Put Providence streetcar in proper context


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

pvd streetcarI have many points of agreement with Barry Schiller’s post on a potential Providence streetcar, but my disagreements are serious enough to be worth writing about.

Barry is right to raise concern about whether the Providence streetcar is the best use of our funds. Streetcars do cost more than buses, and they don’t necessarily upgrade service. The main features that make transit better–a train or bus having its own right-of-way, having signal priority, having an off-board payment system, all-door-boarding, and frequent service–may or may not be present with rail. Many Americans express a strong preference for rail because oftentimes the rail options they’re familiar with have these features, while the bus lines they’ve been on usually have not.

A subway in New York, for instance, has its own tracks, and never gets caught in traffic. Trolleys in the Philadelphia suburbs (and I believe many of the Green Line Ts in Boston) control intersections, so that when they come to a crossing the cars have to stop and they proceed. When you pay to get on a subway or some stops of a trolley, you often will pay through a turnstile, so that when the vehicle arrives you can just get on (using all doors). There are even upgrades that can happen to subways along these lines. The frequent problem of passengers bunching up on the middle cars of a subway is now being solved by putting stretchy accordion-like connections between the cars so that passengers can spread out and reduce boarding delays.

The Providence streetcar, as currently planned, currently has none of these features (If you need convincing still on why it should have them, read this “Dissent of the Week” in Human Transit, about the Washington, D.C. trolleys).

I have criticized the streetcar, but I am currently a proponent of moving forward on it. There are several reasons for this:

Our time is better spent fighting for good service features than fighting whether or not to have a streetcar. While there are many really bright transit-supporters who have legitimate complaints about the Providence streetcar, many of the people who are against streetcars are fighting them for totally different reasons than Barry (or me).

The right has long proposed busing as a way to supplant the greater costs of rail projects, but when cities have recently attempted to take them up on it by building quality BRT routes, the Koch Brothers have banded together with state governments to stand in the way of city planners in cities like Nashville, Tennessee. I’m concerned that we’ll have a pyrrhic victory if we block the streetcar, because it won’t necessarily mean that we’re going to get the money that was for the Streetcar given to us for buses instead. We can grow the strength of smart critics while giving no quarter to anti-transit folks by supporting the streetcar, and simply demanding better service patterns as part of it. We shouldn’t be passive about this–we need to fight! But let’s pick our battles.

Short routes in dense areas are okay. One big criticism of the streetcar you hear is that it’s not long enough. I don’t agree with this one. The comprehensiveness of our transit system is definitely a problem, but it’s not because of length of routes. In fact, Rhode Island has a tendency to run infrequent “coverage” routes to places where they can’t reasonably pick up large riderships, and often those routes connect from parking lot to parking lot in highly un-walkable, sprawly areas. I’m not even talking about little villages or whatnot, which I think should get transit because of their walkability even though they have low population counts. I’m talking about routes like the 54 that loop through multiple parking lots off of highway exit ramps, and as a result are bad connectors between their main urban locations–Providence and Woonsocket (RIPTA addressed the long travel time of the 54 by removing the urban stops along Charles St. and making them a separate route, the 51, but kept the suburban Tour-de-Parking-Lot stops, which just makes me smack my face with my palm every time). A short PVD Streetcar is not perfect. It should go from Central Falls (or at least Pawtucket) to the Cranston border. But the area that was chosen is a dense and walkable area with many trips that need to be covered. In fact, I think the choice to shorten the route and run it north-south between the Upper South Side and the T station is a great idea, because it makes more sense in the long-term to route a PVD Streetcar up N. Main and down through the S. Side and update the R-Line, with a separate route pulling east-west duty from Olneyville to East Providence). Pro-car thinkers (and even a lot of very earnest transit supporters look at a map and see the length of lines), but what matters is the frequency of those lines, not their length.

Streetcars are not the most expensive transportation choice we have. I agree, in principle, and spent quite a long time talking about the fact that Bus Rapid Transit is a better investment idea than the streetcar, and I know that Barry agrees. But I also know that Barry will agree with me that the streetcar is certainly not the most expensive transportation option we have. The 6/10 Connector, for instance, won’t cost $100 million, but $500 million, and unlike the streetcar–the worst of which I think can be said that it will provide mediocre service–the 6/10 Connector will pull neighborhoods apart and absolutely get in the way of sustainable development. The 6/10 Connector is small potatoes compared to some of the highway-oriented crap that gets built around the country, but it actually costs the same as the entire TIGER grant program for the whole United States. So given the fact that RIDOT may imminently decide to throw a bond issue out, or grasp for federal money, in order to rebuild 6/10, I think our time is better spent fighting that abysmal attack on our landscape than trying to stop a mediocre project.

south-lake-2

It can get better. A lot of cities have tried streetcars in part because of the Obama administration’s efforts to kick-start them through the TIGER grant program (which also pays for biking and walking improvements), and some of those streetcars have done quite poorly. One such example was Seattle, which built several of them, and saw ridership goals unmet. The Seattle streetcars were sitting in mixed traffic, getting caught at lights, waiting for people to pay with dollar bills at the door, and just generally sucking in every way that a bus does. So Seattle is now working to change the streetcars so that they have rights-of-way, signal priority, and all-door boarding so that they can be highly efficient transit. Providence should build these features into the PVD Streetcar now, but even if it doesn’t we can make the city do it later.

Remember, the Streetcar has a lot wrong with it. But we can make it better. And most importantly, we have bigger fish to fry.

~~~~

Should Providence build a streetcar line?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
pvd streetcar
Artist’s rendering of a PVD streetcar. Click on the image for plans from the city.

A streetcar, or a “trolley” running on tracks in the street, might be in the works for Providence. Last year the city received a $13 million “TIGER” grant from the US DOT for preliminary work on a streetcar line. It was recently reported that the city was indeed seeking proposals for its planning and engineering. But in December 2014 its proposed route, originally to go from near RI Hospital to the East Side, was changed so that the streetcar would not go through the tunnel to the East Side but instead terminate at the train station. This reduces the length from 2.1 to 1.6 miles and the projected cost from about $117 to $100 million. About 2,900 daily riders was projected.

To fund the full construction, the city may consider issuing about $50 million in bonds, to be paid back by a “TIF” that is, tax increment financing whereby taxes on the enhanced property values in the area that the streetcar is expected to generate will be used to repay the bonds. The project would still need another $30 million or so to be fully funded. If the enhanced property taxes do inadequately materialize, the city would still have to pay back the bonds.

Apparently Mayor Jorge Elorza and Council President Luis Aponte think this is a good bet. Reportedly, Mr. Aponte believed further federal funding is likely as Providence is the only New England city seeking to build a streetcar. I’ll note the next round of TIGER grant applications to are due in June but I’m not aware of any public input into what the city or state apply for.

Reactions to the streetcar are mixed. City leaders and other supporters believe it will spur economic growth and jobs by attracting developers, entrepreneurs and millennials and there is some evidence that this can happen as developers like the assurance that tracks in the streets provide. There will be construction jobs as this is built. Further, there are environmental benefits to electrified transportation, especially as sustainable generation increases. And this can be the basis for a larger system of electric streetcars to serve many more communities.

However, costs are high. There are both relatively few residents along the route, and relatively few commuters coming to Providence by train, though both are expected to increase. Many considering a streetcar trip can walk instead, especially with $2 fare even for short trips. Besides the still unfunded capital costs, estimated operating deficits remain about $3.2 million/year, adding significantly to RIPTA’s deficit projections.

Thus, there is concern that a streetcar could come at the expense of some bus service. The streetcar route has much overlap with bus routes that serve the train station and the jewelry district. While no buses actually now go directly from the rail station to the hospitals, this will change when the new bus hub by the train station that voters already approved is implemented. RIPTA could also simply try a shuttle bus between the rail station and hospitals to check on the demand.

So it could be an economic boon or a costly failure.  The Providence City Council Finance Committee is holding a hearing on authorizing a TIF district for this project 6pm on Thursday, May 14.   It may be the only opportunity to weigh in with your suggestions.

Barry Schiller, former RIPTA Board member and long-time transit advocate, can be reached at bschiller@localnet.com

More RIPTA routes aren’t always better for transit


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Human Transit by Jarrett Walker leads us to some unexpected conclusions about RIPTA

At Transport Providence, we evaluate the book Human Transit by Portland, Oregon planner Jarrett Walker.  We ask whether perhaps RIPTA should cut some routes, and question whether the streetcar plan is really the best option for transit in Providence.  We welcome people to debate in the comments section.

Walker says:

Transit debates. . . suffer form the fact that today, in most of our cities, most of our decision makers are motorists.  No matter how much you support transit, driving a car every day can shape your thinking in powerful, subconscious ways.  For example, in most debates about proposed rapid transit lines, the speed of the proposed service gets more political attention than how frequently it runs, even though frequency, which determines waiting time, often matters more than speed in determining how long your trip will take. Your commuter train system will advertise that it can whisk you into the city in 39 minutes, but if the train comes only once every 2 hours and you’ve just missed one, your travel time will be 159 minutes, so it may be faster to drive, or even walk.

Check out more here. And here’s an excerpt from my post:

…on the West End, we have the 92, the 27, and the 19, and any one of these could be used to get to Downcity–and in fact, these are just the routes I happen to use sometimes.  I’m fairly sure there are even more.

On the map, this looks like lots of options. In reality, none of these options is good though, because they’re all infrequent and unreliable.  The 92 moves at glacial pace through Atwells Avenue traffic, while the other two, although faster, are still fairly infrequent.  It’s like a Sophie’s choice trying to decide whether to risk missing one route for the other, especially when on any given day the schedule may not even hold to be true.