Michael Earl Patton on Streetcar Boondoggle

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.

Two other cities on the list also experienced strong growth in the 1990's, that is, before the streetcar line went in -- Tacoma and Tampa. So it is too much to attribute their growth to a new streetcar line. Tacoma's line, in any event, isn't really a streetcar line. It is more like "light rail," that is, a short passenger train. Tampa's streetcar line operates on hours that show it is meant for the tourist business, so it, too, doesn't compare to the Cincinnati proposal.

LITTLE ROCK The one city which roughly compares to Cincinnati 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. It is only these two cities -- Cincinnati and Little Rock -- that have been experiencing urban flight in the examples given. Also, both are separated from another urban area by a major river.

But Little Rock built its system to connect the areas across the river from each other, 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.

KENOSHA The claim for Kenosha, Wisconsin, was an improvement of only 68 housing units per year. That is due to the new housing units that were actually planned to be built 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.

Some cities, notably Kenosha and Little Rock, constructed lines that cost far less per mile than what the Cincinnati line would cost. They also used federal funding for a major portion of the costs.

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, downtown hotels, and the Convention Center. This is a totally different concept than the line being proposed. The Cincinnati line would extend to areas that would not generate traffic until years later; a line connecting Cincinnati downtown with Northern Kentucky would connect areas that already are frequently visited. It would serve an immediate need -- people could stay in a hotel, go to the convention center during the day, and visit Fountain Square or Northern Kentucky in the evening. No need to rent a car just to go across the river. Such a system (it doesn't have to be a streetcar!) would also be conducive to the festivals that are done along or near either riverfront.

Conclusion: the streetcar line as proposed should be called the Boondoggle Line.

Note: A longer version of this post with additional links, called "A Streetcar Named Boondoggle," is at the Cincinnati Beacon website, www.cincinnatibeacon.com