this asset alone can add significant value to the downtown area, from making it a visual attraction to generating electricty far beyond what is currently applied with little to no added environmental impact.
Historical: Example; the old canal bed. The debate can be made for a subway or canal. But filling it in, like they are doing it right now, leaves a sunken feeling in my stomach. Both uses have been a major asset to the city and helped it flourish for decades. There are many other historical treasures that are being misused or ignored.
Transportation: Need I say more?
Education: We have colleges that are nationally ranked and are making some major advances in research. The problem is what we all heard officials call “Brain Drain”.
Arts and Entertainment: There are some great and under-appreciated venues from the Jazz and Clothesline festivals to the museums and others. However, I have found that we also suffer in this area from what is called the “Brain Drain” in education. The Eastman School as well as Nazereth have produced many talents that I hear have located to other cities for better opportunities.
Distribution of tax dollars: Your article touches on this and I believe it is critical. As I see it, the current problem is that the city needs businesses to move downtown more than businesses want to. Hence the $80 million being given to Paetec ( I won’t even start on the building plans I have seen). I believe, as you do, that the money could be better served on projects that would create the better ROI.
Let’s not forget that there are more “Returns” than just the dollar amount. Proper (and I want to stress proper) investments in transit, appearance, infustructure, etc. can improve the overall quality of life. Isn’t that the ultimate goal?
Fantastic summary and great insights, Paul. RGRTA has long been co-opted by the County and its political interests. They succeed doing what the drive-only suburbs desire – provide a basic, low-cost, low-fare bus system that satisfies the minimal requirements of a community of our size. They do not care to see any relationship between rail transit and TOD. It’s not their concern. The suburbs are fine today and will always be fine.
It astounds me that people get so excited about a limited use faux-canal that removes a major city street while basically ignoring this wondrous natural resource that is the Mightly Genesee River. “Re-Water the Canal?” There has not been a canal there since 1919. The Real Erie Canal still exists a mile up the Genesee and is doing very well.
Brain-Drain. I hope folks like you, and Mike, and Jeremy Cooney stay in City Council’s face and never let them forget that you are what cities all want – young urban professionals. What are they doing for you lately? Millenials want authentic urban experiences and the oldest Baby Boomers are already moving back to the kinds of neighborhoods they grew up in.
Basically, our civic leaders still think that the suburbs are growing forever. They do not see their imminent death. They still have their inferiority complex to Suburban America. They still fail to see the assets we still have, such as our historic building stock.
Keep at it – soon it’s gonna be your world!!!
I like riding trains as much as the next guy, and I hate to bust bubbles, but…. If rail transit is truly effective as an economic development tool to save rust belt cities from themselves, how do you explain Cleveland, Buffalo, St Louis, or Pittsburgh? Dayton OH has trolley buses that run on fixed wires – but it’s the same miserable story there. The sad reality is, the presence of rail (or other fixed guideway) transit has zero impact on regional economic development trends.
Besides, numerous studies have been issued recently which find that rail transit harms transit-dependent populations. This is because rail’s high operating costs require system cost cutting (which invariably hits the remaining bus routes) and/or fare hikes. Not to mention that the complexion and income of rail riders tends to be noticeably different than their bus-riding counterparts since communities rarely build rail lines through “unattractive” neighborhoods. Something to do with that whole ROI thing.
Those same studies have also found that, although rail does indeed attract development, that development prices out lower-income residents (gentrification). The new wealthier residents bring their cars with them and typically still commute by car. These new residents are attracted to the idea of a transit-oriented lifestyle, but when the rubber meets the road (or when the steel meets the rail), they’re still driving much of the time.
So basically, creation of a rail system in Rochester would lead to worse and/or costlier bus service for those who truly rely on transit while also increasing the number of cars and peak hour congestion in our city. And we haven’t even talked about how this community would cover the operating costs. Try selling a new dedicated sales tax to the public in this area! This community has many, many issues that demand attention – a new rail line should not be one of them.
This concept of rail transit being a tool to help retain young professionals is a real stretch of reality.
I’m a twenty-something living around Park Ave and a pretty urban-oriented guy. If I want to go to a show downtown:
1)do I take a five-minute car ride and park for free, or 2)take a half hour and walk/wait/pay $2/ride/walk and then the same to return?
Despite my urbanist sensibilities, I have to say the former. Sorry. Leads to the question, if I won’t pay for it, who will?
MAT, you have your facts seriously screwed up. The transit systems in the cities you note are light rail systems, not streetcars. Big difference, in every way.
As for studies and costs and what we need, fine. You have your opinion, and we have ours. Wish you had attended the lecture this week to hear some interesting facts about the concerns you have noted.
Oh, and let’s fix the bus system no matter what else we do.
Jazzfan, if you had an alternative that was realistic, you might reconsider the drive downtown. Right now, you don’t. If the bus system worked, or there was some other alternative that performed as it should, many would opt for transit. Some would not, under any circumstances.
“If the bus system worked, or there was some other alternative that performed as it should, many would opt for transit.”
I have a hard time seeing any public transit alternative that is competitive on a cost or time basis than driving. Driving in Rochester is very easy.
If the “end” is a more vibrant urban space or a more sustainable culture and public transit is the “means” we are considering – what are the other options? What if my car is a Nissan Leaf? What if we start making suburban developments pay the true cost of their share of public services?
There are many options which may be less risky – we need to make sure that we keep the overall goals in focus, rather than promoting public transit as the goal itself.
So what are the differences between street cars and light rail? I’m not being facetious I would like to know. Having lived in a city with Light Rail and seen a lack of ROI and routinely budget busting operating costs and fare increases, I am skeptical as well when it comes to seeing subways or light rail touted as being economic engines, especially for mid to small sized cities like Rochester.
The photo of the Portland “Street Car” looks an awful lot like Light Rail to me. Again really would like to know the difference here, I’m not trying to be antagonistic.
Bill, light rail usually, though not always, runs in a dedicated right-of-way. Some of Portland’s MAX light rail system (not their streetcar, pictured above) does in fact run on the street. As does some of Minneapolis’ light rail, the Hiawatha, or DART in Dallas, or Metro in Houston, as examples.
Streetcar runs on the street along with other vehicular traffic. Streetcar runs at slower speeds – traffic speeds – and typically the cars are smaller, lower, and lighter.
Streetcar costs about $10m to $12m a mile to construct. Light rail is about 4 times that cost.
ROI for light rail has been mixed. In some cities, a light rail system has proven to be both economically viable, and a tool for economic development. In other cities – Buffalo for instance – this has not proven to be true. When a light rail system is not working the way it should, it is usually, though not always, because it does not go to the right places.
In Rochester, we have a good number of near-downtown areas, institutions, and neighborhoods that are vibrant, and robust. I am thinking of the East End, South Wedge, U of R, Corn Hill, Frontier Field and the Cascade district, and many others. A streetcar could connect these places, while running through downtown as well, and provide a terrific transit alternative while offering a potentially powerful tool for economic development.
The key to constructing a successful transit system, whether it be bus, streetcar, or light rail, is to plan the system properly, so that it goes where it needs to as quickly and frequently as possible. Here in Rochester, we could illustrate to all the citizens of the region what good transit can do by simply revising the way our bus system operates, so that is goes often, goes where we are going, and doesn’t make us sit at Main and Clinton in order to get anywhere.
There are plenty of excellent bus systems in the U.S. We can learn from others.
In the end, transit is a tool to make cities more livable, more sustainable, more valuable. But transit is not a single tool, like a bus. Transit is a host of tools: light rail, streetcar, bus and others. We had them all here once. We should reflect on how a full transit tool box can help provide for the next Rochester.
So many issues here… I guess I’ll take a whack at a couple since I so enjoy the discussion.
Re: brain drain: Almost all cities decry the loss of their educated youth, especially those cities that pump out more colleges and university graduates than the local job market can absorb. Boston complains about a brain drain, for crying out loud. The “brain drain” is a symptom, not a problem. Let’s focus on the underlying problem.
Re: gentrification: if by gentrification you mean people reinvesting in urban real estate, then by all means, Rochester could use a LOT of gentrification. To me, those that oppose gentrification are content to let cities be warehouses for the poor.
Re: transit vs. driving: I think perhaps you’re overlooking a key decision point, Jazzfan. If Rochester did have an effective transit system, then the decision point is not whether to drive or take transit, since driving would win almost every time. The decision point is “do I buy a car in the first place or can I rely on transit to get me to most of the places I want to go and I can rent a car on those few occasions that I really need one.” Even with Rochester’s current mediocre transit system, I’m close to that decision myself and looking forward to spending the $4000-$6000 per year it takes to own and maintain a car on other things. At the very least, a more effective transit system would allow a lot of 2 or 3 car households to become 1 or 2 car households.
Re: re-watering the canal: frankly, I’m not convinced this is the best way to spend $65 million, and remember that not one cent of this money has actually been allocated yet. So the whole scheme remains a dream. However, with regard to return on investment, look at how a place like Oklahoma City spurred development with the construction of a FAKE canal downtown.
Jason, there are so many issues and that is the problem. Some people don’t know where to start, but I do want to continue the conversation about topics you brought up.
Brain drain: I guess my interpretation is more about all the graduates that grew up in Rochester and moved away due to lack of opportunities. And I only reference it to prove a point that the same is happening with our arts and entertainment sector. It is both a symptom and a problem. I agree that cities with larger colleges can’t employ ALL of their graduates, but shouldn’t we at least try to retain our own? Or at least an equivalent mixture?
Re-watering the canal: The “remaining” canal bed stretches for over a mile in downtown, yet the plans only discuss the bridge over the river. What? So planners think that a closed off “pond” suspended over a river will spur development? It’s almost designed to fail. The library, convention center/RGE, and Blue Cross Arena take up 3 of the 4 corners of this project. And only maybe 50% of the 4th corner is availible.
This is a perfect example of why I stress PROPER development can have a high ROI downtown. Imagine if the entire 1 mile of the canal were registered as a historic landmark/waterway, whatever. Then funding could be availible from state, federal and historical agencies with little city funds.
The canal can also be tied into the river south of 490. There has been a state wide increase in tourism, as well as reportedly the transportation of goods, along the Erie Canal. What kind of development could occur if downtown tapped into that.
(This one is addressed to all)
Transit vs Driving: The only issue I have here is how you titled this section with “versus”. Too many people see mass-transit advocates as trying to replace the car, when in reality many of us see that transportation policies are greatly skewed to favor the car. Over 50% of downtown is unattractive surface parking. Anytime there is a development project anywhere in the county, one of the first things out of peoples mouths are “traffic congestion” and “parking”. There are many other concerns that can all be addressed with transit.
I guess what I am saying is that a transportation policy should not favor or eliminate ANY mode of traveling. Rather, impliment one that is diverse and safe for all.
aandh,
Thanks for the detailed response, very informative.
This may be a dumb question…but if street cars run with vehicular traffic, what is the benefit they provide over a bus?
From the sounds of things Rochester’s bus system is a joke, so shouldn’t fixing that be the number one priority and maybe an easier win, as opposed to investing new infrastructure that could be accomplished with existing resources?
I know you targeted the Bus system in your response, and ideally it shouldn’t be a question or either/or, but I’m just wondering what is brought to the table with Street cars vs. a better bus system.
It seems that a comprehensive transportation plan need to be grown organically, and strategically. Far too often plans such as the light rail systems in Buffalo and Pittsburgh are abandoned–due to real or perceived lack of results, cost overrides, political posturing, and then finally funding cuts –that leave a shell of a plan that relied on the plan’s completion in its entirety to be successful.
What is left is an albatross on further discussion about alternate methods of transportation and public transportation altogether.
That is why I think quick wins, low hanging fruit, what ever you want to call it are the keys. It may not be as glamorous as seeing street cars going up and down the roads, but it could get us in that direction.
Jason, re: transit – not a bad way to look at it. Hopefully there are many on the cusp of making that decision but I think we have a ways to go.
Good point on brain drain. I don’t think the brain drain efforts are helpful. For the best human capital we want to attract talent from everywhere. Hopefully all Rochesterians will go out into the world. If we can attract some folks back home along with many others, our community will benefit from new ideas and real links to other parts of the world. To survive, Rochester needs to be as connected as possible to the outside. Smugtown, no more
Bill, regarding buses and streetcars, here’s few things worth bearing in mind.
First, yes we absolutely should fix the bus system here, and we can start tomorrow. Or even today. Our transit agency has even done a plan to investigate this. What to do is known, how to do it is known. Let’s get started!
Second, streetcars enhance development precisely because they are on fixed tracks. The development community knows that if the tracks are in the street, the trains will keep running there, and not be relocated suddenly to another street as buses frequently are. So the tracks tend to seal the deal with respect to offering incentives to new investment – the customers/tenants will be there for a long time into the future. The new investment in Cincinnati is interesting because they haven’t even started construction yet, and the meter on new investment is already clicking away.
And this is happening in other locales. In Washington, investment in the H Street corridor is improving rapidly as they prepare to deploy the first of their streetcar lines.
There are literally dozens of streetcar systems around the nation in various stages of planning and construction, all aimed at enhanced access to mobility, and enhanced value in the community.
As to bus versus streetcar, it really isn’t a choice. Both, of course, and more if we can get other modes. We could, for example, also build a light rail to the airport, and then run from there west to Buffalo. Not as crazy as it sounds, though I admit it is unlikely anytime soon. The light rail in Minneapolis runs at over 60 mph away from the city – speeds like this could make the jump to the west comparable to a car trip, without the car.
As to cost, this is something us transit geeks argue about all the time. There are many studies that illustrate that buses have a lower first cost, but a higher life cycle cost, than streetcars. So you can put buses on the street for less money, but they will cost you more in the long run.
And finally, planning the system is critical. If, as you suggest, the system must be built entirely in order to work, and the system never makes it past its first phase, that first phase better be a killer, or you will be left with a mess.
Interestingly in many cities a correctly planned first phase is exactly what got community support to use that transit tool on other alignments. If you build it right, they will come.
Re: Brain Drain: Jazzfan makes an important point. From my perspective, as a non-native Rochesterian, the fact that too many people spend their whole lives here and never experience alternate ways of living is almost as debilitating as the so-called “brain drain.” We want to attract talented, creative, motivated people from all over. A very good thing would be for kids born and raised in Rochester to go away for awhile and THEN come back, filled with new ideas and able to see their community with fresh eyes. Ideally, they would then settle in and work to improve established neighborhoods and not fall into the cheap new McMansion-in-the-cornfield trap.
The other thing I always hated about the “brain drain” efforts, at least as executed so far, is that they are nothing more than vague civic boosterism concealing a deeper sense of desperation. They seem to say to young people, “Please please please stay here… don’t you like it here? Isn’t it great? 20 minute commutes, cheap housing, art festivals, waterfront. Our museums aren’t as good as big cities, but they’re great for a midsized city. Please stay!” It’s pathetic.
Howard: regarding railed transit versus bus: I too am a huge transit geek but try to remain as objective as possible. I understand the cost differential (bus = cheap upfront, expensive down the road, streetcar, expensive upfront, cheap down the road), but I’ve always had trouble with the argument that railed transit attracts development because it doesn’t move, as bus routes can. The thing is, how often do bus routes actually move, at least in the city and inner suburbs? Some sort of transit has trundled down parts Monroe Avenue for well over 130 years. Isn’t that enough to entice developers? With that sort of longevity, it’s almost inconceivable that RGRTA will decide, on a whim, to relocate the #7 route, at least between downtown and 12 Corners.
However, there are legitimate studies that show non-transit users are much more apt to ride a railed vehicle than a bus. If we ever want our transit system to be anything other than transportation of last resort, we need to acknowledge that. Also, I urge any skeptics to ride a streetcar. The quality of the ride itself cannot be compared to a bus, even a bus traveling over smooth pavement. There is a sway and lurch to a bus that one just does not get on a streetcar.
Finally, on the canal re-watering. The more I consider it, the more skeptical I am that simply re-watering the aqueduct is worth the cost. Either do a significant portion, say South Avenue to West Main Street or don’t do it at all. $65 million could be spent in better ways. For example, removing all or part of the Inner Loop would be a better ROI then re-watering the canal.
Jason, as Christopher Leinberger said when he was here, and as many of us transit geeks have often said as well, no developer ever invested because he or she was next to a bus stop…. H Street in DC is the perfect example of this. It too has had buses for eons, but not to its benefit.
Of course you’re right – transit has been on Monroe, and Main, and plenty of other streets here in Rochester as well, for more than a century. Transit has been swarming at Main and Clinton for almost a century and a half.
But even with the endless lines of buses on Main at Clinton, downtown has folded its tent and slunk away. Patterns of settlement have shifted, and we need to consider our transit tools as a way to rebalance this circumstance.
Which is why I believe that simply running a streetcar down Main is a non-starter. Any transit mode we deploy must be thought of as tool to enhance mobility for all, and to enhance value in the urban setting. We need all the help we can find.
That said, I believe that a streetcar is probably the best tool for connecting the downtown-adjacent places here, places that are redeveloping and are thought to be urbane, attractive destinations, while nonetheless trolling through downtown.
Holy smokes. Turn my back for a minute and the conversation explodes. I just wanted to add to Jason’s comment regarding the reason why rail attracts development. In truth it’s probably several factors.
One most definitely is permanence. But also the ancillary investments that are usually made to the surrounding area as the rails are being laid are attractive to businesses and their customers.
And I suspect Jason is most correct non-transit users are more apt to jump on a train or a streetcar before they’d ever be caught dead riding a bus.
And while we’re being completely frank… investors know what they think they know… that is rail cars bring the people who have spending cash in their pockets. Buses bring the “other” kind of people (right?) There are inconvenient truths in the subtext but it’s reality. Huge advantage over buses.
No one is suggesting that rails replace the bus system. As Howard said.
Great discussion.
“[Portland's] streetcar system, with a cost of $149 million, has now induced over $3.5 billion dollars in economic development.”
You are certain that every single one of those $3.5 billion dollars is directly attributable to the streetcar, yes?
This is the oft-quoted figure, I suppose calculated by Tri-Met in Portland. I have read this figure, and heard this figure, from more sources than I can count.
But let’s say that it is grossly exaggerated. Let’s say that the streetcar only gets half that credit. That’s still a return on investment of $10 for every dollar in.
Not too shabby.
Did anyone hear Mark Aesch on Bob Smith on Wednesday?
Mark Aesch has a book ” Driving Excellence: Transform Your Organization’s Culture- And Achieve Revolutionary Results” out now that he seems to be promoting and seems to be doing well on Amazon.
I am totally speechless. His view point is so different. He talked about Those That Know (him) and Those That Have Opinions (everyone else).
I would like to see Howard review his book.
To clarify on Buffalo – The light rail system is mostly built in subway. This means it runs much faster (60 miles per hour) but has fewer stops than a system running on the street. (because subway stations are expensive to build and take up a lot of space) Fewer stops means speed and the subway means no traffic jams or weather problmes. It also means less accessible.
One compromise is a system with a dedicated right of way that is easily accessed from the places where people area and where they want to go to. Speed and accessibility are very important. The train needs to be faster than your car. A system running on a street will be no faster than a car and more likely will be slower since it has to make frequent stops to pick people up. The system in St Louis uses an existing rail right of way (I think Cleveland does this too) The problem with this is it is not very close to where people are going this results in stations in out of the way places (that sometimes don’t feel safe). Boston’s Green Line is a great combination of dedicated right of way and subway. It is the oldest light rail system in the country and it goes to a lot of good places and is pretty fast.
Buffalo’s system is the oldest new system in the country (1980s vintage). In a massive stroke of supreme idiocy in Buffalo (even by Buffalo’s standards) the trains were put at grade on a disastrous several block long pedestrian mall on Main Street – the core street of downtown. They are now s l o w l y returning cars to the street block by block which will share space with the trains. The trains use high subway platforms when underground so they don’t have the low profile floors of modern light rail trains. The Buffalo system was never fully realized. It is only 6 miles long and does not extend beyond the city line. suburban resistance to public transit combined with Regan era cutbacks to public transit killed the intended suburban portion.
Many call it the subway to no where. This is an unfair description however since it does pass several large medical centers, sports facilities, universities and dense neighborhoods and has a high per mile ridership. However, its route follows a major economic seam in the city. On one side is a wealthy prosperous area on the other side is a neighborhood of extreme poverty and abandonment. That means it has no real constituency. Also the city never developed a concept of transit oriented development and thus many stations are surrounded by suburban sprawl type development. Couple this with constant addition of cheap parking downtown and continual upgrade and spending on highways (A 50 million renovation of the route 5 expressway gracing the water edge was just completed for example)
So, what I am saying is that rail transit has to be added as part of a holistic system. Rail by itself is just an expensive urban toy a la the famous Simpsons mono rail episode. Rail plus good policy is the winning formula. That is a lot harder and a lot less sexy though.
David, thank you for chiming in and clarifying Buffalo’s system.
Speed is important, but not exclusively so. If you can travel to your destination in an amount of time that is not dissimilar from car, and if then you do not need car, or have to pay for car, it all begins to make sense.
But even more important, in my view, is where the transit goes. If, as in Buffalo, it does not go to the right places, or connect the right destinations, or if the stops are too spread out, then you will have a serious problem getting people to use the system.
And finally, I agree with you that transit is not one mode, but many modes, all working together to allow maximum access, and walkability, across the region.
Linda,
I did hear Aesch on the Bob Smith show yesterday. In fact I was the last caller. He pats himself on the back quite well I’ll give him that. But his utter dismissal of any idea that’s not his own is difficult to swallow.
I should have asked him if he measures the success of his “company” in any way other than dollars. Instead I tossed him a softball question about the hub and spoke system and I got the usual answer. We’re locked into it because of our street pattern. Yes Mister Aesch, you’re a revolutionary alright.
Just for the heck of it, I thought this quote from a recent NPR story sums it up quite nicely:
“Critics of the streetcar craze say the mania is part of the problem. Brian Taylor directs UCLA’s Institute of Transportation Studies and says governors, mayors and taxpayers all want flashy new projects, but sometimes those are not the best solutions.
“We’re painting ourselves into a bizarre corner where we’re not able to maintain our streets, we’re not able to maintain the buses and the trains that we have out there, and we’re focused on cutting ribbons in front of new rail projects,” Taylor says.
He’s skeptical that streetcars are the urban transit solution they’re touted to be. “If the investment is tied in effectively to the rest of the transit system, it can be a very effective investment,” he says. “If it’s not — and there are cases where it has not been — then it’s not.”"
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/12/133682892/all-american-streetcar-boom-fuels-an-urban-future?ps=cprs