Two scholarly articles concerning Streetcar and Light Rail Transit
Streetcars and other rail systems have been a major preoccupation of U.S. cities for the last several decades. This focus has not escaped academic attention. There have been countless studies and articles written on all aspects of the streetcar and light rail.
The following two articles discuss two common issues related to rail transit:
1. Downtown Redevelopment Strategies
2. Funding and Forecasting Issues
The first article compares several different redevelopment strategies, one of which is transportation enhancement and why rail transit would be the best investment with which to revitalize an urban core. The second article discusses methods of forecasting and funding for rail systems. The inaccuracy of forecasting ridership and cost is a major argument against rail transit, but there are ways to address this, as we will see. Funding is another common argument against rail transit, and opponents are not wrong, it is expensive, but it is often misunderstood as to who actually foots the bill.
"Downtown Redevelopment Strategies in the United States: An End-of-the-Century Assessment"
A 1995 article by Kent Robertson discusses different downtown redevelopment strategies, including transportation enhancement, and analyzes which strategies work and why. Examining different strategies is important because a streetcar is only going to work if its opportunity cost is greater than an alternative. This only minimally applies to Northern Kentucky though, since it is not truly an urban core we are trying to revitalize, but a community we are trying to connect. Along those lines, an argument could be made that a revitalization is needed in Covington (The Catalytic Fund works on revitalization in Covington) since it was hit hard by the recession in 2008 and still has many foreclosed houses. Downtowns are still seen as an integral part of overall city identity. However, despite many policies and projects, downtowns still suffer primarily from lack of use. Many downtowns are not attractive to people anymore, and something needs to be done to correct it.
To read more about Kent Robertson's article click here
"A Desire Named Streetcar, Fantasy and Fact in Rail Transit Planning"
The second article written in 1992 by Don Pickrell entitled "A Desire Named Streetcar, Fantasy and Fact in Rail Transit Planning” primarily addresses how forecasting and funding of projects can be harmful to rail projects and possible ways of making forecasting more accurate and funding more accountable.
To read more about Don Pickrell's article click here
Streetcars and other rail systems have been a major preoccupation of U.S. cities for the last several decades. This focus has not escaped academic attention. There have been countless studies and articles written on all aspects of the streetcar and light rail.
The following two articles discuss two common issues related to rail transit:
1. Downtown Redevelopment Strategies
2. Funding and Forecasting Issues
The first article compares several different redevelopment strategies, one of which is transportation enhancement and why rail transit would be the best investment with which to revitalize an urban core. The second article discusses methods of forecasting and funding for rail systems. The inaccuracy of forecasting ridership and cost is a major argument against rail transit, but there are ways to address this, as we will see. Funding is another common argument against rail transit, and opponents are not wrong, it is expensive, but it is often misunderstood as to who actually foots the bill.
"Downtown Redevelopment Strategies in the United States: An End-of-the-Century Assessment"
A 1995 article by Kent Robertson discusses different downtown redevelopment strategies, including transportation enhancement, and analyzes which strategies work and why. Examining different strategies is important because a streetcar is only going to work if its opportunity cost is greater than an alternative. This only minimally applies to Northern Kentucky though, since it is not truly an urban core we are trying to revitalize, but a community we are trying to connect. Along those lines, an argument could be made that a revitalization is needed in Covington (The Catalytic Fund works on revitalization in Covington) since it was hit hard by the recession in 2008 and still has many foreclosed houses. Downtowns are still seen as an integral part of overall city identity. However, despite many policies and projects, downtowns still suffer primarily from lack of use. Many downtowns are not attractive to people anymore, and something needs to be done to correct it.
To read more about Kent Robertson's article click here
"A Desire Named Streetcar, Fantasy and Fact in Rail Transit Planning"
The second article written in 1992 by Don Pickrell entitled "A Desire Named Streetcar, Fantasy and Fact in Rail Transit Planning” primarily addresses how forecasting and funding of projects can be harmful to rail projects and possible ways of making forecasting more accurate and funding more accountable.
To read more about Don Pickrell's article click here
Conclusion and Recommendations
These two articles deal with different aspects concerning rail transit systems, but they all convey the wariness of their authors towards the gung-ho mentality of some proponents of rail transit. On the other hand, the outcomes of the articles are also cautiously optimistic towards rail. Pickrell comes to the conclusion that if federal funding were distributed and regulated differently, where cities would be required to have a bigger stake in the project, then pains might be taken to ensure the accuracy of forecasts or to not interpret the results in a biased manner. This is related to one of the main points of Gomez’s article (see: Case Studies), in which he states that ridership was overestimated and capital costs were underestimated. Although this happens frequently, the three examples that Gomez examined (San Diego, Calgary and Edmonton) are all considered successful rail transit systems today. From Robertson’s article, the main conclusion applicable to Northern Kentucky is that if the main goal is downtown revitalization (it is one goal, but not the only one), multiple strategies should be implemented simultaneously. If you also just think about each strategy in the context of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, some strategies have already been tried, and most have made minimal impact, but transportation enhancement can have a major positive impact if implemented correctly, which is encouraging for rail transit proponents.
These two articles deal with different aspects concerning rail transit systems, but they all convey the wariness of their authors towards the gung-ho mentality of some proponents of rail transit. On the other hand, the outcomes of the articles are also cautiously optimistic towards rail. Pickrell comes to the conclusion that if federal funding were distributed and regulated differently, where cities would be required to have a bigger stake in the project, then pains might be taken to ensure the accuracy of forecasts or to not interpret the results in a biased manner. This is related to one of the main points of Gomez’s article (see: Case Studies), in which he states that ridership was overestimated and capital costs were underestimated. Although this happens frequently, the three examples that Gomez examined (San Diego, Calgary and Edmonton) are all considered successful rail transit systems today. From Robertson’s article, the main conclusion applicable to Northern Kentucky is that if the main goal is downtown revitalization (it is one goal, but not the only one), multiple strategies should be implemented simultaneously. If you also just think about each strategy in the context of Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, some strategies have already been tried, and most have made minimal impact, but transportation enhancement can have a major positive impact if implemented correctly, which is encouraging for rail transit proponents.