|
The Cincinnati Beacon
A Streetcar Named Boondoggle
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Posted by Michael Earl Patton
A few days ago I took the opportunity to see the presentation at City Hall for the proposed new streetcar line from Fountain Square to Findlay Market and back. The line was hyped as being a catalyst for growth, and the backers estimated strong growth here based on five other cities. The projected cost was $84 million to $102 million, depending upon if construction were to start now or in a couple years. Examination of the data showed that the hyperbole was like that of a circus barker and the cost was extreme.
Here are the data, as given on a chart at the presentation, of the number of new housing units that were developed because of a new streetcar line. These housing units are within a certain distance of the new line, and not just anyplace within the city.
Portland (Oregon): 1,500 new housing units/yr
Tampa: 175/yr
Little Rock: 216/yr
Tacoma: 206/yr
Kenosha: 68/yr
Cincinnati (estimated): 314/yr
One wonders why the cities chosen are all far from Cincinnati. Why wasn’t there a comparison with, for example, Memphis, with its streetcar line? Note also that Portland stands way above every other city and pulls up the whole average. Is there something other than a new streetcar line that may explain this?
PORTLAND
Actually, there is. Portland is known for its restrictions on sprawl. Even before the streetcar, Portland was praised for increasing its urban density because of Urban Growth Boundaries, beyond which housing development was tightly restricted. So people built new housing in Portland because there were few other options.
From U.S. Census Bureau data (http://www.census.gov) we see solid growth during the ‘90’s, that is before the streetcar line was built. The density, that is, the number of people living in the city per square mile, went up by a robust 12%.
1990: 3,508.1 people per square mile
2000: 3,939.2 per square mile
This means tens of thousands of people were already coming to Portland, looking for a place to live. They did not come to Portland because of the streetcar—they had been coming for years before the streetcar line was completed in 2001. At best one can claim that they came to the area served by the streetcar line instead of some other area. But they probably would have come to Portland in any event.
Cincinnati is different. It is losing population. More people are leaving than coming. There are plenty of places on the market for newcomers.
So if Portland were removed, then the chart would look like this:
Tampa: 175 new housing units/yr
Little Rock: 216/yr
Tacoma: 206/yr
Kenosha: 68/yr
Cincinnati: 314/yr
What a minute! How can the estimate for Cincinnati be so much above all the other cities? 314 new housing units per year? The average of the above cities is only 166, about half as much. Except for Kenosha, the systems all cover about the same area (some have single-track lines, but the area covered is still about the same), so that doesn’t explain the difference.
LITTLE ROCK
The next most “successful” city is Little Rock, which completed a system in 2004. Their system cost $20 million for a 2-mile line in 2003; the proposed Cincinnati system will cost about $100 million for a 4-mile line. Their cars cost $750,000 each; ours will cost $3.5 million each. It is also noteworthy that their system crosses the Arkansas River to connect Little Rock with North Little Rock.
Another thing worth noting about the Little Rock streetcar system is that a short extension, built after the initial system was constructed, goes to the Clinton Presidential Library. This library cost $168 million, opened in 2004 (the year after the streetcar line opened), and is a tourist attraction in its own right. The streetcar did not cause the presidential library to locate in Little Rock—if anything, it was the other way around. Once again, the comparison is between apples and oranges.
Although Little Rock had been growing in population during the 1990’s, it had accomplished this by annexation of surrounding areas. The population density had been going down. From U.S. Census Bureau data:
1990: 1709.1 people per square mile
2000: 1576.0 per square mile
Of the examples given, Little Rock probably comes the closest to Cincinnati. It is these two that have been experiencing urban flight. Both are separated from another urban area by a major river.
But Little Rock built its system to connect the area across the river, quite unlike the Cincinnati plan. It also cost much, much less than the Cincinnati proposal. Finally, growth may have been the result of the Presidential Library, not the streetcar.
TACOMA
The next most “successful” story is Tacoma, Washington. Unlike Cincinnati, Tacoma’s population has been growing. Here are the recent population density data:
1990: 3676.9 people per sq. mile
2000: 3864.9 per sq. mile
Tacoma’s streetcar line opened in 2003. Lots of growth was happening in Tacoma even before the streetcar opened, and it is too much to say that the streetcar line caused the growth. Another difference between Tacoma and Cincinnati is that their line connects several destinations that have a high number of visitors and users: the commuter rail station with the Tacoma campus of the University of Washington, the museum district, and the theater district.
A final difference is that the Tacoma line isn’t really a streetcar line, but a light rail line. It has fewer stops per mile and is more like a train than a streetcar.
TAMPA
The NEXT most successful city is Tampa. Here, too, the city had been enjoying solid growth before the streetcar service started.
1990: 2576.6 people per square mile
2000: 2707.8 per square mile
The Tampa streetcar service started in 2002. Given the fact that there was solid growth in the decade before, it is too much to attribute further growth to the streetcar. It probably would have happened anyways. But two things to note: 1) 62% of the capital costs (track, construction, and cars) were funded by the state and federal government, NOT by local taxpayers, and 2) the hours of operation start at 9 o’clock in the morning or even later, which means that this is a streetcar line for tourists.
(An officer of the court told me recently that he’s heard a saying from some of the inmates: “You enter Cincinnati on vacation and leave on probation.” It’s not likely that Cincinnati will grow its tourist industry anytime soon.)
KENOSHA
The claim for Kenosha, Wisconsin, was an improvement of only 68 housing units per year. That is due to the Harbor Park development that was planned in conjunction with the streetcar line. In other words, the streetcar line did not cause the development of the housing units—they were planned before the streetcar line was built.
There are other things to note about it. The Kenosha system was built for much less than the others , even adjusting for inflation and its shorter length. It also has its own right-of-way for much of its length so it does not compete with traffic there. The proposed Cincinnati line would run completely in the street and partially block traffic every time it stopped to pick up or drop off passengers. Finally, most of the capital costs were funded by the state and federal government.
CONCLUSIONS
The examples given by the streetcar proponents are not evidence that the proposed line from Fountain Square to Findlay Market will spur development. In 3 of the 5 cases cited the cities had strong growth even before the streetcar line was installed.
In Kenosha, Wisconsin, the streetcar line was installed in conjunction with a large development. It also cost far less than Cincinnati’s line would, even adjusting for inflation.
In Little Rock, perhaps the closest to Cincinnati’s situation, the streetcar line was built while the Clinton Presidential Library was being designed and built. Further, the line connects two downtown areas across the Arkansas River from each other. It goes to a convention center and the library. A similar line in Cincinnati would connect the Kentucky entertainment district with Cincinnati’s Fountain Square and perhaps the Red Stadium and the Convention Center. Which is totally different that the line being proposed. The
Little Rock line also cost far less than the Cincinnati line would.
Conclusion: the streetcar line as proposed should be called the Boondoggle Line.
|