Late to this discussion but I agree that the streetcar was poorly conceived. I lean towards keeping it just because the infrastructure exists, but would be happy to change my mind if I saw data that made it clear beeline rail would happen more quickly or more affordably without the streetcar connection.
I also think branding will matter a lot for beltline rail. I think 'Streetcar' carries a lot of unnecessary negative connotation that 'tram' doesn't have. 'light rail' is pretty good but may be good to avoid on this project too since a lot of the NIMBY argument against beltline rail seems to be about the noise it'll produce or how pedestrian infrastructure would be better. I think good messaging here can emphasize that an at-grade tram can serve as a walking accelerator without being a loud eye-sore or replacing pedestrian infrastructure.
I view the streetcar's purpose differently than the way I believe you are seeing it, according to your article. (If I understand it correctly)
To wit: I don't think the streetcar should be expected to be a catalyst for urban development - at all. In fact, I'd be surprised if it were.
Instead, I think transportation modes should do the opposite - totally go where the people already are. Especially expensive transportation modes - and even more especially, modes that aren't free-flowing like cars on roads, but are locked into a small loop as the streetcar is.
The fact that it goes in a circle and isn't connected to other modes just adds to that sense of it being, to me, an island - not a catalyst for anyone to come in and put money into developing a site along the route.
No, absolutely not -- I don't expect the streetcar to be a catalyst for development at all. And I don't believe the claims I've seen from the city (largely during the Reed administration) that the streetcar caused billions of dollars of investments nearby.
Quite the opposite. I believe that city leaders need to be intentional about development here *because* the streetcar in itself will not spur it.
The streetcar's presence has served as a kind of spotlight on its surrounding area, highlighting the gross amount of disused land in the center of the city.
That land needed to be used in a more Downtown-appropriate way anyway. But the presence of the streetcar amplifies that need, since we've invested our precious, limited transit funds in this route.
In short, the land-use needs to do a better job of supporting rail transit by way of a density of uses and an absence of dead spaces. City leaders should pool efforts to ensure this.
IIRC the model for this was supposed to have been Portland, OR. Ever been to Portland? There are zillions of streetcars. They go everywhere. They are supplemented by shuttles that fill in the between areas. Everything is cheap and fast and effective.
The TIGER grant thesis of “build it and they will come” was misguided from the start. Business and investment are attracted to riders, people, and dollars not tracks in the ground.
Late to this discussion but I agree that the streetcar was poorly conceived. I lean towards keeping it just because the infrastructure exists, but would be happy to change my mind if I saw data that made it clear beeline rail would happen more quickly or more affordably without the streetcar connection.
I also think branding will matter a lot for beltline rail. I think 'Streetcar' carries a lot of unnecessary negative connotation that 'tram' doesn't have. 'light rail' is pretty good but may be good to avoid on this project too since a lot of the NIMBY argument against beltline rail seems to be about the noise it'll produce or how pedestrian infrastructure would be better. I think good messaging here can emphasize that an at-grade tram can serve as a walking accelerator without being a loud eye-sore or replacing pedestrian infrastructure.
I view the streetcar's purpose differently than the way I believe you are seeing it, according to your article. (If I understand it correctly)
To wit: I don't think the streetcar should be expected to be a catalyst for urban development - at all. In fact, I'd be surprised if it were.
Instead, I think transportation modes should do the opposite - totally go where the people already are. Especially expensive transportation modes - and even more especially, modes that aren't free-flowing like cars on roads, but are locked into a small loop as the streetcar is.
The fact that it goes in a circle and isn't connected to other modes just adds to that sense of it being, to me, an island - not a catalyst for anyone to come in and put money into developing a site along the route.
No, absolutely not -- I don't expect the streetcar to be a catalyst for development at all. And I don't believe the claims I've seen from the city (largely during the Reed administration) that the streetcar caused billions of dollars of investments nearby.
Quite the opposite. I believe that city leaders need to be intentional about development here *because* the streetcar in itself will not spur it.
The streetcar's presence has served as a kind of spotlight on its surrounding area, highlighting the gross amount of disused land in the center of the city.
That land needed to be used in a more Downtown-appropriate way anyway. But the presence of the streetcar amplifies that need, since we've invested our precious, limited transit funds in this route.
In short, the land-use needs to do a better job of supporting rail transit by way of a density of uses and an absence of dead spaces. City leaders should pool efforts to ensure this.
IIRC the model for this was supposed to have been Portland, OR. Ever been to Portland? There are zillions of streetcars. They go everywhere. They are supplemented by shuttles that fill in the between areas. Everything is cheap and fast and effective.
Ours is so half assed. Of course it's a failure.
The TIGER grant thesis of “build it and they will come” was misguided from the start. Business and investment are attracted to riders, people, and dollars not tracks in the ground.
She’s right.