Suburban Maryland Purple Line light rail as an already successful economic development driver
The Purple Line is in the news because the contractors have served notice that they want to exit the deal, because they argue that the State of Maryland is not negotiating in good faith about the cost consequences of project changes and delays ("Just a reminder that what are called "public private partnerships" are contracts, not partnerships," "Design-Build Team Makes Decision to Leave Maryland Purple Line Rail Project," Engineering News-Record).
Washington Post graphic showing the route of the line.
The comments on articles in the Washington Post are mostly negative, that the state should drop the project, although a few argue that it merely indicates that privatization/public-private partnerships are usually fraught with peril, that the prime contractor, Bechtel, is enmeshed in big problems elsewhere which influences this project, with the suggestion that the State of Maryland should take over the project.
DC and Metropolitan Washington as (formerly) best practice in transit use. What has floored me about opposition to the project all along is that it is disconnected from reality, as the DC area is a best practice example of the success of heavy rail transit, complemented by bus service--at least previous to the recent service quality crash brought on by a failure to perform anticipatory maintenance and rebuilding as the system aged.
Instead they waited until they had no other choice, and the resulting service degradation significantly reduced ridership. And that was even before the pandemic, which reduced ridership even further.
And economic development. It can take decades to see economic development changes resulting from investments and expansion of transit infrastructure.
(Although now, with more experience and understanding, spillover economic development tends to occur more quickly.)
It took 20+ years to begin to see the significant improvements in DC's core and surrounding neighborhoods, resulting from the opening of Metrorail starting in 1976.
It took 20-25 years to see similar fruits of transit oriented development in Arlington County's Wilson Boulevard corridor.
DC's resurgence--in the last decade the city has added 100,000 new residents--is due in large part to the development of heavy rail transit, and in particular the creation of a multi-line network, as opposed to a couple lines.
The Purple Line as a suburban revitalization tool. The addition of light rail to the transit network, especially in a manner which improves the connectedness of the network--the Purple Line will connect five legs of the Metrorail system in Montgomery and Prince George's County as well as all three MARC railroad passenger lines--will increase the utility and usefulness of the overall network, leading to ridership increases.
-- "Transforming Inner-Ring Suburbs with Walkable Mixed-Use Development," Urban Land Magazine
Although I argue success could be even been greater, had the transit systems planned improvements in other parts of the network simultaneously. This is true both for the transit systems, and the counties, especially Prince George's County, which hasn't fully committed to transit oriented development, but instead equivocates and defaults towards automobility (even if they don't think so).
-- "Setting the stage for the Purple Line light rail line to be an overwhelming success: Part 1 | simultaneously introduce improvements to other elements of the transit network," 2017
-- Part 2 | the program (macro changes)
-- Part 3 | influences
-- Part 4 | Making over New Carrollton as a transit-centric urban center and Prince George's County's "New Downtown"
-- PL #5: Creating a Silver Spring "Sustainable Mobility District"
-- Part 6 | Creating a transportation development authority in Montgomery and Prince George's County to effectuate placemaking, retail development, and housing programs in association with the Purple Line
-- Part 7 | Using the Purple Line to rebrand Montgomery and Prince George's Counties as Design Forward
-- "Revisiting the Purple Line (series) and a more complete program of complementary improvements to the transit network," 2019
H Street streetcar as a economic development driver. Separately, I have a series of articles on the H Street streetcar in DC, making the point that while it is pretty much a planning failure because of errors by the Department of Transportation and the city's elected officials, it has been a massive success in terms of economic development, sparking the most intense development within any corridor in the city that is not directly served by Metrorail.
Arguably, about $1 billion in new development has been either spurred or accelerated by the streetcar.
The additional property, sales, and personal and corporate income taxes resulting from this development will more than pay for the streetcar, and provides a wide variety of neighborhood improvements.
-- "DC streetcars move to simulated service: passenger service expected within a couple months: DC streetcars part 1," 2015
-- "DC and streetcars #2: STREETCARS ARE ABOUT TRANSIT, just in a different way from how most people are accustomed to thinking about it," 2015
-- "DC and streetcars #3: More discussion (from almost two years ago)," 2015
-- "DC and streetcars #4: from the standpoint of stoking real estate development, the line is incredibly successful and it isn't even in service yet, and now that development is extending eastward past 15th Street," 2015
-- "Update on the DC Streetcar program on the verge of launching Sunday service," 2016
-- "Update/revision of H Street transit oriented real estate development table," 2016
Purple Line is already increasing property values. That's why an op-ed in last weekend's Washington Post, "The Purple Line is creating value — don’t blow it up now," which made the point that the PL has already led to significant property value increases in the corridor, is so important. From the article:
Despite the twists and turns of the Purple Line’s development, there already have been large increases in property values near planned stops. In a new investigation of the project’s impact on property prices, former Washingtonians David Corcino, Eric Parolin and I find that house prices are up roughly 10 percent for properties within half a mile of planned Purple Line stops, relative to properties farther away. Rather than needing decades to reflect this new transportation option, as a recent opinion piece urging the project’s cancellation mistakenly asserted, the area has already seen tremendous shifts in the local property market that reflect the expected value of this transit investment for residents.Fortunately the state is committed to continuing the project. To just walk away from the PL would be a massive waste of money and economic development failure, especially as the unfinished line is already reshaping the area's development patterns.
Note that even though Republican Governor Hogan is pretty much against transit--this tends to be true even of allegedly "moderate" Republicans--according to the WTOP story "Purple Line construction continues as squabble remains unresolved" the state is committed to finishing the project.
The state and Montgomery and Prince George's County need to improve Purple Line messaging. DC's officials have bobbled messaging on the streetcar and continue to restrict its ability to expand and become more useful and economically successful.
Montgomery and Prince George's Counties need to be clear in explaining the benefits from transit and the benefits of the Purple Line and the addition of light rail to the transit network. The counties need to step up on this because the State is not likely to.
Rebuild the consensus for transit, Market the Purple Line now. In the run up to Metrorail, WMATA did a lot of interesting outreach, including exhibits on the National Mall and the publication of a guide on how to use transit that was inserted as advertising in the then large circulating local newspapers.
After the Metrorail crash in 2009, I argued that given that the Metrorail system was then more than 30 years old, and much of the population of the metropolitan area wasn't around when the consensus for building it was created, that it was time to build a new consensus for transit and what it is supposed to accomplish in the Washington Metropolitan Area. I made a similar point in advance of the system's 40th anniversary in 2016
-- "WMATA 40th anniversary in 2016 as an opportunity for assessment"
Metro (WMATA) Owner's Manual: Your Metro...How to Use It, cover. Advertising supplement to the Washington Star, 3/21/1976.
Arguably, a lot of the opposition to transit expansion--light rail in Suburban Maryland, streetcar in DC and Arlington--is an indicator of the need to rebuild that consensus understanding of transit, the value of transit expansion.
It's not like we don't have ample proof of the value.
As David Miller, former mayor of Toronto used to say, "you can't have a transit city without continually expanding transit."
I wonder if CAF (which has an office in DC) would be willing to bring over in advance a couple of the light rail vehicles that will be deployed on the Purple Line, for use in an ongoing marketing program.
Some transit infographics, whichcould be models for a pro-Purple Line campaign.
Graphic by American Public Transportation Association and the National Association of Realtors
From Moving Forward, an independent journalism project produced by Discourse Media. Data and analysis by George Poulos.
I think all communities should produce their own version of this poster, which shows the space efficiency of transit, walking and biking, compared to driving.
Equity as a marketing challenge. These days, a frequent criticism of investment in transit infrastructure is that rising property values leads to displacement and gentrification ("Transit-oriented development and gentrification: a systematic review," Transport Reviews, 2019). That is true.
So transit agencies, working with local governments, need to come up with a program to address that. I recommend creating what I call a "Transportation Renewal District" in association with new transit projects.
-- "Purple line planning in suburban Maryland as an opportunity to integrate place and people focused initiatives into delivery of new transit systems," 2014
-- "Quick follow up to the Purple Line piece about creating a Transportation Renewal District and selling bonds to fund equitable development," 2014
-- "Beyond the Tracks: Purple Line community development conference this Friday, March 21st," 2014
The TRD would function like an urban renewal district. You sell bonds--tax increment financing--against anticipated new tax revenue and use the monies in part to buy, hold, and develop property in ways that support equity planning goals--affordable housing, etc.
Labels: civic engagement, equity planning, planning and program delivery, provision of public services, social marketing, transit marketing, transportation planning
posted by Richard Layman @ 6:33 PM&Permanent Link
17 Comments:
"Arguably, about $1 billion in new development has been either spurred or accelerated by the streetcar."
And because correlation isn't causation, arguably $0 was spurred by the streetcar.
The really interesting hypothesis would be to estimate how much value DC left on the table by designing such a slow system with limited transit value, then botching the implementation.
I know we've argued about this in the past.
I argue that a streetcar is an intra-district transit mode that needs to be evaluated on an appropriate set of criteria.
By contrast, you evaluate it on a wider set of criteria that I don't think fully apply.
That being said, I don't know how many times I've written that the streetcar program was poorly designed and executed. And it's made worse by the continuing failure in decisions.
I'm not justifying it at all. I do say that despite the failures, as bad as they've f*ed it up, it's a wild success in terms of economic development.
SO ABSOLUTELY, how much is left on the table because of the failure? Tons. One example, something I've argued for since 2003, is to redevelop the RFK parking lots as mixed use, housing etc. along Benning Road.
You also have the Pepco generating plant site. And that whole area of Ward 7.
Tremendous opportunity cost.
BUT ALL THAT BEING SAID, about correlation and causation, I don't think you've talked to any decision makers at real estate firms about their investments on H Street and Benning Road specifically.
They wouldn't have happened without the streetcar.
You don't think my numbers are conservative. I disagree. And I lived in that area from roughly 1987 to 2005. Basically, I don't accord any property built west of 6th Street to the streetcar. But even those firms will tell you that the streetcar influenced or accelerated their decisions in significant ways. (Although I argue it's proximity to Union Station that matters most in that area.)
Given that "wild success" it's unbelievable to me that the city hasn't seized on streetcars as a priming device for Georgia Avenue, Rhode Island Avenue (with PG County it could extend from Dupont Circle to College Park), Kennedy Street-Riggs Road (there it could be with PG County and extend to University Boulevard and the Purple Line) and Wards 7 and 8 more generally.
c. 2007 I used to think the city's economic development planners were really smart. But I've continued to learn during the succeeding 13 years and it doesn't appear to me that they have... (and/or my earlier assessment was flawed).
(I guess I didn't say directly, I have talked to enough of those developers to feel confident that what I've written is true.)
Oh, I've talked to plenty of decision-makers about the streetcar. But their actions and their statements don't line up precisely.
Given how much economic development happened without actually operating the streetcar, it's hard to take seriously the idea that the streetcar itself (as a service and infrastructure) is what really mattered.
Maybe the streetcar jump-started some speculation, but plenty of developments were well underway when it wasn't clear the thing would ever open.
I'd argue that the city's overall development trajectory and the overall position of where H Street is matters more than the streetcar qua streetcar.
And the reason the City hasn't used streetcars elsewhere should be obvious - the cost of implementing them was far, far higher than they realized. And the costs of making the streetcars serve as an actual transit improvement was even greater and required tough battles on taking away traffic lanes.
Before the streetcar became "really real in terms of planning" and by that I mean the commitment to put the rails in the street and to get NCPC signoff on wires there were only three developments of substance proposed before about 2006.
1. Redevelopment of the 2 H Street CDC office buildings on the 600 block.
2. The redevelopment of the H Street Connection shopping center between 8th and 10th Streets.
3. The Clark Realty apartment development on the old Sears site on Bladensburg Road.
Of the three, the only one that was started before the recession was the Clark Realty project. (I just don't remember the timing, but they committed to it pretty early, in response to the H Street revitalization plan, which came out in 2003, before streetcars were a confirmed element of planning initiatives at the time.)
The first two were delayed as a result of the recession, in significant ways (the 600 block project went through the approval process in 2005, the H Street Connection process after, I don't remember exactly; I didn't participate in it, I did with the 600 block project).
Pretty much all the other projects were stirred by the streetcar. None had been in process beforehand.
That's why I feel pretty confident about my assertions.
Clearly, we're never going to have a meeting of minds.
2. WRT your point "the cost of implementing them was far, far higher than they realized" I have to concede that I probably underappreciate that reality.
OTOH, I am of the "by any means necessary" position, given how slow the revitalization process works in those areas I mentioned.
(E.g., look at Georgia Avenue, how long it is taking to see improvement around HU, the limited development elsewhere except immediately at the Petworth Metrorail station, the one story single use Walmart instead of a mixed use development of 400+ apartment units which had previously been approved, etc.)
Some anguish is worth it in return for accelerating improvement by 20-40 years.
That being said, there is a ceiling on how much additional development can be created, reducing ROI, because of the height limit. So it'd be a tough calculation.
3. But wtf, just by doing the H Street streetcar right -- meaning extend it to Rosslyn and to Deanwood and the Benning Road Metrorail station at a minimum, upping its frequency, and making it fun (a la integrating heritage streetcars into it such as I recommended in 2006, http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2006/08/adding-cultural-heritage-dimensions.html ) instead of a joke would go a long way towards building a constituency of support, especially if it remained free.
4. Similarly wrt "And the costs of making the streetcars serve as an actual transit improvement was even greater and required tough battles on taking away traffic lanes"
I am of the mind again "by any means necessary" and I underappreciate the amount of political capital necessary to pull this off.
Without the support elected officials (most of whom are indifferent to the streetcar), there's even less protection for agency officials needing to make hard choices and take chances.
And I recognize that it's "my job" to be visionary and your job to be pragmatic, given what you do.
BUT THEN AGAIN, WTF, DC could have and still could use streetcars to completely redefine itself as a transit city for the 21st century.
With streetcars prioritized and serving many districts, comparable to cities like Zurich and Melbourne.
With ridership on the streetcar free, comparable to how it is in Talinn (for residents) as opposed to Luxembourg (free for everyone).
Or maybe it should be free for everyone. Like it was in the Fareless Square in Portland, or how it is in smaller fareless squares in Calgary or Salt Lake and Pittsburgh.
It would be a major redefinition of the city.
That's the possibility, and like with virtually anything else, except for free preK from the ages of 3 to 5 years old, DC isn't visionary at all.
Look, I've soured on streetcars because of how DC f*ed up the planning. And given all the animus I am not sure it's worth spending all the social and political capital necessary to make them successful. It's amazing how much the city is automobility focused.
But I've never written a series of pieces on how to use streetcars to redefine the city the way I did on the PL. Which you must agree with since you didn't write any comments about it. (Then again, since the pieces are so long, maybe you didn't read them.)
I have never been to Zurich or Melbourne, and it's been decades since I've been to Toronto. I have been to SF and experienced the Market Street line.
But there is room for a city in North America to be like Zurich or Melbourne.
Why not DC?
(And why can't BIDs be fomenters of such visions? as part of their work.)
Remember all the BS about how it was going to be a streetcar for yuppies? When you ride it the demographic is 90pct at least that. And it is a model for free transit in the city. I agree it needs priority and its own lanes tho (and most importantly, extended! what's the damn hold up?)
I think I might write a piece about that in terms of repositioning. If you have any thoughts about it, let me know.
The problem with the demographics of usage isn't about the mode I would think, but more about the truncated route. A significant number of X bus trips originate in Ward 7, beyond the end of the line.
If the line went further in each direction, more trips, showing a greater diversity of demographics, would be captured by the streetcar.
I guess my point is that the streetcar becoming "real in terms of planning" has zero to do with it becoming real in terms of a service.
So if the streetcar's value has *nothing* to do with the actual service, then what's the point? If that is similarly used as an excuse for both the poor transit benefit as well as the poor project execution, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
I disagree with the assertion that the H Street development boom was all that different from similar areas around the city. You simply can't escape the fact that there was a huge boom in development activity concurrent with the initial planning.
The lack of development around Howard U has little to do with the market and everything to do with Howard, which owns most of that land. I'd argue that Petworth has seen the same level of redevelopment - the only difference is that H Street had a handful of larger pre-assembled sites, which then went through PUDs. And the single-story Wal-Mart is not a comparable market to H Street - much further from downtown.
I'd agree that streetcars can define a city. But to do that, you have to get the transit service right.
The other thing is this - no one in the world (except for the US) builds mixed-traffic streetcars. Lots of cities still have them as legacies from long ago, but no one in the right mind would build a new line and then purposefully make it less useful. Zurich and Melbourne have the networks they have because of old infrastructure they've upgraded. They're the wrong examples to plan from if you're starting from scratch.
the problem with discussing all of this is that there are legitimate differences of opinion.
And there are serious planning, engineering, and logistical issues as you point out.
But it's a conversation that really has to last decades.
One of the biggest problems with having dedicated ROW streetcars in DC is the limited number of street alternatives.
It's not like you can make 16th Street, Georgia Avenue, M Street, Rhode Island, Wisconsin Avenue, H Street, etc. exclusive to streetcars. These are main arterial in the serving both intra-city and inter-city traffic.
And it's not just single occupant vehicle trips in cars, but service and delivery vehicles too.
There just aren't good alternatives that would allow streetcar exclusive right of way.
The reason streetcars worked in this manner, albeit with lots of congestion (which was a justification for their removal), back in the day, is that there were far fewer autos.
(On H Street before the modern streetcar there were something like 22,000 vehicle trips and not quite 300 bus runs, the later which carried 15,000+ riders. So almost 40% of the person throughput was carried by just a handful of vehicles.)
-- continued --
-- Part 2 --
(And even back in the day, the congestion was more caused by errant autos on streetcar tracks, than streetcar operation, although the volume of streetcars could be considerable. It looked like "congestion" but it really wasn't. It was just streetcar traffic operation.)
E.g., Zurich has a metering system that only lets a certain amount of automobile traffic into the car, and only allows vehicles to enter as other vehicles leave.
I guess I think you have to put it in -- streetcars -- and deal with it, recognizing that it is suboptimal and prioritize the operation of surface transit as best as you can, recognizing that over time, as more people use the streetcar service, you have more capability and support for changing how streetspace is allocated.
E.g., the King Street Toronto, 14th Street busway in New York City, and Market Street SF.
King and Market are now streetcar priority. But streetcars have run on King for 100 years and in the modern age, streetcars have run on Market Street for not quite 35 years.
And it's only been in the last couple years that streetcars were able to be prioritized, and still with a lot of resistance and animus.
(E.g., the King Street streetcars carry what 70,000+ riders/day, far more than cars.)
Same with the busway in NYC, although there, they have better alternatives for parallel street options for motor vehicle diversion.
In the pie in the sky department...
I think that sucks, but unless you're going to build tunnels which I have no problem with in terms of interdicting commuter traffic because of the negative impact on abutting neighborhoods, we're stuck.
The only thing, is like Toronto, where the streetcars usually dominate their spaces, is over time auto traffic can be reduced, leading to improvements in surface streetcar operation.
That being said, were we to do the system of tunnels that I've suggested ought to be considered on certain major commuter arteries, you could do what they did with BART in Downtown SF, where the underground "Market Street Railway" was installed on the top layer of a double deck tunnel, and build multiple level tunnels with a tunnel on top for light rail.
I could see this especially on 16th Street.
Another strategy is to integrate heritage/replica streetcars within the service as a rebranding mechanism.
-------------------
In any case, thank you for continuing to engage on this topic (and others).
The thing is that we're both right.
But I want to be clear that every step necessary should be taken to make streetcar as a service work.
I don't agree with saying "oh it's for economic development, so substandard service is ok."
However, I think one big way to deal with this is to have more cars and shorter headways.
Seeing streetcars frequently, and having them muscle through traffic, will go a long way towards rebalancing streetspace prioritization.
4 cars per hour in each direction doesn't have much impact perception wise. It's just too infrequent.
8 cars/hour during peak, now that would make a differenc
and yes, H Street did have more larger lot opportunities than most of the other places. But otherwise ...
Yes, Georgia Ave. is hindered by Howard. (But even so, the problem with development around there is how the area is constrained on both sides and has lack of opportunity. Plus HU property mismanagement. Speaking of "receivership" a few of their Georgia Avenue properties ought to be candidates.)
90pct *not* that
This is what I don't get. You're arguing for transformative transit, and yet:
"There just aren't good alternatives that would allow streetcar exclusive right of way."
"It's not like you can make 16th Street, Georgia Avenue, M Street, Rhode Island, Wisconsin Avenue, H Street, etc. exclusive to streetcars. These are main arterial in the serving both intra-city and inter-city traffic."
I think this is a cop-out. You can absolutely dedicate the very modest ROW for transit in these corridors. You're talking about two lanes for tracks and some other ROW for stations - not banning cars. The cost will be in some travel lanes and some curbside space. It's absolutely possible.
Again, nobody builds modern mixed-traffic streetcars. In places like Toronto, they're adapting legacy infrastructure. But every single modern investment involves dedicated lanes. All of the European tramways, all of the modern streetcar extensions - they all make as much use of dedicated lanes as possible. And the reason for that should be obvious - it's the only way to justify the investment.
If you're not going to make the streetcar good, useful transit by dedicating the ROW, then you won't be able to justify the cost. It's that simple.
Likewise, I'm in favor of incremental improvements. But critically, H Street wasn't designed to allow for this. And that's a big reason why the ambitions for system expansion died.
Increasing service frequency is a great idea, but that's just one element of good service. Higher frequency without the reliability provided by dedicated ROW just won't work.
WORD.
OK, I misunderstood you all along (and to be fair you never stated your position so succinctly in all your comments about this in various posts, not just this one.)
I thought you were arguing for exclusive transitways (you are, technically) but somehow separate from the streetspace in a normal street right of way.
I have no problem with this, dedicating exclusive transitways within existing street right of way. Yep, that's what we should do.
It would be a shame to not do this as part of an extension of the H Street program.
But I think -- and I could be wrong -- that opposition to extension is more about elected officials being indifferent to the streetcar and an unwillingness to be like Chris Zimmerman and be super vocal proponents for transit.
If the streetcar were extended to Rosslyn as well as eastward it would be wildly successful.
... especially if it were to remain free and to have much more frequent service.
-----------
thanks for continuing to engage on this!
Wrt the church at 11th and K Streets that argues that streetcars aren't congruent with godliness I've been meaning to take photos of SLC light rail on South Temple Street alongside the mother temple of the LDS Church. They seem to be doing fine.
Post a Comment
<< Home