Study: Conflicting goals, focus on economic development lead to underperforming streetcar systems
Streetcars meant to spur development instead of taking people to highly desired spots predicted lack of streetcar success
University of Kansas
LAWRENCE — A city’s streetcar system can be many things. But it can’t be everything. New research from the University of Kansas has found that cities with underperforming streetcar systems often get there by setting too many, sometimes conflicting, goals for what they want the transit systems to accomplish.
Joel Mendez, assistant professor of public affairs & administration at KU, conducted a study in which he analyzed streetcar systems from around the United States. He then focused on two cities with high-performing systems and two with poor-performing streetcars to see what differences caused the disparities. Results showed it is a case of placemaking vs. place taking, or focusing on a streetcar as an economic developmental tool versus a system that takes passengers where they want to go.
Over the past decade, more than $1 billion has been invested in streetcar systems across the nation.
“The reality is most systems are not doing great in terms of attracting passengers,” Mendez said. “This research was geared toward understanding what’s driving performance outcomes in these streetcar systems. I explored the role which goal tension plays in this situation as past research has found that transit projects can pursue as many as 25 distinct and often conflicting goals.”
Such goals commonly include improving air quality, reducing car traffic, increasing mobility for low-income residents and economic development. While all the goals have merit, Mendez said they can often contradict each other.
For the study, Mendez selected two cities with high-performing streetcar systems: Kansas City, Missouri, and Tucson, Arizona. Two underperforming cities — Atlanta and Cincinnati — were selected as well. He examined performance metrics, system policies, location characteristics and planning documents and interviewed 40 people involved in the planning and development of the four systems. Interviewees were asked what influenced decisions that shaped the streetcar systems in their respective city. Mendez found that systems that prioritized economic development in decision making tended to perform poorly. The most successful systems were in cities that emphasized system performance and placed streetcar systems in areas where people lived, worked and wanted to go for entertainment, recreational and personal reasons.
“In cities that prioritized economic development, decisions reflected that focus,” Mendez said. “For example, if you look at corridors where poor performing systems were placed, you will find twice the number of vacant parcels and properties. Such placement can maximize the economic development impact of the streetcar, but it limits its ability to serve the immediate needs of the public.”
Riders of such systems often indicated that they did not use the streetcar as it did not take them to where they wanted to go. Such placement often reflected where decision makers wanted development to go. Anticipated development, if it does come to fruition, can take time and result in the presence of empty streetcars in the meantime.
“This can sour people on the idea of streetcars and affect both political and public perceptions. Plans for expansion won’t happen if employers, workers and leaders think it’s a waste. I think it’s important for cities to focus on passenger attraction,” Mendez said.
Kansas City and Tucson, the cities with high-performing systems, focused more so on place taking, or transporting people to highly desired locations, such as downtown areas with high densities of jobs, entertainment, dining and other features.
The study, published in the Journal of Planning Education and Research, also found that fare policy played a role in ridership numbers. In systems where the fares were not coordinated with other modes of transit, ridership suffered.
Portland, Oregon, installed a streetcar system about two decades ago and saw immediate success. That, coupled with an ongoing availability of federal funds for such systems, spurred many other cities to follow suit in the past decade. Other cities continue to plan streetcar systems, and Mendez said the findings could help planners, developers, policymakers and the public set goals that give such transit systems a chance for success. His larger body of research examines transit planning and policy and how it intersects with equity and future work will examine how private actors influence streetcar development, and if they are doing so in ways that benefit themselves over public interests.
Meanwhile, cities with high-performing streetcar systems are showing that taking people where they want to go is the surest indicator of a successful plan.
“You have to make it easy to get to if you want people to use it,” Mendez said.
Journal
Journal of Planning Education and Research
Method of Research
Observational study
Subject of Research
Not applicable
Article Title
Place-Making or Place-Taking? The Relationship between Goal Tension and System Performance of U.S. Modern-Era Streetcar Systems
No comments:
Post a Comment