France programs massive investment of as much as €21 billion (US $29 billion) for urban electric rail transit development

The government of France has announced plans to award major capital grants to help fund investment in new public transport systems, according to a recent report in Tramways & Urban Transit (TAUT, June 2009), the authoritative international magazine about light rail and urban rail transit developments published by the British Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA). "It gives the reasons as both to improve the environment and support the national economic recovery" says the magazine's report – adding that this new spurt of urban electric rail investment "is the first stage of an announced 1500km [930 miles] of new tramway covering just provincial cities across the country."

In what's described as the "first stage" of a massive investment in new tramway (light rail/streetcar) development, the French government has committed funding within a "financial envelope" of €1 billion (about US $1.4 billion) to support a list of 57 tramway projects. In addition, the government also announced a commitment of €15 to €20 billion (about $21 to 28 billion) for capital funding to help finance "a state-of-the-art 130km [81-mile] automated metro for the capital of Paris, which will have a total of 60 stations and be known as Arc Express." This "ambitious project" could be completed by 2020, says the TAUT report.

France's commitment to urban rail transit eclipses by far the USA's rail transit funding gestures, which seem puny by comparison. Even with the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus package, America, with about 5 times France's population, has committed only about $8 billion – and that's for both high-speed intercity rail passenger projects and "inner-city rail". In other words, with about 5 times France's population, the USA has committed less than one-third as much central government spending for this crucial public transport program – despite all the "yak" about a "green economy", reducing carbon emissions, addressing the "peak oil" crisis by reducing dependency on petroleum, and the need to shape more efficient urban development and transport patterns and reduce the ongoing costs of mobility.

In contrast, the magnitude of France's current urban rail development program already under way is staggering:

• Electric trolleybus projects in 5 cities...
• Metro expansion in 2 cities (in addition to Paris)...
• Electric tramway (light rail streetcar) development in 30 cities...

France has been encouraging urban rail transit development – especially light rail tramways – by leaps and bounds. Over the past couple of decades, "new start" tramways have been installed and "legacy" tramway systems upgraded in more than a dozen French cities. (See, for example, our collection of articles at France – Rail Transit, Light Rail, Tramway, and Public Transport Developments.)

Currently, according to the LRTA's summary A world of trams and urban transit – A complete listing of Light Rail, Light Railway, Tramway & Metro systems throughout the World, totally new tramway projects (i.e., "new starts") are under construction in six more French cities:

>>
As America’s streetcar renaissance continues, more and more medium-size cities are considering an investment in the mode. The latest addition to the game: Winston-Salem, North Carolina, a city of about 200,000 and the state’s fifth-largest. Transportation planners envision a 2.6 mile corridor financed by federal government stimulus funds that would redefine downtown mobility there.

The proposed trolley would run in a figure-8 pattern in mixed traffic and connect the central business district with a future commuter rail station that would provide service to nearby Greensboro if built in the next decade.
<<

According to the Winston-Salem Journal (31 Oct. 2006), "Wide city streets and the presence of the medical center and the research park on opposite sides of the city's center make streetcars a good way to move people."

As The Transport Politic also relates, one of the city’s top priorities in construction of such a line – with an investment cost projected at about $65 million – is an attempt to leverage the benefits of improved transportation to increase commercial and residential development in Winston-Salem's downtown, current undergoing a process of renewal.

In 2006, transportation planners with HDR Engineering evaluated the possible construction of an approximately 3.8-mlie. (6.1-km) streetcar loop along Fourth and Fifth streets, linking the Piedmont Triad Research Park downtown with Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. [Rail Transit Online, September 2006] Daily ridership at that time was estimated at 5,800 rider-trips in 2010 and 9,500 by 2025.
[Map: LRN, modified from Winston-Salem Journal]

According to The Transport Politic summary, this forecast compares with the ridership on a "trolley" decorated circulator bus "running the route today which attracts a mere thirty-seven people a day; planners argue that the rail system would be able to vastly increase the number of people choosing to ride public transportation."

Similar to almost all New Start streetcar projects in American cities, this one would represent "back to the future". As the Winston-Salem Journal (31 October 2006) has pointed out, "Winston-Salem had a streetcar system in the early 1900s, but the tracks were abandoned around 1950 as more people began to drive cars."

According to Alan Coleman and Ken Humphreys, Guide to Past & Present Traction Systems in North Carolina, at its peak Winston-Salem's electric street railway system had 43 cars and 9 miles of track. All trolley service ended on 30 December 1936, in the midst of the Transit Devastation era and the Great Depression.

To finance at least part of the project, city leaders and planning officials, as previously noted, are eyeing possible federal stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funding. However, The Transport Politic is skeptical of the feasibility of the project, and whether it could actually qualify for federal funding. The article expresses some skepticism about the high ridership forecasts, particularly in comparison with the tiny ridership volume on the current circulator bus. The article notes this and other problems facing the project:

>>
The federal government should have other priorities for streetcar funding – larger, more transit-oriented cities such as Seattle are applying for the same limited pot of money to build new trolley lines. Winston-Salem’s ridership estimates, on the other hand, are undoubtedly overestimates. Though the city’s downtown is being redeveloped, street activity remains minimal and a car culture predominates.
[...]
it wouldn’t be difficult to imagine this system attracting fewer than 1,000 riders a day considering its limited destinations and the anemic ridership on the existing downtown [faux] trolley bus. As with other recent proposals, this project suffers from underambition; it’s simply too short a line to attract many users.
<<

Nevertheless, the article emphasizes that "There is no question that investing in a new trolley would act as an economic development tool and improve the chances for the city to expand its downtown core" .. and, in terms of local funding, suggests that Winston-Salem might consider "flexing" soime of its available federal highway dollars to such a rail transit project – noting that

>>
...highway funds, which are distributed to metropolitan planning organizations, are mostly “flex” dollars that could be spent on transit programs – if the city is willing to take the risk. Shouldn’t municipalities be willing to sacrifice their roads for the benefit of transit?
<<

Light Rail Now Project senior technical consultant Ed Tennyson has more confidence in the ridership forecasts for the Winston-Salem streetcar project, and suggests another option for funding.

Ed notes that Winston-Salem has about the same core-city population as Salt Lake City, and draws the conclusion: "Strong LRT ridership. Low cost."

>>
If Winston-Salem's estimates are even half right, they can build their trolley line with borrowed money from any large bank or bond house. By increasing bus (called trolley) patronage of 37 to 5,800, downtown business will obviously be boosted considerably.
<<

Ed points out that business increases averaging about 18% in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Salt Lake City have impacted property values, a result which in turn "determines how much the city can borrow."

According to Ed's research, a streetcar line increases the rate of real estte valuation by an average of $75 million per mile – "but downtown it may be $225 million per mile."

>>
That will pay for the streetcar, but the state may also help pay, even if Federal aid is too hard to get. Since streetcars improve the downtown economy, no taxes are necessary to pay for the investment. The losses avoided by not operating the bus for so few people will help pay for streetcar operating costs.
<<

Winston-Salem civic leaders and planners continues to pursue these and other funding options, driven by a perception of the benefits of streetcar investment in terms of both central-city mobility improvements and reinforcement of economic development and revitalization goals.

Charles Hales, an HDR consultant and former Portland official that spearheaded the Portland Streetcar project (today deemed a stellar success story) summed up the prospects for Winston- Salem well in a 2006 presentation to the city council: "Nothing touches streetcars in sparking development, and you've got a lot of potential for development left in downtown Winston-Salem."

San Antonio:
New light rail/streetcar concept gains support

San Antonio — Dreams of light rail – most likely, in the form of streetcar technology – may be arising again in the Alamo City.

As a Nov. 14th news report from San Antonio TV station KENS 5 points out,

>>
Ten years ago, San Antonio rejected a light rail initiative but backers say times have changed. A ballot measure could be placed before voters next year....
<<

A Sep. 4th article in the San Antonio Express-News reported that

>>
The future of transportation in San Antonio could include a mix of light rail, streetcar and bus rapid transit, according to a draft plan unveiled Thursday by VIA Metropolitan Transit.

The agency is developing a long-range comprehensive plan that reaches to 2035.

...
Alongside the long-term planning, VIA has continued working on a streetcar feasibility study, which is expected to be completed in November.

The draft plan includes the potential for both streetcars and light rail in a number of corridors across the city.
<<

Henry Muñoz, board chairman of VIA (the region's public transportation authority) has indicated he's hoping to announce a streetcar project "by the end of the year".
[Streetcar simulation: VIA]

According to the Sep. 4th Express-News article, planners are evaluating for various public transit applications a list of 20 corridors, of which "16 are viable for streetcars, including potential lines along Commerce, Broadway, San Pedro, Fredericksburg, Austin Highway, Roosevelt and Zarzamora."

More specifically, the paper reported,

>>
...it's likely that a starter streetcar system would be in the central city, with northern bounds around Mahncke Park and southern bounds in the Lavaca or King William neighborhoods. An east-west line would connect the AT&T Center to Our Lady of the Lake University.
<<

The Broadway corridor – running somewhat northerly through the central-city from the edge of downtown – is certainly a strong contender for an initial rail line, since it's an historically strong commercial area connecting numerous small shops and restaurants, major museums, and other trip- attractors, and is bordered on both sides by medium-density residential neighborhoods. However, much depends on whether the majority of adjacent stakeholders back such a project.

Several miles west of Broadway, VIA already has a "bus rapid transit" ("BRT") project in final design for the Fredericksburg Road corridor, intended to connect the South Texas Medical Center area in the northern part of San Antonio to the city's downtown, with major transit terminals at both ends of the route. About 8 to 10 miles in length, the "BRT" line will serve the two transit centers at each end, 6-8 station locations along the corridor, and several stops in San Antonio's central business district. [VIA website, 2008]

However, there's a reasonable possibility that this line could be converted to streetcar technology or even rapid light rail transit (LRT), either after it goes into service as "BRT", or even before the project is completed.

An urban mobility and economic development model that has been driving enthusiasm for rail transit in San Antonio is Portland, Oregon's experience resulting from its investment in of rapid LRT and streetcar systems. This past summer, as reported in an Express-News article of Aug. 2nd, VIA chairman Muñoz and Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff joined a delegation of local government and business leaders on "a whirlwind fact-finding mission".

The delegation were particularly impressed by the success of the Portland Streetcar. As the Express-News related,

>>
...the little streetcar line – four miles from end to end – is an economic powerhouse, according to Portland officials. They say some $3.5 billion has been invested within two blocks of the streetcar line’s footprint. More than 10,000 new housing units and 5.4 million square feet of office space have been built in the same area.

San Antonio officials are looking to replicate that.
<<

The renewed enthusiasm for streetcar-type light rail possibly represents an effort to jump-start rail technology with a somewhat smaller investment, reports the Express-News article:

>>
It’s clear there’s been a shift in thinking among local leaders, who in the past have advocated for [larger, faster] light rail. They say a streetcar system, which is smaller in scale and cost, could prove to be a gateway to larger projects for San Antonio.

A starter system would allow people to “kick the tires” and get used to rail, which could lead to support for larger light rail and commuter lines that move more people longer distances.
<<

The article also elaborates on the range of Alamo City activity centers that could be served by a streetcar system:

>>
During conversations in Portland, San Antonio leaders rattled off a number of key sites that potentially could be accessed by a streetcar system: Southtown, HemisFair Park, the Convention Center, the River Walk, the Alamo, Municipal Auditorium, Market Square, Museo Alameda del Smithsonian, several college campuses, the Witte Museum, the San Antonio Museum of Art, the Alamodome and even Fort Sam Houston.
<<

The prospect of a light rail streetcar project has definitely caught the imagination of many San Antonians. In an Aug. 9th Express-News article, columnist Jan Jarboe Russell explained why the city should develop a modern streetcar system:

>>
Sometimes San Antonio feels like the sleepy city that time forgot. But when it comes to the streetcar, we are the city that time remembered.

This is a no-brainer: We should bring back the streetcar.

Here's why: A starter streetcar system costs less than half of the expense to build light rail. It can be built in about half the time. It doesn't add to air pollution and hums along like a quiet song. And, as city leaders found out on a recent trip to Portland, Ore., streetcar lines not only move people efficiently and quietly, they drive economies.

In Portland, every street on a streetcar line first attracted housing units, which then drove retail and office development. Instead of an inner city that's vacant, down on its heels and tax-poor, Portland's is vibrant and pouring money into city and school tax coffers.
<<

As Russell points out, a modern streetcar system would represent a revival of the electric railway system that San Antonio scrapped over 75 years ago:
[Photo: Texas Transportation Museum]

>>
In the late 1920s, all of San Antonio – then, a tiny 36 square miles – was connected by about 130 miles of electric streetcars. It was a better, more fuel-efficient and cheaper transportation system than we have today.

Sadly, in 1933 we became one of the first American cities to dismantle its streetcar system.
<<

Russell also asserts that "San Antonio now is the only large American city without any kind of rail system" ... but that's really not accurate, since a number of other major American cities – cities like Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Columbus (Ohio), Cincinnati, Toledo, Detroit, Louisville, Raleigh, Birmingham, Orlando, Tallahassee, Rochester (NY), Albany (NY), Richmond (Virginia), Spokane, Omaha, Des Moines (Iowa), Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Baton Rouge, Boise – don't have rail transit (yet) either. (We do note that Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and Detroit are now well into the implementation of New Start light rail projects, with funding basically in place.)

While the notion of a streetcar formerly reflected old San Antonio and "a bygone economy" writes Russell, modern streetcar technology "has emerged as a symbol of a new San Antonio with a revitalized center city and a 21st-century economy." And "a coalition of city leaders – County Judge Nelson Wolff, Mayor Julián Castro, VIA Metropolitan Transit's board chairman Henry Muñoz, the Downtown Alliance and others – is finally on track to bring back the streetcar."

However, as with any major public transportation project – particularly one requiring substantial infrastructure investment – having a funding mechanism in place is essential to move from dreams to reality. As usual," Russell points out, "the trick is how to pay for it. The city, county and VIA are looking at a combination of local and federal money and support from the private sector, which stands to benefit the most from development opportunities.

"We were once a city of streetcars and we can be a bigger, more prosperous city with streetcars in the near future" writes Russell. "All we have to do is remember."

USA:
Reeling from world economic crash, 90% of public transit systems raise fares or cut service

As Light Rail Now has pointed out in recent articles, America's public transit systems are facing a deepening financial crisis, particularly as the global economic crash precipitated by the collapse of financial and credit industry markets has worsened. "Plummeting economic activity has meant plummeting tax revenues and thus plummeting subsidies for mass transportation services, throwing transit agencies across the USA into serious crisis" – so we wrote a year ago in our article US Transit Ridership Surges, But Crisis Deepens, and Clamor Grows for "New Deal" Economic Investment in Public Transport.

Listening to various transit critics and rail opponents in city after city, you'd certainly never know it – there's little acknowledgement of the economic crash, and the portrayal consistently projected is that public transportation just cannot sustain itself, every public transit agency in every individual city is (amazingly) run by inherently and uniquely poor management, and usually rail transit (and other heavy investments) are the dastardly culprits, diverting scarce dollars from basic bus operations, which is all public transit should be operating, if it operates anything at all.

Refocusing attention back on the actual reality of a systemic problem, however, is a recent report released this past June by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), titled Challenge of State and Local Funding Constraints on Transit Systems: Effects on Service Fares, Employment and Ridership and available at the following URL:
http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/constraints_09.pdf

According to a summary of the study provided by APTA,

>>
Public transit riders across the country are paying higher fares and face reduced service due to revenue shortfalls experienced by many public transit systems. More than 80 percent of public transit systems have seen flat or decreased funding from local, regional, and state funding. Among transit systems facing this decreased funding, nine out of ten transit systems (89 percent) were forced to raise fares or cut service....
<<

Based on a survey of 98 APTA transit system members carrying more than half the nation’s transit riders, and including 10 of the top 15 agencies in terms of annual ridership, the study demonstrates that "among those systems facing revenue declines almost half of the transit systems (47 percent) reported they have both raised and cut service to address funding shortfalls."

“With state and local revenues declining due to the recession, public transit systems are facing severe financial challenges, and America’s riders are paying the price” warned APTA President William Millar. “Raising fares and cutting service drives people away from using public transit and is counterproductive, as America struggles to create jobs, cut greenhouse gases, and reduce our reliance on expensive foreign oil.”

APTA summarizes several other key findings from the study:

>>
The impact of the economic downturn on public transit systems is broad and widespread. General declines in real estate transactions, property tax collections, and sales tax revenue are likely contributors to flat and declining revenue sources.

More than 80 percent of systems have seen flat or decreased funding from state sources. Among those systems facing a decrease, the average decline was more than 20 percent. In some states these cuts are quite substantial. For example, all transit systems in California are facing the complete elimination of state funding. Similar declines are seen in local and regional funding.

Among those public transit systems reducing service, nearly two-thirds (65 percent) have eliminated or reduced off-peak service and nearly half (48 percent) have reduced the geographic coverage of public transit service.
<<

In view of this crisis, APTA has been urging federal legislators to provide new revenue sources for public transit riders through two pieces of legislation moving through Congress.

First, APTA has been asking Congressional leaders to include an allocation of so-called "cap-and-trade" (carbon-emissions-linked) revenues for public transportation in current climate change legislation on the table – the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). APTA points out that "public transit is a part of the solution to address climate change, already saving 37 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 4.2 billion gallons of fuel per year."

“As the country moves forward with this significant climate change legislation, it is inconceivable that Congress will miss this opportunity to include public transportation as one of the most effective solutions to reduce our nation’s carbon footprint” APTA's Bill Millar emphasized.

Secondly, APTA has backed joint legislation to permit transit systems to use up to 10 percent of their American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) formula funds for operating purposes.

>>
While the nation’s public transportation systems are receiving funding through ARRA, funding is limited to capital expenditures. Public transit system operations are funded primarily through state, local, and regional sources in addition to transit fares. As a result of declining revenue from these sources, one-half of the systems participating in the survey have indicated that they have been forced to eliminate positions in order to address budget shortfalls, as the nation’s unemployment skyrockets.
<<

“The bottom line is that additional funding for both capital and operating costs is urgently needed and that all levels of government – local, state, and federal – must step up and expand investment in America’s public transit systems to meet our country’s economic, energy and environmental challenges, while increasing mobility choices” Millar warned.

Cincinnati:
Streetcar plan, and future of all rail, to be decided in November 3rd vote

Cincinnati — Light rail transit (LRT) – initially at least, in the form of streetcar technology and service – is once again on Cincinnati's planning and political agenda.

In April 2008, the Cincinnati City Council voted 6 to 2 to build a streetcar system, proposed as a 7.9-mile (12.7-km) loop linking the Downtown riverfront to the Uptown neighborhoods near the University of Cincinnati (UC). The proposed route for the first phase of the project runs from the Banks along Main and Walnut Streets to the Over-the-Rhine district, from 12th Street to McMicken Avenue, and from there into Uptown, serving Fountain Square, the Contemporary Arts Center, Findlay Market, and the Brewery District. Engineers are evaluating two alternatives for the route to Uptown. Vine Street is the path of the earlier streetcars, but there is not much land for development The other option, West Clifton Avenue, passes through a dense neighborhood of UC students, but a section may be too steep for the streetcars. The city is also considering loops within Uptown that could extend the line to a cluster of hospitals, Corryville's business district, and the zoo.
[Map: Wikipedia]

Station stops would be installed about every two blocks, and trains would average about 13 mph (21 kph). According to the proposed plan, streetcars would be operated 18 hours a day, seven days a week, with 10-minute peak headways and 20 minutes off-peak. Management, operation, and maintenance of the streetcars would be contracted out by the city. [City of Cincinnati, "Getting There: Positioning Cincinnati for Growth and Development," Oct. 2008] Planners estimate the line linking downtown wuth the Over-the-Rhine district will draw an average of 4,850 daily trips during the first year of service, not counting special events. Ridership studies have not been conducted for the extension into Uptown. The earliest a system could open would be 2011 or 2012. [The Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 April 2008]

Cincinnati streetcar line (shown here in a simulation) is envisioned to be beginning of an urban LRT network that could provide essential mobility, with nearlly 5,000 daily passenger-trips in its first year, and economic benefits ultimately 2.7 times greater than its cost.
[Graphic: Queen City Discovery]

Opponents of the streetcar proposal, the Cincinnati NAACP and a rightwing group called the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes (COAST), have succeeded in placing an anti-rail measure on the ballot for November 2009 (election day is Nov. 3rd). Its wording would require all rail projects, even a proposal to develop high-speed rail between Cincinnati and other Midwestern cities, to go before Cincinnati voters for approval before the city could move forward with them. The ballot language reads as follows:

>>
Shall the Charter of the City of Cincinnati be amended to prohibit the city, and its various boards and commissions, from spending any monies for right-of-way acquisition or construction of improvements for passenger rail transportation (e.g. a trolley or streetcar) within the city limits without first submitting the question of approval of such expenditure to a vote of the electorate of the city and receiving a majority affirmative vote for the same by enacting new Article XIV?
<<

Opponents of the measure (mainly, supporters of rail transit) accuse the sposors (i.e., adversaries of rail) of intentionally misleading the public by including the language "e.g. a trolley or streetcar" – which will likely cause many voters to think that the measure only affects streetcars, while in reality it would impact all rail projects. [Cincinnati Enquirer, 25 Aug. 2009] Some of the people who signed the petition to put the measure on the ballot later said that they found the language misleading. [WLWT- TV, 25 Aug. 2009]

Mayor Mark Mallory and eight of nine Cincinnati City Council members oppose the ballot measure. [Cincinnati Enquirer 30 Sept. 2009] There is fear in particular that a requirement for voter approval of every rail "improvement" would jeopardize or delay funding to stimulate the city's economy. As Cincinnati City Councilman Chris Bortz told the Cincinnati Enquirer [30 June 2009],

>>
You're building extra months and potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars for an election into the system. In addition, the delays caused by an election could result in losing federal matching funds for projects.
<<

The group Cincinnatians for Progress says the measure will be "anti-progress", and it objects to changing the city charter for this one issue. [The Cincinnati Enquirer, 23 June 2009] The Charter Committee, Chamber of Commerce, Cincinnatus, and the League of Women Voters have joined to form the "Coalition to Protect the City Charter" to oppose the measure, insisting that the charter should not be changed to "handcuff the city manager, the mayor, and city council on specific issues within city government." [Coalition to Protect the City Charter website] They also assert that it would be difficult for the city to move forward with any type of rail project because even planning funds would not be covered unless the voters approved a project, and the need for voters' approval would cause excessive delays. [League of Women Voters website]

If the measure passes, Cincinnati would be the second city in the USA, besides Austin, Texas, that requires a vote of approval from the public just to move forward with a rail project. Yet Cincinnati's measure would be even more restrictive than Austin's, since it would require a vote not just to approve a single new rail transit line, but to approve every single new improvement involving construction or right-of-way acquisition for any kind of rail passenger system &ndash including intercity rail passenger operations.

In an August 8th editorial, the Cincinnati Enquirer opposed the ballot measure, even though they had run an earlier editorial recommending that the streetcar project be put on hold. As the Enquirer cautioned,

>>
More deception: Finney [Chris Finney, co-founder of the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes (COAST)] claims that virtually every other city that has built a streetcar has put it to a public vote. But that's apples and oranges. Most were votes on new taxes or bond issues to fund a system – not a vote on any "right-of- way acquisition or construction of improvements," which would leave Cincinnati hamstrung, in an unenviable class by itself. ["'Poison Pill' Amendment is About Less, Not 'More'," 8 Aug. 2009]
<<

Local NAACP President Christopher Smitherman, who is leading the opposition to the streetcar plan, told the Cincinnati Examiner that he is opposed to the streetcar because it will serve mainly "downtown yuppies". [8 Oct. 2009] Actually, 48% of residents along the streetcar line do not have cars [CincyStreetcar Blog, based on US Census data], and about 45% of riders along the Phase 1 route are low-income. [HDR Decision Economics Inc., Economic Worthiness Study of Cincinnati Streetcar, 29 Aug. 2007] Furthermore, 54% of jobs in Cincinnati in 2005 were located in the downtown and uptown areas, which would be served by the streetcar. [The Brookings Institution, KMK Consulting Company, RCLCO, and Social Compact, Go Cincinnati: Growth and Opportunity Study for the City of Cincinnati, Jan. 2008]

Campaign to defeat the anti-rail referendum is supported by SORTA, the Cincinnati regional transit agency. Here, the headsign of a SORTA bus exhorts the public to "Vote No" on the anti-transit measure.
[Photo: SORTA]

The Cincinnati Department of Transportation has been holding public forums to provide information on the streetcar proposal and collect the views of the public, which is required as part of the application for federal funds. The first phase of the project is projected to cost $128 million, or $12.5 million/mile, including the track, stations, maintenance facilities, utility relocation, engineering and contingencies. The city plans to pay for it in part with local capital and other funds and Tax Increment Financing (TIF). [City of Cincinnati, “Getting There: Positioning Cincinnati for Growth and Development,” Oct. 2008] They hoped to get private investors to contribute about $57 million toward the cost, but companies have been reluctant to contribute during the recession. [The Cincinnati Enquirer, 6 Aug. 2009] The city requested $78 million from the federal government but have not yet received a response. [WLWT-TV, 21 Sept. 2009] They intend to purchase seven streetcars, at a cost of $28.7 million. Operating costs are projected at $3.5 million per year. [City of Cincinnati, “Getting There: Positioning Cincinnati for Growth and Development,” Oct. 2008]

Extension of the line into Uptown would raise the total capital cost for Phases 1 and 2 to about $185 million. In March, the City Council voted to spend $800,000 on preliminary studies required to apply for federal funds to finance the Uptown loop. [Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 April, 2008]

The city has a $28 million budget shortfall and is considering service cutbacks and layoffs. Smitherman argues that the city should spend money on services rather than building a new streetcar. However, city officials say that the money that would be spent on the streetcar is legally restricted from being used to fund programs that are threatened by the budget shortfall [Cincinnati Enquirer, 6 Aug. 2009], and the resolution passed by the City Council specifies that operating expenses can not be taken from the general fund. In addition, the city made funding the project contingent on receiving a federal grant of at least $60 million. ["'Poison Pill' Amendment is About Less, Not 'More'", Cincinnati Enquirer, 8 Aug. 2009]

Consultants conducted a feasibility study for the streetcar in 2007 looked at a proposed 3.9-mile (6.3- km), loop from the Banks, through downtown, to Over-the-Rhine. They projected that total benefits of the project over 35 years would amount to $432 million, with net benefits of $316 million. The benefits include accident and emission cost savings, trip cost savings, reductions in welfare benefits needed, and increases in commercial and residential property values. The average economic return over 35 years is expected to be 2.7 times greater than the cost of the system. [HDR Decision Economics Inc., Economic Worthiness Study of Cincinnati Streetcar, 29 Aug. 2007].

The city has been emphasizing the potential economic development benefits from building the project. Potential redevelopment of vacant and under-utilized floor space and 92 acres of parking lots along the route could generate over $1.4 billion in development benefits over fifteen years. [HDR Engineering Inc., Cincinnati Streetcar Feasibility Study, July 2007] A report commissioned by UC's Center for the City assessed the accuracy of the feasibility study and found the projections in the report to be credible. [George M. Vredeveld and Jeff Rexhausen, University of Cincinnati Economics Center for Education & Research, "An Assessment of the Cincinnati Streetcar Study", 2008].

"We've lost development deals because we have less product to show," City Manager Milton Dohoney told the Cincinnati Enquirer [23 June 2009]. "[The streetcar] would make the city more interesting to people here now and especially to those thinking of moving here" he emphasized.

The streetcar starter line is envisioned to become the core of an ultimate citywide light rail streetcar system – and that would function as just the urban component of a much larger network of metro-like and interurban light rail, regional passenger rail ("commuter rail"), and the Cincinnati-area component of a highspeed intercity rail passenger system linking Cincinnati to cities such as Cleveland and Chicago to the north and Louisville and Atlanta to the south. These possibilities are included in the Re-Envision Cincinnati map, below.
[Map: Envision Cincinnati]

Original research and narrative for this report were prepared by Research Associate Susan Pantell, and additional material and analysis have been provided by others in the LRN team.