The Transit Performance of Modern-Era Streetcars: a Consideration of Five U.S. Cities.

Ramos-Santiago, L.E., J. Brown, and H. Nixon 1

The Transit Performance of Modern-Era Streetcars: A Consideration of Five U.S. Cities 1

2

Luis Enrique Ramos (corresponding author) 3

Doctoral Candidate, Department of Urban and Regional Planning 4

Florida State University 5

Box 323062280 6

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2280 7

Tel. (850) 644-4510 / Fax. (850) 645-4841 8

E-mail: [email protected] 9

10

Jeffrey R. Brown 11

Associate Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning 12

Florida State University 13

Box 323062280 14

Tallahassee, FL 32306-2280 15

Tel. (850) 644-8519 / Fax. (850) 645-4841 16


18

Hilary Nixon 19

Associate Professor, Department of Urban and Regional Planning 20

San Jose State University 21

One Washington Square (WSQ 216D) 22

San Jose, CA 95192-0185 23

Tel. (408) 924-5852/ Fax. (408) 924-5872 24


26

27

28

4892 words text, including references 29

6 tables and 4 figures, 2500 word equivalent 30

108-word abstract 31

7500 word total 32

33

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


ABSTRACT 1

This paper examines the transit performance of streetcars in five U.S. cities, Little Rock, 2

Memphis, Portland, Seattle, and Tampa, to document strong and weak performing streetcars and 3

to identify the factors that might explain variation in streetcar performance. Portland emerges as 4

the highest ridership, most productive and second most cost effective streetcar city. The authors 5

attribute Portland’s stronger transit performance to its local setting and planning/operating 6

decisions that emphasize the streetcar’s role as both transportation investment and development 7

tool, an approach that contrasts with the other cities where development and tourism objectives 8

are the dominant factors in streetcar decision making. 9

10

Keywords: Streetcar, Ridership, Performance, United States, Transit11


INTRODUCTION 1

The streetcar, an urban transportation mode whose golden age was thought to have been 2

the period from roughly the 1890s to the 1910s, has made a remarkable resurgence in the United 3

States in recent years. In 2014, about a dozen agencies reported operating streetcar service (1). 4

Several other cities have projects under construction, while a number of others are considering 5

plans for their communities (2). 6

Despite the proliferation of projects, however, there is little research on the streetcar’s 7

transportation role. Most work has instead focused on the streetcar’s development role (3, 4). 8

Indeed much streetcar decision making revolves principally around development objectives (5). 9

However, the streetcar is fundamentally designed to move passengers; even its potential 10

development effects derive principally from its ability to provide riders with access to the 11

destinations it serves (6). Thus a better understanding of the streetcar’s transit performance is 12

needed to inform public decision making. 13

This paper examines the transit performance of streetcars in five U.S. cities: Little Rock, 14

Memphis, Portland, Seattle, and Tampa. The objective is to document strong and weak 15

performing streetcars and identify the factors that might explain variation in performance. The 16

streetcars in Portland are the strongest performers, with ridership more than 2.5 times that of the 17

second ranked city, the highest service productivity, and second-ranked cost effectiveness. The 18

authors attribute Portland’s stronger transit performance to a set of planning and operating 19

decisions about where and how to operate streetcar service, including decisions about the 20

streetcar’s location in an area with large numbers of residents and jobs, its longer alignment that 21

permits riders to reach more critical destinations, its frequent service and long service hours that 22

increase its convenience for different rider markets, and its close integration through fare policy 23

and service scheduling with other transit services. These decisions increase the ability of 24

Portland’s streetcars to serve more utilitarian transit trips and differentiate it from other cities 25

where streetcars are operated largely as tourist-serving development tools. 26

27

LITERATURE REVIEW 28

There is a limited literature on the transportation role played by streetcars in U.S. cities 29

(7, 8, 9); there is more interest in their roles as urban development tools (3, 4, 10). The 30

transportation-focused literature considers ridership, and its determinants, as well as other 31

performance indicators. Brown’s (7) review of ridership (boardings), service productivity 32

(passenger miles per revenue mile), and cost effectiveness (operating expense per boarding) in 33

seven U.S. cities (all five cities in this study plus Tacoma and New Orleans) is one such work. 34

The author found higher ridership and stronger performance in New Orleans’s older system than 35

in the modern-era systems, which he attributed to differences in urban environment and the level 36

of service integration between the streetcar and other transit modes. 37

Two other works considered ridership determinants. Foletta et al. (8) found relationships 38

between ridership (average weekday boardings) at 67 streetcar stops in Portland, Seattle, and 39

Tacoma and population and employment accessibility within 400 meters of the stop, the number 40

of transfer connections, the stop’s status as a terminal or fare-free (Portland and Tacoma only) 41

stop, and the presence of special generators such as hotels, activity centers, colleges, and 42

hospitals within 400 meters of the stop. The presence of special generators appeared to be 43

particularly important and pointed to streetcars’ role as services catering to visitors and other 44

non-commuter trips. 45

Ramos and Brown’s (9) study of seven streetcar systems and fourteen light rail systems 46


in the U.S., found that streetcar ridership (average weekday boardings) was positively related to 1

population within 400 meters of a stop and a stop’s status as either a terminal stop or bi-2

directional serving stop (i.e. service in two directions); streetcar ridership was negatively 3

associated with fares, vehicle ownership levels within 400 meters of a stop, and average block 4

size within 400 meters of a stop. But by far the strongest determinant of streetcar ridership was 5

the presence of a special generator within 400 meters of a stop; the presence of hospitals, 6

university campuses, museums, sports arenas, and the like increased ridership more than five-7

fold over what would have been expected in their absence. By contrast, the presence of such 8

special generators had only a 1.85 multiplier effect for light rail ridership. Special generators 9

were particularly important for the modern-era streetcar systems which had a much higher 10

multiplier (7.76) than the legacy systems (4.17). 11

Ramos and Brown (9) also found that streetcar ridership was not related to many 12

variables that were related to light rail ridership, including service frequency, the number of bus 13

connections, and the presence of park and ride facilities, all of which are attributes more likely to 14

be important to regular transit riders than for visitors or other occasional riders. The authors 15

hypothesized that the differences in results were a function of two different rider markets using 16

these services, with most streetcars serving a largely visitor ridership and light rail serving more 17

utilitarian users. These rider market differences might also be a function of the different planning 18

and operational decisions made for the two modes. 19

CASE SELECTION, DATA, AND METHODOLOGY 20

The study objective is to develop lessons that might inform decision making in other U.S. 21

cities that operate streetcars or are contemplating streetcar investments. The authors focused on 22

modern-era streetcars, as opposed to legacy systems, because the modern-era streetcars are more 23

like the projects being considered by other cities (2, 7). They are new transportation investments 24

inserted into an existing urban environment, as opposed to established services that have had 25

their urban environments evolve with the transportation service already in place. They also tend 26

to have had the same kinds of goals for transportation and development as are voiced by streetcar 27

proponents in other cities (3, 5). Their performance thus offers more useful lessons than could be 28

provided by examining legacy systems. 29

The authors identified five cities for study: Little Rock, Memphis, Portland, Seattle, and 30

Tampa. These were the only U.S. cities with modern-era streetcars that operated full-time, year-31

round revenue service and reported streetcar data to the National Transit Database (NTD) under 32

the streetcar mode code (SR) in 2011, the most recent year for which a full set of data were 33

available at the time the study began (11). The study omitted systems that: (1) report their 34

streetcar data as part of their light rail (LR) data; (2) classify their streetcar as a different rail 35

mode for reporting purposes; and/or (3) operate weekend, seasonal, and/or special event service, 36

as opposed to regular, all-year service. 37

The study draws on multiple data sources from each city for 2012, which is the study 38

year. Relevant data include streetcar physical attributes (and their geographic information system 39

representations) (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21), service attributes (22, 23, 24, 25, 26), 40

ridership, service productivity and cost effectiveness measures (11, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31), 41

population and employment data (32,33), and land use and development data (34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42

39, 40). The authors use these data to identify strong and poor performers as well as factors that 43

might explain variation in performance. 44

45

46


STREETCAR PHYSICAL AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS 1

The first streetcar lines in each city were opened between 1993 and 2007, with the most 2

recent line opening in late 2012 (see Table 1) (12, 13, 14, 15, 16). Two cities (Seattle and 3

Tampa) feature only a single line, two cities (Little Rock and Portland) have two lines, and one 4

city (Memphis) has three lines. The systems in Memphis and Portland are much more extensive 5

than those in the other three cities, where the streetcars function as downtown circulators (see 6

Figure 1) (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31). The cities are placed in individual map frames, 7

labelled in the following order, for each map figure: Little Rock, Memphis, Portland, Seattle, and 8

Tampa. Streetcars operate primarily in mixed-traffic environments, with Tampa being the only 9

line that operates entirely within an exclusive right-of-way. Service is operated by the local 10

transit agency, although the streetcar usually has a distinctive branding that differentiates it as a 11

special service, such as River Rail (Little Rock), The Trolley (Memphis), Portland Streetcar 12

(Portland), South Lake Union Streetcar (Seattle), or TECO Line Streetcar (Tampa). 13

14

TABLE 1 Streetcar Physical Characteristics (12, 13, 14, 15, 16) 15

16

17 18

19

Little Rock Memphis Portland Seattle Tampa

2004 1993 2001, 2012 2007 2002

$28,800,000 $104,000,000 $251,420,000 $53,100,000 $32,000,000

2 (Blue, Green)

3 (Main Street,

Riverfront,

Madison Avenue)

2 (North-South,

Central Loop)1 1

3 10 11 3 3

15 25 76 11 11

3.40 miles

(5.47 km)

7.00 miles

(11.27 km)

7.35 miles*

(11.83 km)

1.73 miles

(2.78 km)

2.70 miles

(4.35 km)

Exclusive0.40 miles

(0.64 km)

2.80 miles

(4.51 km)

0.15 miles

(0.24 km)

0.21 miles

(0.34 km)

2.70 miles

(4.35 km)

Mixed Traffic3.00 miles

(4.83 km)

4.20 miles

(6.76 km)

7.20 miles

(11.59 km)

1.52 miles

(2.45 km)0

* The alignment is 7.35 miles (11.83 kilometers) of double track, or 14.7 miles (23.66 kilometers) of single track. (email communication with Rick

Gustafson on February 5, 2014).

Number of Stations

Characteristic

Year Open

Capital Cost (unadjusted dollars)

Number of Lines

Number of Vehicles

Length

Alignment Type*


FIGURE 1 Streetcar Alignments (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31) 1

2 3

In Memphis, Seattle, and Portland, service is frequent during the peak and off-peak 4

periods, with somewhat more frequent service during the peak (see Table 2) (22, 23, 24, 25, 26). 5

Service hours are also longer. These service characteristics are similar to bus service in these 6

cities. In Little Rock and Tampa, service is less frequent, there is little, if any, difference in 7

service frequencies between peak and off-peak periods, and service begins later in the day. Little 8

Rock’s weekday service begins at 8:30 am, so streetcars do not impede vehicle traffic during the 9

morning commute, while Tampa’s streetcar does not begin service until late morning (11 am or 10

noon) each day. 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20


TABLE 2 Streetcar Operational Characteristics (22, 23, 24, 25, 26) 1

2

3 4

5

RIDERSHIP AND PERFORMANCE 6

The authors selected three primary indicators of transit performance to assess and 7

compare the cities: ridership (boardings), service productivity (riders per unit of service), and 8

cost effectiveness (operating expense per rider served). The authors examined these indicators 9

for a five year period from 2008 to 2012, with the first year selected to permit inclusion of 10

Seattle’s service that opened in late 2007. The authors focus discussion on 2012, which is the 11

study year, although a longer time horizon permits consideration of trends. For Portland, annual 12

data are only reported for 2011 and 2012, as streetcar statistics were reported as part of light rail 13

data prior to 2011. 14

Annual ridership (boardings) is reported in the top panel of Table 3 (11, 27). Ridership is 15

much higher in Portland than anywhere else, with patronage more than 2.5 times that of 16

Memphis and more than 30 times that of Little Rock. In Seattle and Memphis, ridership was 17

higher in 2012 than in 2008, while in the other three cities ridership declined during that time. 18

Service levels and performance indicators are reported in the other panels of Table 3. 19

Service is reported as revenue hours, service productivity as passenger kilometers (PKM) per 20

vehicle kilometer (VKM), and cost effectiveness as operating expense per boarding. Between 21

2008 and 2012, service declined in two cities (Memphis and Tampa) while it increased in three 22

cities (Little Rock, Portland, and Seattle). In 2012, the streetcar system in Portland was by far the 23

most productive, followed by that of Seattle. Little Rock, Memphis, and Tampa were much less 24

productive. Between 2008 and 2012, service productivity declined in Little Rock and Tampa 25

and improved in Memphis and Seattle. In 2012, cost effectiveness ranged from $2.61 per trip in 26

Memphis to $9.61 per trip in Little Rock. Between 2008 and 2012, cost effectiveness improved 27

in Memphis and Seattle and it deteriorated in the other three cities. 28

29

30

31

32

33

Characteristic Little Rock1

Memphis2

Portland3

Seattle4

Tampa5

Headways

Weekday Peak 25 minutes 10 minutes 14-17 minutes 10 minutes 20 minutes

Weekday Off-Peak 25 minutes 16 minutes 15-22 minutes 15 minutes 20 minutes

Weekend Average 25 minutes 13 minutes 17 minutes 12.5 minutes 30 minutes

Hours of Service

Monday 14 hours 17 hours 18 hours 15 hours 10 hours

Tuesday 14 hours 17 hours 18 hours 15 hours 10 hours

Wednesday 14 hours 17 hours 18 hours 15 hours 10 hours

Thursday 16 hours 17 hours 18 hours 15 hours 10 hours

Friday 17 hours 18 hours 18 hours 17 hours 15 hours

Saturday 18 hours 15 hours 16 hours 17 hours 15 hours

Sunday 7 hours 8 hours 15 hours 9 hours 8 hours


1

Table 3. Annual Ridership and Performance Indictors (2008-2012) (11, 27) 2

3 4

The authors also contrasted streetcar performance with that of local bus service. Table 4 5

reports ridership, service productivity, cost effectiveness, and operating speed (revenue 6

kilometers, RKM, per revenue hour, RH) for 2012 for streetcar and bus services in each city (11, 7

Year Little Rock Memphis Portland Seattle Tampa

2008 134,204 1,014,777 3,880,079 413,253 439,555

2009 119,758 1,113,809 3,785,553 451,203 446,743

2010 107,088 1,154,848 3,950,860 520,933 399,637

2011 136,380 1,086,125 3,788,400 714,461 358,737

2012 104,868 1,491,841 3,664,538 750,866 301,516


2008 11,992 57,742 Not Available 11,399 16,090

2009 12,087 54,561 Not Available 11,207 14,564

2010 11,848 57,742 Not Available 11,178 13,845

2011 12,535 40,448 35,241 11,509 14,423

2012 12,436 43,211 36,739 11,736 12,561


2008 3.90 2.19 Not Available 6.68 8.90

2009 3.41 2.72 Not Available 6.89 10.41

2010 3.14 2.45 Not Available 7.86 11.05

2011 4.37 2.76 18.35 10.23 8.93

2012 2.97 5.03 17.84 10.40 7.74


2008 $6.50 $4.47 Not Available $6.35 $5.04

2009 $8.03 $4.10 Not Available $5.61 $5.71

2010 $9.91 $3.96 Not Available $4.69 $6.70

2011 $7.06 $4.51 $2.07 $3.42 $6.29

2012 $9.61 $2.61 $3.24 $3.72 $5.89

Annual 2008-2012 Ridership

Service (Revenue Hours)

Cost Effectiveness ($ per trip/boarding)

Service Productivity (PKM/VKM)


27). These statistics refer to the modal total for ridership and modal average for the other 1

performance indicators. 2

3

TABLE 4 Streetcar Versus Bus Ridership and Performance (2012) (11, 27) 4

5 6

Not surprisingly due to differences in network scale, bus ridership dwarfs streetcar 7

ridership in each city. Bus service productivity also exceeds that of streetcar in every city with 8

the exception of Portland. Streetcar operating costs are lower than bus in three cities (Memphis, 9

Portland, and Seattle). Streetcar speeds are about half those of the average bus in each of the 10

cities. Given that these statistics relate to modal averages, a variety of bus services (downtown, 11

suburban, and commuter) are lumped together. It is likely that local bus services operating in the 12

same areas as the streetcar probably operate at slower speeds than the bus average, but also have 13

higher productivity and better cost effectiveness (due to higher ridership loads) than the bus 14

average. 15

Taking stock of the five cities, Portland emerges as the clear standout performer, with 16

Seattle and Memphis in the next tier, and Little Rock and Tampa at the bottom. Portland has by 17

far the highest ridership, the best service productivity, and ranks second to Memphis with respect 18

to cost effectiveness measures. Portland is also the only city where streetcar performance on both 19

service productivity and cost effectiveness bests that of the average bus. So why is it that 20

Portland is so much stronger a performer than the other four cases? 21

22

DISCUSSION OF FACTORS THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN PERFORMANCE 23

Using the literature, the authors identified five types of factors that might be related to 24

streetcar performance: alignment (length and location with respect to population covered, 25

employment covered, and special generators served), network planning (accessibility to 26

connecting transit services), fare policy (fare level, transfer policy), service policy (service 27

frequency, service duration), and rider market (seasonality of ridership). The authors suspect that 28

Portland is closest to the ideal for each factor and that variation in performance among the other 29

cities might be explained by variation in their own ranks on these factors. 30

The authors first defined an ideal condition as suggested by literature, and then ranked 31

each city from best to worst against this ideal (see Table 5). The authors assigned each city a 32

score between 1 (worst, lowest ranked) and 5 (best, highest ranked) for each factor, save for two 33

factors which were scored on a binary basis. The authors then compiled the rankings and related 34

the results back to the performance results noted earlier. Each factor is discussed in turn below. 35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Characteristic Streetcar Bus Streetcar Bus Streetcar Bus Streetcar Bus Streetcar Bus

Ridership (trips/boardings) 104,868 2,823,614 1,491,841 8,562,828 3,664,538 59,509,235 750,866 95,592,084 301,516 14,314,610

Service Productivity (PKM/VKM) 2.97 6.84 5.03 8.22 17.84 12.19 10.40 13.75 7.74 9.76

Cost Effectiveness ($ per trip) $9.61 $4.45 $2.61 $5.14 $3.24 $3.88 $3.72 $4.50 $5.89 $3.84

Speed (RKM/RH) 7.07 22.90 12.38 23.72 9.17 18.98 8.57 19.37 8.66 20.53

Little Rock Memphis Portland Seattle Tampa


TABLE 5 Streetcar Factor Matrix 1

2 3

Alignment Length 4

A longer alignment would seem to be the most desirable as it would permit riders to 5

reach a wider array of destinations (7). There are significant differences in alignment length 6

reported in Table 5 (12, 13, 14, 15, 16). Portland and Memphis have longer alignments (11.8 7

kilometers and 11.3 kilometers, respectively) than the other cases. It should be noted, of course, 8

that Portland and Memphis operate multiple streetcar lines, as does Little Rock, while Seattle and 9

Tampa operate only single streetcar lines. However, Seattle is in the process of building a new 10

streetcar line at the time of this study. Portland thus receives the highest score for this factor, and 11

Seattle receives the lowest score. 12

13

Population Covered 14

Population represents potential trip origins, so one would expect streetcars that serve 15

more people to enjoy higher ridership than those that serve fewer people (41). The authors used 16

GIS analysis to identify the population located within 400 meters of a streetcar stop. Figure 2 17

displays the results in density map form (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 32, 33). The city with the highest 18

population located near a stop receives the highest score, while the city with the lowest 19

population near a stop receives the lowest score. As reported in Table 5 Portland receives the 20

highest score as it registers the highest population served among all five cases. Its count 21

represents a two-fold difference compared to Memphis and more than 30-fold difference 22

compared to Little Rock. 23

Factors Little Rock Memphis Portland Seattle Tampa

Alignment Length 5.47 km 11.27 km 11.83 km 4.18 km 4.35 km

(in kilometers) 3 4 5 1 2

Population Covered 3,606 57,518 117,060 16,758 5,651

(number of persons within 400 meters of stop) 1 4 5 3 2

Employment Covered 1,859 24,847 64,899 10,821 3,503

(number of jobs within 400 meters of stop) 1 4 5 3 2

Transit Connections 62 296 687 120 75

(number of connecting services at stops) 1 4 5 3 2

Special Generators Served* 66 11 40 140 22

(number located within 400 meters of stop) 4 1 3 5 2

Fare Level$1 ride;

$2 day pass

$1 ride;

$3.50 day pass

$1 ride;

$5 day pass

$2.50 ride;

$5 day pass

$2.50 ride;

no day pass

(per ride and per day pass if available) 5 4 3 1 2

Transfer Policy restrictive free transferfree within 2

hoursfree transfer no free transfer

(availability of free transfers to other modes) 2 5 3 5 1

Headways 25 min. 10 min. 14-17 min. 10 min. 20 min.

(average weekday peak period) 1 5 3 5 2

Service Hours 14 hours 17 hours 18 hours 15 hours 10 hours

(average weekday) 2 4 5 3 1

Day-long Service No Yes Yes Yes No

(serves both peak periods) 0 1 1 1 0

Seasonality Yes Yes No No Yes

(monthly ridership variation by time of year) 0 0 1 1 0

Total 20 36 39 31 16

* Note: Special generators include hotels, convention centers, museums, university campuses, and other major activity centers.


1

FIGURE 2 Population Served by Streetcar Lines in Five Cities (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 32, 33) 2

3

4 5

Employment Covered 6

Employment represents trip destinations, so one would expect streetcars that serve more 7

jobs to enjoy higher ridership than those that serve fewer jobs (41). This is because employment 8

not only represents a destination for commute trips, but it also serves as a proxy for many other 9

trip destinations that are co-located with employment. The authors used GIS analysis to identify 10

the number of jobs located within 400 meters of a streetcar stop. Figure 3 displays the results in 11

density map form. Scores are assigned in the same manner as for population. As shown in Table 12

5, Portland reports the highest employment served among the five cases, with a count more than 13

double that for Memphis and more than six times that of Seattle. Tampa and Little Rock report 14

the lowest number of jobs served. 15

16

17

18

19

20

21


FIGURE 3 Employment Served by Streetcar Lines in Five Cities (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 32, 33) 1

2

3 4

Special Generators Served 5

Foletta, et al (8) and Ramos and Brown (9) noted the importance of special generators 6

such as hotels, convention centers, museums, and university campuses as explanatory factors for 7

stop-level streetcar ridership. A streetcar that provides access to more special generators should 8

thus expect to enjoy higher ridership. The authors thus used GIS analysis to calculate the number 9

of special generators located within 400 meters of a streetcar stop. The city whose streetcars 10

serve the most special generators receives the highest score. Table 5 indicates that streetcars in 11

Seattle and Little Rock serve the most special generators, and thus these cities receive the highest 12

scores. Figure 4 displays the results in map form (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 13

37, 38, 39, 40). 14

15


FIGURE 4 Special Generators Served by Streetcars (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 1

40) 2

3 4

Transit Connections 5

Research has suggested the importance of networks for ridership and performance, as 6

well-designed networks with lots of service connections allow riders to reach a wider array of 7

destinations than less connected networks (42). The authors assessed the connectedness of 8

streetcars to other transit services by tabulating the number of connections available at stops. The 9

case that has the highest number of connections receives the highest score. Table 5 reports that 10

Portland, Memphis, and Seattle have the most connections and Tampa and Little Rock have the 11

fewest. Figure 1 shown earlier gives an indication of the connectedness of the different streetcar 12

lines shown in map form. 13

14

Fare Level 15

Transit riders are sensitive to the fare charged, so one would expect ridership to be higher 16

in cases with lower fares (43). The authors considered fares for individual rides and day passes 17

where available (22, 23, 24, 25, 26). Little Rock’s low per ride fare and low pass fare stand out 18

amongst the cities, as do the much higher fares on the relatively short Tampa and Seattle lines. 19

The cities are ranked accordingly in Table 5. 20

Transfer Arrangements 21


An optimal policy would permit free transfers between services to facilitate easy rider 1

movement (42). The authors thus assessed whether streetcar riders could inexpensively move 2

between different modal services (22, 23, 24, 25, 26). Seattle and Memphis permit unrestricted 3

free transfers across their services, with a single ride fare, thus earning these cities a shared top 4

score. Portland permits free transfers within a two hour time window with a single fare, earning 5

it a middle score. Little Rock and Tampa have more restrictive transfer policies. Little Rock 6

permits free transfers from bus to streetcar but not from streetcar to bus, as streetcar fares are 7

lower than bus. Tampa only permits free transfers with the purchase of a day pass and not a 8

single ride fare. The scores can be found in Table 5. 9

10

Headways 11

Transit users are sensitive to time spent waiting for a bus or train to arrive, and one would 12

expect streetcar users to behave similarly (43). Thus, an optimal condition would be for a 13

streetcar to operate more frequent service to reduce rider wait time. The authors examined the 14

weekday peak period headways. Service is most frequent in Memphis and Seattle, and least 15

frequent in Little Rock. The cities are scored accordingly in Table 5. 16

17

Service Duration 18

The optimal service would have long hours that would allow a wider array of potential 19

trips to be served (43). At a minimum, a service should operate during peak riding hours when 20

most trips are taken. The authors considered the typical weekday service hours and ranked the 21

cities from the cases that operate the longest number of hours to those that operate the fewest. 22

Portland, Memphis, and Seattle rank in the top three positions (see Table 5). These three cases 23

are also noteworthy for offering service during both commute periods, which is not the case with 24

the Little Rock and Tampa streetcars. Little Rock’s service begins at 8:30 am on weekday 25

mornings, while Tampa’s service does not begin until 11am or noon. Thus, the latter two cases 26

completely ignore the morning commute rider market. The authors scored the cases separately 27

with respect to the number of service hours (ranked from 5 to 1) and whether or not the commute 28

periods were served (1 = Yes, 0 =No). 29

30

Seasonality of Ridership 31

The authors suspect that the streetcars with the highest ridership and strongest 32

performance are those that serve a diversity of trip types and are not dominated by tourist trips 33

(5). Because of inconsistency in rider surveys across the cases, the authors use the seasonality of 34

ridership to denote more tourist-oriented cases. The authors found no seasonal pattern to bus 35

ridership in any of the cities. Streetcar service levels are not seasonal, so any seasonal ridership 36

should be attributable to demand and not supply. Table 6 reports monthly results for 2012 (1). 37

Little Rock, Memphis, and Tampa have a much more seasonal pattern to ridership than either 38

Portland or Seattle. The authors scored Portland and Seattle as the optimal condition (score = 1), 39

because they do not have a seasonal pattern; the other cases exhibit the less optimal condition 40

due to their seasonal pattern (score = 0) (see Table 5). 41

42

43

44

45

46


TABLE 6 Monthly Ridership on Streetcars (2012) (1) 1

2

3 4

5

DISCUSSION 6

The final scores on all the factors are shown at the bottom of Table 5. Portland emerges 7

as the city whose streetcar system was planned and operates closest to the ideal suggested by the 8

literature (total of 39 points out of 47 possible), followed by Memphis (36 points) and Seattle (31 9

points). Tampa and Little Rock emerge with the lowest scores (16 points and 20 points, 10

respectively). The two sets of cities rank similarly on the factor assessment as they do on the 11

ridership and performance measures noted earlier in Table 3. Portland, Memphis, and Seattle are 12

the better performers and Little Rock and Tampa the weaker performers on the ridership and 13

transit performance measures. Portland’s emergence at the top of the point scale echoes its 14

performance as the highest ridership, most productive and second most cost effective system. 15

A critical difference between Portland and the other cities is that planners and 16

policymakers explicitly thought about the streetcar as both a transportation service and a 17

development tool when they made decisions about the service. Key informant interviews with 18

transit planners and other streetcar observers in all five cities revealed that the emphasis placed 19

on both transportation and other objectives sets Portland noticeably apart from Little Rock and 20

Tampa, where key informants viewed the streetcars entirely as tourism and development tools, 21

and to a lesser degree from Memphis and Seattle where informants considered the streetcars as 22

primarily development tools and attributed a much lesser status to their transportation role (5). 23

According to the key informants, conceiving of the streetcar as both a transportation and 24

development tool meant that Portland’s streetcar planners paid attention to the things that 25

mattered for ridership, as well as those that mattered for development, when they made decisions 26

about the alignment location, the service levels, and how well the streetcar connects to other 27

transit services in the community. They attempted to make the streetcar attractive to more than 28

merely tourist riders (5). The evidence suggests that they’ve been successful doing so. 29

Portland isn’t perfect in how it planned or operates its streetcars but it is much closer to 30

the ideal than the other cities. Portland now receives significant attention for its streetcar’s 31

purported role in economic development, but this study suggests that more might be learned 32

Month Little Rock Memphis Portland Seattle Tampa

January 5,236 74,306 275,340 52,257 33,378

February 5,049 83,680 264,540 53,828 26,895

March 13,650 140,217 334,810 59,118 39,205

April 11,506 136,711 318,980 59,778 25,213

May 16,536 182,956 330,530 64,337 22,071

June 10,420 154,976 308,650 66,623 22,546

July 10,221 157,432 312,300 73,888 23,583

August 7,310 150,602 320,100 72,004 17,328

September 5,915 114,425 315,680 64,966 18,238

October 5,855 118,069 338,040 66,392 28,220

November 5,589 93,205 322,000 60,077 19,373

December 7,531 85,262 294,750 57,620 25,466


from how Portland approaches decisions related to its streetcar’s role as transportation. Other 1

cities that now operate streetcar services and communities contemplating their own streetcar 2

investment might learn a great deal by better understanding the lessons learned from Portland’s 3

experience. 4

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6

The authors thank the staffs of the case study streetcar operating entities for their 7

assistance with data collection for this study. The authors thank Nicholas Stewart for his 8

assistance with the exhibits prepared for this paper. Finally, the authors thank the Mineta 9

Transportation Institute at San Jose State University for their generous financial support of this 10

work. 11

12

REFERENCES 13

1. Monthly Module Adjusted Data Release for May 2014. Federal Transit Administration. 14

http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/MonthlyData/May%202014%20Adju15

sted%20Database.xls. Accessed July 21, 2014. 16

2. American Public Transportation Association. APTA Streetcar and Heritage Trolley 17

Site, 2014. http://www.heritagetrolley.org/PlannedSystems.htm. Accessed July 21, 2014. 18

3. Golem, R., and J. Smith-Heimer. Relationships between Streetcars and the Built 19

Environment: A Synthesis of Transit Practice. Transit Cooperative Research 20

Program Synthesis 86, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 21

Washington, DC, 2010. 22

4. Hovee, E., and R. Gustafson. Streetcar-Development Linkage: The Portland Streetcar 23

Loop. Conference Paper. Shiels Obletz Johnsen Inc., 2012. 24

5. Brown, J., H. Nixon, and L. E. Ramos. The Purpose, Function, and Performance of 25

Streetcar Transit in the Modern U.S. City: A Multiple Case Study Investigation. Research 26

Report, Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, California, 2014. 27

6. Levinson, D., and E. Istrate. Access for Value: Financing Transportation 28

Through Land Value Capture. Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative Series, Brookings 29

Institution, Washington D.C., 2011. 30

7. Brown, J. The Modern Streetcar in the US: An Examination of Its Ridership, 31

Performance, and Function as a Public Transportation Mode. Journal of Public 32

Transportation, 16 (4), 2013, pp. 43-61. 33

8. Foletta, N., N. Vanderwaak, and B. Grandy. Factors that Influence Urban 34

Streetcar Ridership in the United States. Transportation Research Record 2353, 35

Washington D.C., 2013, pp.92-99. 36

9. Ramos-Santiago, L. E., and J. Brown. A Comparative Assessment of the 37

Factors Associated with Station-Level Streetcar versus Light Rail Transit Ridership in the 38

United States. Working Paper, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida 39

State University, 2014. 40

10. Grether, P., J. Weidman, and J. Anders. Streetcar Implementation Policy Analysis: 41

A Survey and Observations of Streetcar Institutional Structures. Presented at the 12th 42

National Conference on Light Rail and Streetcars, Salt Lake City, Utah, 2012. 43

11. Florida Department of Transportation. Florida Transit Information System Access for 44

National Transit Database. http://www.ftis.org . Accessed July 26, 2013. 45

12. Central Arkansas Transit Authority. River Rail, 2013. http://www.cat.org/river-rail. 46


Accessed July 29, 2013. 1

13. Memphis Area Transit Authority. Trolley Services, 2012. 2

http://www.matatransit.com/services/trolleys. Accessed September 25, 2012. 3

14. Smatlak, John. 2013. Portland. 4

http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/portland.htm. Accessed July 29, 5

2013. 6

15. Smatlak, John. 2013. Seattle. 7

http://www.railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/seattle_union.htm. Accessed July 29, 8

2013. 9

16. TECO Line Streetcar. TECO Line Streetcar Website, 2013. www.tecoinestreetcar.org 10

Accessed October 2, 2013. 11

17. Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA). “GIS Shapefiles for CATA bus routes, 12

River Rail streetcar line, and River Rail streetcar stops.” Provided by Central Arkansas 13

Transit Authority staff, May 2014. 14

18. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART). “Transit Network Shapefiles, 2012.” 15

http://www.gohart.org/about/data_download/data_download.html. Accessed October 2, 16

2012. 17

19. King County Metro. “GIS Shapefiles of Transit System, 2012.” Provided by Rob 18

Coughlin on May 14, 2013. 19

20. Tri-Met (Portland). “Portland Transit Shapefiles, 2012.” Provided by Ken Zatarain of 20

Tri-Met on February 20, 2013. 21

21. Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA). “GIS Shapefiles for Local Transit System, 22

2012.” Provided by MATA Staff. 23

22. Central Arkansas Transit Authority. How to Ride 2013. http://www.cat.org/river-24

rail/how-to-ride. Accessed July 29, 2013. 25

23. Memphis Area Transit Authority. Maps and Schedules, 2012. 26

http://www.matatransit.com/mapsandschedules/main-street-line/. Accessed September 27

25, 2012. 28

24. Portland Streetcar. Streetcar Schedule, 2012. http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/node/3. 29

Accessed September 25, 2012. 30

25. Seattle Streetcar. Seattle Streetcar, 2012. http://www.seattlestreetcar.org/default.htm. 31

Accessed September 25, 2012. 32

26. TECO Line Streetcar. TECO Line Streetcar Website, 2013. www.tecolinestreetcar.org. 33

Accessed October 2, 2013. 34

27. Federal Transit Administration. National Transit Database Agency Profiles for 35

2012. http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/profiles/2012/agency_profiles. 36

Accessed January 29, 2014. 37

28. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART). “Average Weekday Boardings by Station 38

(2012).” Provided by Steve Feigenbaum on October 2, 2012. 39

29. King County Metro (Seattle). “Average Weekday Boardings by Stop (2012).” Provided 40

by Rob Coughlin on May 14, 2013. 41

30. Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA). “Average Weekday Boardings by Stop 42

(2012).” Provided by John Lancaster on October 31, 2012. 43

31. Tri-Met (Portland). “Average Weekday Boardings by LRT Station and Streetcar Stop 44

(2012).” Provided by Ken Zatarain of Tri-Met on February 20, 2013. 45

32. U.S. Census Bureau. Block Group and Tract GIS Shapefiles. http://www.census.gov/cgi-46


bin/geo/shapefiles2012/main. Accessed April 11, 2014. 1

33. U.S. Census Bureau. Socioeconomic Data by Block Group and by Tract. 2

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Accessed April 11, 2014. 3

34. Arkansas Geographic Information Office - GeoStor 6.0 (Arkansas Official GIS 4

Platform). Cultural, Society, Demography, Libraries, Museums, and Historic places 5

point features. http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Advanced%20Search.html# . 6

Accessed February 7, 2014. 7

35. City of Seattle. “Building Outlines (2009).” 8

https://data.seattle.gov/dataset/2009-Building-Outlines/y7u8-vad7. Accessed June 13, 9

2014. 10

36. CIVICAPPS for Greater Portland. “Building Footprints: Portland (2014).” 11

http://www.civicapps.org/datasets/. Accessed February 7, 2014. 12

37. CIVICAPPS for Greater Portland. “Tri-Met Transit Centers/Hospitals/Libraries/Schools 13

(2014).” http://www.civicapps.org/datasets/. Accessed February 7, 2014. 14

38. Pulaski County Assessor’s Office. “Building footprints polygon shapefile (2014).” 15

Provided by James Meyer, Director of GIS. Accessed February 27, 2014. 16

39. Shelby County (Tennessee). “2013 Landmarks.” Provided by Richard Stieg, GISP GIS 17

Coordinator, Shelby County ReGIS, FedEx Institute of Technology, University of 18

Memphis. Accessed January 23, 2014. 19

40. Meyer, M. D., and E. Miller. Transportation Planning: A Decision-Oriented Approach. 20

McGraw-Hill, New York, 2001. 21

41. Mees, P. Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age. Earthscan, London and 22

Washington, 2010. 23

42. Balcombe, R., R. Mackett, N. Paulley, J. Preston, J. Shires, H. Titheridge, M. Wardman, 24

and P. White. The Demand for Public Transport, A Practical Guide. TRL Report 593. TRL-25

Transport Research Laboratory, Berks, 2004. 26

The Transit Performance of Modern-Era Streetcars: a Consideration of Five U.S. Cities.

Documents

Transcript of The Transit Performance of Modern-Era Streetcars: a Consideration of Five U.S. Cities.