Transportation Systems Casebook/Arlington Streetcar

Summary

Improving public transit along Columbia Pike has been a priority for Arlington County since the late 1990s. This is due to several key factors facing Arlington (and Fairfax as well). Columbia Pike is expected to experience significant growth in both population (projected to increase by 21 percent from 2010 to 2030) and employment (projected to increase by 23 percent).

To accommodate this expected growth – and in accordance with Arlington County’s stated policy against expanding automobile capacity and major new street capacity – the County began considering Arlington Streetcar as one alternative among several in 2005. The Arlington Streetcar is only one component of a larger streetcar system that also involves a Fairfax component. In fact, the Streetcar stretches from the Skyline area of Fairfax County to Pentagon City in Arlington County.

This case study provides an overview of the Arlington Streetcar project, including a timeline of key events, actors, history and background, and examines the major policy issues analyzed by local decision-makers to evaluate and decide on the Streetcar as the locally preferred alternative.

Timeline of Events

• January 1998 - Columbia Pike Initiative Begins
• March 2002 - Columbia Pike Initiative Plan Unveiled
• December 2002 - Revitalization District Expanded
• February 2003 - Commercial Form Based Code Adopted
• February 2004 - Street Planning Task Force Shares Recommendations
• July 2005 - Modified Streetcar Alternative Recommended
• January 2006 - Counties (Arlington and Fairfax) Agree on Streetcar Plan
• January 2009 - Environmental Assessment Conducted
• October 2010 - VDOT Transfers Columbia Pike to Arlington
• July 2012 - Neighborhoods Area Plan Adopted - Streetcar Named Locally Preferred Alternative
• March 2014 - Streetcar Return on Investment Study
• May 2014 - Arlington and Fairfax County choose Parsons Transportation Group for streetcar program management team
• May 2014 - Arlington County released updated ridership forecasts
• July 2014 - Arlington County Board approved a $2.7-billion 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Fiscal Years 2015-2024, including $268,121,000 for streetcar project.
• July 2014 - Virginia DOT Increases Streetcar Funding Up to $65 Million

Annotated List of Actors

Arlington & Fairfax County - Arlington County Board and Fairfax Board of Supervisors, the county’s various departments, and the advisory boards and commissions have been involved in all aspects of the Columbia Pike Streetcar project, from planning and development to outreach and marketing. Arlington County’s website has most of the relevant documentation related to the Columbia Pike Transit Initiative.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) – The agency oversee current transit service throughout the Washington Metropolitan region, including in Arlington and Fairfax counties. WMATA helps coordinate bus service along Columbia Pike, an initiative called the Pike Ride (started in 2003). WMATA conducted the 2005 Columbia Pike Transit Alternatives Analysis and has been an instrumental partner in the development of the Columbia Pike Streetcar.

Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Rail and Public Transit (DRPT) & Department of Transportation (VDOT) – Both DRPT and VDOT are key players in the Columbia Pike Streetcar’s development, especially in terms of funding, guidance and implementation. Both agencies participate in the Streetcar Policy Committee. VDOT has provided vital funding to the project.

Federal Transit Administration – FTA, in its rejection of the application for Small Starts funding for the streetcar project, paved the way for a funding application to its New Starts program.

Businesses, civic associations, and property owners - A coalition, the Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization, advocated for adoption of the Commercial Form Based Code, an instrumental zoning code change to promote a more holistic vision of land use and development along the Columbia Pike corridor, and endorsed the Columbia Pike Streetcar. Additionally, the Columbia Pike Street Space Planning Task Force, comprised of similar groups, eventually recommended the Streetcar option.

Consultants – HR&A Advisors conducted a Return on Investment (ROI) analysis of the project for Arlington County. Parsons Transportation Group will manage its implementation. HDR Engineering will begin engineering and design work.

Advocacy groups and media- Arlington Street Car Now, Coalition for Smart Growth, Arlingtonians for Sensible Transportation, Arlnow.com, the Patch, GreaterGreaterWashington, Blue Virginia and other community groups, blogs and media have helped shape public opinion about the streetcar.

Background

Streetcars played an integral role in transit history, as they were used extensively from the late 1800s to the mid-1900s to move passengers within the inner cities and from suburbs to inner cities. But what exactly is a streetcar? In Europe, streetcars are referred to as trams, and defined as a rail vehicle which runs on tracks along public urban streets (called street running), and also sometimes on separate rights of way.

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) defines streetcars as a “type of light rail transit, operating singly (or in short, usually two-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is not separated from other traffic for much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph.”

Since the 1950s, when most streetcar systems met their demise, the streetcar has experienced a significant resurgence in many metropolitan areas around the United States, a result of renewed interest in transit oriented development and transit options. Arlington County is already considered a leader in using the Metro system to leverage well-planned development, and has been recognized by the National Academy of Sciences as one of the nation’s best transit oriented development success stories.

Nor are streetcars a new phenomenon in Arlington. During World War I, Arlington’s Rosslyn and Nauck neighborhoods were connected by a streetcar through Fort Myer, crossing Columbia Pike at Walter Reed and Four Mile Run Drives.  The streetcar stop at the intersection of Columbia Pike and Walter Reed Drive became the focal point of early commercial development.

In present day Arlington, the streetcar concept returned as part of The Columbia Pike Initiative – A Revitalization Plan, a study that began in 1998 and culminated with a board-approved report in 2002 and an update in 2005. This study brought together the experience and expertise of Arlington County’s board, various departments and advisory bodies, DRPT, VDOT, WMATA, the Columbia Pike Revitalization Organization and other interested organizations and citizens. The group had a vision to transform Columbia Pike into the Main Street of South Arlington. The group sought to redefine the concept of “street,” a vision driven by the adoption of the Commercial Form Based Code in 2003. The idea of a street as more than just a travel way for vehicles was the result and Columbia Pike, in fact, was shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and others. The plan called for further discussions on high capacity forms of transit, including a streetcar.

WMATA led the Pike Transit Initiative, initiated in 2002, working closely with Arlington and Fairfax Counties, DRPT and VDOT, to study alternatives for transit along Columbia Pike. The Pike Transit Initiative issued its 2005 Alternatives Analysis (AA), a study of four transit alternatives for Columbia Pike, including a No Build Alternative, Bus Rapid Transit, Streetcar, and Modified Streetcar. The Pike Transit Initiative eliminated the use of Light Rail, Heavy Rail, Automated Guideway Transit, Diesel Multiple Unit and Monorail, citing feasibility issues operating on surface streets in the dense urban environment. The Pike Transit Initiative endorsed the Modified Streetcar as the locally preferred option.

In 2006, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and Arlington County Board voted to endorse the Modified Streetcar as the locally preferred alternative. The Columbia Pike Streetcar experienced a significant setback in 2008 when the Virginia Supreme Court invalidated the local funding source for the project. As a result, Arlington and Fairfax Counties decided to seek federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration, requiring a federally approved Alternatives Analysis-Environmental Assessment (AA/EA). For the 2012 AA/EA, four transit alternatives were studied including the No Build Alternative, Enhanced Bus Alternative (TSM-1), Articulated Bus Alternative (TSM-2) and Streetcar Alternative and once again the study concluded that the Streetcar was the local preferred alternative.

Current Status

VDOT Secretary Aubrey Lane, in a letter dated July 10, 2014, promised to increase the state’s commitment of funding for the streetcar project, providing up to $65 million for the project as well as making it eligible for up to 30% in state matching funds. On September 23, 20014, the Arlington County Board, in a 3-2 vote, awarded the engineering and design contract for the Columbia Pike Streetcar, worth approximately $26 million, to HDR Engineering. Preliminary design plans will be developed for the Columbia Pike and Crystal City-Potomac Yard streetcar segments and technical specifications for the streetcar vehicles, including 30 percent design plans for the roadway, track alignment, power, signals, stations and facilities; vehicle specifications; and updated construction cost estimates.

Policy Issues

Accessibility and Mobility

Based on a review of the transit alternatives analysis in the 2005 Columbia Pike Transit Alternatives Analysis, the Modified Streetcar was not a clear winner in this category. In some cases, when compared to the other alternatives, the streetcar performed worse.

The Pike Transit Initiative, which conducted the alternatives analysis in 2005 through the forecast year 2030, evaluated the effectiveness of each alternative against criteria including:

• Corridor Transit Travel Time – the change in travel time to activity centers
• Accessibility - the ability to serve population and employment centers.
• Ridership - the ability to attract riders.
• Traffic Conditions- the effect on traffic along the corridor

The Modified Streetcar Alternative’s “measure of effectiveness” equaled or in some cases measured less effective than the other build options (BRT and Streetcar) in the Pike Transit Initiative’s analysis. In terms of ridership, two examples that represent a divergent outcome from the analysis of other build alternatives include the measurements for total daily ridership and transit passenger capacity.

Excerpted from Table 5.1, 2005 Alternatives Analysis

	BRT Alternative	Streetcar	Modified Street Car
Total Daily Transit Ridership along the corridor	22,490	23,080	20,670
Transit Passenger Capacity per hour (peak hour, peak direction)	2,540	3,100	2,360 (6 min. headway) 1,990 (12 min. headway)

In the 2005 report, WMATA explained its analysis of the Modified Streetcar regarding the total projected corridor ridership, stating:

“the alignment for the Modified Streetcar Alternative is approximately one mile shorter and terminates at Pentagon City. Unlike the Streetcar Alternative, the Modified Streetcar Alternative does not provide streetcar service to the Pentagon, which explains a significant portion of the difference in ridership between the alternatives.”

The analysis of the Modified Streetcar improved significantly upon a review of the 2012 Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA) and the winner was clear: the Streetcar remained the locally preferred alternative. In the 2012 analysis of the build alternatives (TSM 1 – Enhanced Bus, TSM 2 – Articulated Bus and Streetcar), 2030 total daily ridership forecasted was:

Excerpted from Table 5.2-1, 2012 Alternative Analysis

	TSM 1 Enhanced Bus	TSM 2 Articulated Bus	Streetcar
2030 Transit Ridership (total avg weekday for Metrobus/ streetcar and ART)	25,000	28,900	30,500
Transit Passenger Capacity (peak hour, peak direction)	2,073	2,654	2,802

Of the four project goals and objectives the Streetcar Alternative was comparable to the TSM 2 – Articulated Bus for the following: improving mobility for corridor residents, employees, customers and visitors, and supporting development of an integrated regional multimodal transportation system.

Multimodal Transportation Integration

In the 2005 analysis of Multimodal Transportation Integration, WMATA looked at the effectiveness of each build alternative in meeting the goal of Regional Transit Travel Time. This goal was measured by two criteria: the percentage of improvement in transit travel time to select regional activity centers and regional employment accessible by transit in less than 60 minutes. The Modified Streetcar was comparable to BRT and Streetcar in terms of transit time travel and regional accessibility to employment.

The Streetcar Alternative, according to the 2012 report, was also comparable to TSM-2 Articulated Bus in meeting the following project objectives: providing enhanced connections to intermodal centers; providing improved service to regional activity centers; and increasing transit ridership and mode share.

In 2005 and 2012, multimodal transportation integration did not seem to play a major role in the decision in favor of the Modified Streetcar as the locally preferred alternative. From the details in each report, each of the "build alternatives" would enhance multimodal transportation integration more than the “no build option” and therefore are preferred.

Critique

Peter Rousellot, a prominent streetcar opponent, wrote a 2012 analysis about the streetcar. On the issues of accessibility and mobility, he argues that BRT can provide the same service frequency and span (time of day, days of week) service; is faster since there would be fewer stops, signal priority, and no-step, no gap boarding/alighting; and provide faster and more reliable speeds. The arguments, however, seem to reconfirm the findings of the 2005 Alternatives Analysis and provide no additional new data.

The Cato Institute also challenges the ridership capacity of streetcars compared to BRT. In its analysis, Cato cites the Portland streetcar as an example, which has a seated capacity of 39 compared to 43 seats on a 40-foot bus. The Portland streetcar, however, is supposed to have 103 standing person capacity, referred to by Cato as the “crush capacity.” Cato does not refute this figure, but states that “Americans are not likely to accept crush conditions; actual standing room capacity on a streetcar is closer to about 50 people.”

Environment/Sustainability

The County’s decision on transit options was influenced by the effects of increased energy requirements. The streetcar would run on electrical power provided by Dominion Electric Power, which is produced in large part from coal burning and nuclear energy. Coal was used for 35 percent of the electricity generated by Dominion Virginia Power in 2010, with a meager 1 percent coming from renewable resources. Energy consumption through the No Build Alternative would have no negative impacts to the current electric demands by the County, as existing transit service on the corridor would continue as normal. The Articulated Bus alternative would increase energy consumption at a minimal rate, as bus service along the corridor would increase, burning more compressed natural gas (CNG); the primary source of fuel for that system.

The use of Streetcars would require the most electricity from Dominion Virginia Power, since they would be operated using overhead contact systems powered by substations located roughly every mile along the corridor. Although energy output would increase, the emissions from CNG would decrease due to the reduction in number of buses.

The County also did a study on maximum carbon monoxide emissions per hour for the streetcar and alternatives. They predicted carbon monoxide output in parts per million (ppm) for one hour and 8 hours on the corridor’s two busiest intersections; Seminary Road and George Mason Drive in Fairfax County, and Army Navy Drive and Eads Street in Arlington County. The County made projections for 2016 and 2030 and in these projections there is little difference between the emission levels of the streetcar and its alternatives.

Another metric the County evaluated was Regional Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). They calculated that, under the baseline, in 2016 the VMT on an average weekday would be 141 million miles, growing to about 160 million by 2030. In comparison, the Articulated Bus alternative is projected to reduce the VMT on an average weekday by 13,700 miles in 2016 and 15,200 miles in 2030. However, the streetcar is projected to reduce the average weekday VMT by 16,300 miles in 2016 and 18,700 miles in 2030. This gives the streetcar an advantage over the BRT alternative by 2,600 less miles in 2016 and 3,500 less miles in 2030.

As mentioned, energy consumption for transit in Virginia is a point of contention as a significant amount is produced from coal and nuclear sources. The often-cited Portland streetcar, by contrast, produces fewer emissions, as Oregon’s energy source stem in large part from renewable resources, primarily hydroelectric power. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in 2010 Oregon’s total electric industry was powered by 55.4 percent hydroelectric power, with an additional 8.6 percent powered by other renewable resources. In the same report Virginia’s electric industry used only 2.1 percent hydroelectric power and 3 percent other renewable resources.

Safety

In terms of safety, one way to review performance of streetcar versus motorbus service is by comparing accident statistics of different modes of transit. The FTA compiled statistics in 2007 for the total amount of incidents by light rail and motorbus. The results were standardized by mileage of each mode and also included collisions (vehicles, objects, and pedestrians), injuries, and derailments/ running off the road. In one year, the total incidents by motorbus were 11,053 compared to 983 by light rail. Collisions by motorbus and light rail were 7,186 and 577 respectively. Injuries sustained by motorbus were higher as well; 12,859 compared to 838 on light rail. Light rail only lagged behind motorbus in number of derailments/ running off the road incidents with 56 versus 47. However, with all of these metrics considered, the streetcar holds some advantages in safety performance.

Category	Motorbus	Light Rail
Total Accidents	11,053	983
Collisions (vehicles, objects, pedestrians)	7,186	577
Injuries	12,859	838
Derailments	47	56

The County notes that competition with bicyclists is a concern. One of the issues presented by streetcar tracks is the gap in the tracks for the wheel flanges. This can be problematic for bicyclists as narrow tires can get stuck in the gaps. This problem has become significant enough in Portland that the City Council is proposing a grant for $150,000 to study ways of mitigating bicycle accidents along its streetcar lines. The Arlington Bicycle Advisory Committee has voiced concerns about the dangers of streetcar tracks to bicyclists, although they have not taken an official stance against the project. The County has proposed several methods to mitigate these risks, including awareness and information campaigns, special signage, and lane markings to assist those crossing or approaching the tracks.

Cost

Advocates promote streetcars for providing many of the transit-oriented development benefits of rail systems at an order of magnitude less cost than metro/subway systems – while critics counter that streetcars tend to be an order of magnitude more expensive than enhanced bus service.

The proposed Arlington Streetcar is no exception. Arlington’s analysis estimated capital construction costs at $4-47 million for two different improved bus alternatives vs. $214-231 million for 3 different streetcar alternatives. By comparison, the recent Metro Silver line development of service to 4 new stations cost an estimated $3.14 billion.

Streetcar vehicles alone would cost about $51 million, with other major costs including:

• $33-43 million for system and track elements
• $30-33 million for professional services;
• $29-39 million for systems;
• $21-22 million for unallocated contingency

The 2012 report does not define these costs in detail. Arlington’s 2005 report, however, notes that system costs include overhead contact system (OCS), guideway systems, substations, switching, protection, rectifier-transformers, feeder, grounding and bonding systems, batteries and chargers, local and/or remote controls, and equipment supervision.

Estimated operations and maintenance costs are more comparable among the alternatives: $22-23 million for the bus alternatives vs. $22-29 million for the streetcar options (2016 estimates).

Clearly, cost alone is not an argument for the Arlington Streetcar. Key to the argument, however, is projected return on this investment.

Economic Development

The most powerful selling point for the Arlington Streetcar is its potential to spur economic development along the Columbia Pike corridor. Is this project indeed likely to catalyze development of a high enough level to justify its greater cost?

Arlington County commissioned a report by the consulting firm HR&A Advisors, Columbia Pike Transit Initiative: Comparative Return on Investment Study, published March 2014 (hereafter, “the ROI report”). This report estimated benefits of the proposed streetcar project in comparison to the other alternatives identified, based on studies of the impacts of bus, streetcar and light rail projects in other urban and suburban areas.

The ROI report argues strongly for the projected economic benefits of the Arlington Streetcar, as opposed to enhanced bus or status quo alternatives, estimating:

• Net incremental benefits over 30 years of $2.2-3.0 billion beyond enhanced bus options, and $3.2-4.4 billion above baseline
• 4,600 additional jobs in the corridor above enhanced bus service, and 6,600 new jobs above baseline within ten years of system completion
• $315-620 million in increased tax revenues over 30 years for Arlington and Fairfax Counties (from property, business/professional/occupational license, sales and meal taxes.)

These projected benefits are based on factors found in relation to other streetcar or light rail projects including:

• Appreciation in real estate values, comparing % increases in assessments of properties near the streetcar line with those in other areas.
• Increased quantity of development, measured in terms including dollars of new investment along the corridor and use of a higher percentage of allowable floor-area ratio (FAR).

Critique

While the literature on economic impacts of transit-oriented development (TOD) is significant, the recentness of the trend of streetcars returning to cities has limited the data available on the impacts of this transportation mode. As a result, the conclusions in the ROI report depend heavily on data on the impacts of the well-studied streetcar systems in Portland, OR and Seattle, WA – the representativeness of which are questionable.

The Center for Transit-Oriented Development noted in a study that the factors most attractive to developers are connections to downtown, a waterfront or historical area – which apply to the Portland and Seattle examples, but not to Columbia Pike. Positive factors that are present in Arlington, but not exclusive to Columbia Pike, include a strong real estate market and committed local government.

Another problem with the analyses in the ROI report is the common failure to factor in the dollar value of government tax breaks and other incentives provided to developers, leading to potential inflation of the ROI of the investment in the streetcar alone.

A final concern generally ignored in Arlington’s reports and planning documents is the impact development is likely to have on the unique multiethnic character of the Columbia Pike corridor – arguably one of its greatest assets. Fixed rail systems have been found to attract mostly white-collar industries like government, financial and scientific organizations. The successful development of Columbia Pike, then, could make it more like such transit-oriented destinations as Bethesda, MD or Arlington’s Ballston to Courthouse corridor – attracting well-established chain stores and a wealthy clientele, but potentially losing ethnic grocery stores, restaurants and other establishments that may not be able to keep pace with rising rents.

Conclusion

The Columbia Pike corridor is in need of revitalization and the Arlington Streetcar project is an ambitious initiative to address this need. Several other areas, including Portland, OR and Seattle, WA have documented success in revitalizing areas where new streetcar systems were introduced. Another potentially attractive option – BRT – does not appear practical on Columbia Pike’s narrow lanes.

However, the Columbia Pike project leaves a number of critical questions unanswered, including those listed in the Discussion Questions below. It is not clear if the analogies of Portland and Seattle will hold in the case of Columbia Pike, or what additional policies and incentives will be needed to drive development in addition to a streetcar.

Overall, there are many uncertainties regarding the potential benefits of this streetcar and whether they will ultimately justify the cost when compared to potentially cheaper enhanced bus alternatives. On many criteria – mobility, safety, environmental impact – the streetcar option seemed comparable or only marginally better than the enhanced bus alternatives.

Clearly, while a streetcar can be the centerpiece of a community development plan, it should not be viewed as a magic wand – many other policies and factors are essential to successful neighborhood revitalization. As streetcars increasingly return to urban areas, more research is needed to weigh the full impact of their costs and benefits.

Discussion Questions

• Do you predict that the Streetcar will turn out to be a "Magic Bullet" that will drive the economic revitalization of Columbia Pike?
• Are there other key components that are missing from the Arlington Streetcar to ensure its success? For example, what additional incentives (e.g., tax breaks) will be needed for successful development along this corridor?
• Has Arlington made the case effectively for the streetcar, or can you identify any gaps in the County's reasoning?
• All in all, do you believe that the benefits of the streetcar outweigh its costs (vs. enhanced bus alternatives), or not?

Additional Readings

• Arlington County Government. (2012). Columbia Pike Transit Initiative Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment – Executive Summary. http://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/07/DES-Columbia-Pike-Streetcar-AA_EA-Executive-Summary.pdf (8 pgs)
• Belzer, D., Srivastava, S., Wood, J. and Greenberg, E. (2011). Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) and Employment. Center for Transit-Oriented Development. http://reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/browse-research/2011/transit-oriented-development-tod-and-employment/Reading: Exec Summary only (web home page)
• HR&A Advisors. (2014). Columbia Pike Transit Initiative: Comparative Return on Investment Study. http://sites.arlingtonva.us/streetcar/files/2014/03/HRA-Draft-County-Management-Working-Paper-3-26-2014.pdf Reading: Exec Summary only (p. 4-8)
• Hook, W., Lotshaw, S. and Weinstock, A. (2013). More Development for Your Transit Dollar: An Analysis of 21 North American Transit Corridors. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP). https://www.itdp.org/more-development-for-your-transit-dollar-an-analysis-of-21-north-american-transit-corridors/ Reading: Exec Summary only (p. 7-9)
• O’Toole, Randal. (2012). The Great Streetcar Conspiracy. Policy Analysis, no. 699. http://www.cato.org/Publications/policy-analysis/great-streetcar-conspiracy (20 pgs)
• Golem, R., Smith-Heimer, J., National Research Council (U.S.), Transportation Research Board, Transit Cooperative Research Program, United States, … Transit Development Corporation. (2010). Relationships between streetcars and the built environment. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_86.pdf