Posts about Streetcars

The streetcar is not about speed

The streetcar is not going to be faster than a bus. It may be slower, since the streetcar could get stuck behind other vehicles more often. Some plans even suggest that in future corridors, the streetcar run the local service and most buses switch to limited-stop.

Experiences in other cities have shown that a streetcar makes many people more willing to live, eat and shop along a corridor, though. It's a smoother ride, and laying tracks creates a sense of permanence. Property owners consequently are more likely to build on empty lots or open businesses in vacant storefronts as a result.

But a streetcar is much more expensive to build than a bus. The Office of Planning report on streetcar land use concludes that streetcars can generate more economic benefits than they cost. But all corridors are not created equal. Some can support more economic benefits than others. The best ones are those that can accommodate a lot of redevelopment.

With declining federal revenues, DC can't count on outside financing for the streetcar lines. With DC residents paying for the streetcar themselves, the lines should go where they'll bring enough benefits to justify the cost.

Neighborhoods: Want a streetcar? Help pay for it.

Property owners could agree to a "value capture" system, where if their property increases in value as a result of the streetcar, some of that extra value goes back to the streetcar to pay for construction.

The Office of Planning report estimates that capturing some of the real estate benefits of the streetcar could pay for 40-60% of the cost of building one (page 68). But it also says, "The increases in real estate values and development that the streetcar could spur over a ten-year period—looking only at land within a quarter-mile of new routes—would exceed the projected cost of creating the system by 600% to 1,000%" (page 7). Therefore, even greater value capture, and picking corridors willing to agree to greater value capture, could fund even more of the system.

Neighborhoods can also make a streetcar more or less economical. Residents around a commercial corridor could agree to targeted changes to the zoning that allow for more new residents or jobs right next to the streetcar, to bring in revenue and take advantage of the new transit service.

The chart below, from the OP report, looks at the effect on the housing market of each segment. Those in the upper right spur new development in places there is a lot of opportunity. Segments in the upper left, on the other hand, increase property values but there isn't a lot of room in the zoning to add more housing.

In these areas, it would make more sense to ask for targeted increases right near streetcar stops if neighborhoods want a streetcar line. That will make sure the line actually generates economic value to justify the cost.

The segments in the lower left don't receive much economic value from a streetcar. Many are actually the spots where the lines connect to Metro stations; the streetcar won't change housing demand much because Metro already has. Elsewhere, the segments likely aren't worthwhile and DC should invest in other transit instead.

The lonely 1A segment, way at the bottom left of the chart, is the segment on South Capitol Street. It is between a military base and a freeway, where absolutely nobody lives and no new development is possible. It's hard to justify running streetcar service there, although it is a great site for a maintenance facility.

Our experiences with building Metro provides an analogue. Arlington planned higher-density urban villages next to each Metro station, while preserving the surrounding neighborhoods a few blocks away. That gave Arlington tremendous growth without increased traffic, putting it in a very strong fiscal position for a long time. Streetcars won't be able to support densities as high as Metro, but the principle is the same.

In the San Francisco area, towns with BART lines built around the same time, in contrast, typically downzoned the land around the stations to prohibit walkable urbanism and ensure park-and-ride lots. They didn't recognize the value of building new, less car-dependent neighborhoods atop the stations. Once BART had decided to put a line there, they had no leverage to encourage communities to maximize the investment.

Moving forward, DC officials should work with individual neighborhoods to consider the potential benefits of the streetcar. If a community has plenty of development potential, a streetcar might pay for itself now. Or, maybe the community can agree to a few simple steps, like allowing some extra housing, offices and retail, or setting up a value capture system that best takes advantage of the opportunity from building a streetcar.

Want a streetcar sooner? Then work out changes to help pay for one. Don't want any change? Then maybe DC should put the streetcar elsewhere, at least for a while.

Wisconsin Avenue needs better buses, not streetcars

Some corridors could certainly benefit from better transit, but the streetcar isn't the right mode. Take Wisconsin Avenue. The buses that ply this corridor have some of the highest ridership in DC, and could use more capacity. A streetcar could increase capacity, since vehicles are larger, but at great cost. Meanwhile, it won't spur new development to cover that cost.

Wisconsin Avenue has many sites ripe for development that are similar in scale to many of the existing apartment buildings, but the obstacle has never been transit access.

Few new buildings are built along Wisconsin Avenue. This isn't because of any shortage of demand or access. Rather, new buildings aren't going up because of some neighbors' intense and often litigious oppo­sition.

The Wisconsin Giant, for instance, is a mere 5-story development, yet it endured decades of legal, historic, and other obstacles. Most residents nearby may support new construction, but a streetcar won't change the dynamic.

Instead, Wisconsin Avenue needs bus priority treatment. Dedicated lanes, queue jumpers, signal priority, off-board payment, and more limited stop service could all give residents and workers a faster route downtown, which is really what they need. It takes a long time to get downtown on the 30s. A streetcar won't fix that, but bus priority could.

Right now, DDOT and WMATA are studying the possibility of adding dedicated bus lanes during rush periods to H and I Streets crosstown. If successful, these will significantly speed the trip by bus for the 30s and many other lines. DC should make sure these work, and also begin studying how to best configure Wisconsin Avenue for efficient bus service, even at the cost of hampering other modes.

Mary Cheh, who represents Ward 3, also now chairs the transportation committee in the DC Council. She's expressed some disappointment that her ward is largely left out of the streetcar plan, and pushed Gabe Klein (when he was in DC) and Harriet Tregoning to study a Wisconsin Avenue line.

However, Ward 3 just isn't a place that needs the economic development of a streetcar. Cheh would best serve DC by supporting a streetcar in the neighborhoods which need growth and pushing for other transit improvements in her neighborhoods which need mobility instead.

At his talk last week, Jarrett Walker said that many cities build streetcars just because they can't make the bus system easier to understand. DC should distinguish between the best place for streetcars and the best place for buses.

In neighborhoods with significant economic development potential, like on H Street NE, Georgia Avenue, and many other corridors, a streetcar makes sense. Where transit isn't the obstacle to growth, like on Wisconsin Avenue, we should also improve transit, but use the right mode for the job.

He encouraged cities to move away from the historic North American penchant for putting a bus stop at nearly every corner (something not done in the rest of the world), and expect riders to walk a little more so that service is faster for everyone. Shortening trip times reduces the cost of providing service, which usually means that more service can be provided. It also encourages more people to ride, because it increases the area of the isochrone.

Transit routes that deviate off a direct path to serve poorly-located shopping centers, housing cul-de-sacs, and insular complexes, inconvenience through-riders and make transit less attractive, he said. Anything not built "on the way" is essentially saying, "I only want as much transit service as I alone can support," because those destinations can't be pooled with any other destinations. Once urban areas have taken this built form, it becomes expensive to provide service to them.

He ripped into WMATA's Metrobus map, pointing out that almost every route is shown in red, regardless of how often it runs. That's not helpful, he says, because it's like a roadmap "which doesn't differentiate between a highway and a gravel road."

Maps like this, which Walker laments are all too common amongst US transit systems, put the onus on the rider to first figure out what routes get them to where they want to go, then consult a complicated schedule to find out how often it runs.

Instead, he said, the map's design should make it as easy as possible on the rider by displaying routes based on frequency. Routes with the most frequent and round-the-clock service "should scream out at you," he insisted. For example, putting routes in a different color would let riders know at a glance if they could easily jump on board and not bother with a timetable.

Poor map design and inscrutable signpost information cost more than just riders. In some cities, it's become so frustrating that officials have thrown up their hands and turned to another form of transit altogether. Walker finds that unconscionable: cities shouldn't build streetcars or new bus systems simply because the existing system is incomprehensible. He pointed to the DC Circulator as a prime example of unnecessary duplication that squanders public resources that would be better spent making the most-used Metrobus routes more frequent and user-friendly.

His point about circulators is instructive for Tysons Corner, where five are planned. Walker says when good bus service is already there, adding circulators can be redundant and wasteful. In Canberra, Australia, planners faced with a similar situation saved lots of money by choosing simply to rebrand a section where many existing bus lines converged as one cohesive service (the "Green Line") with clock-face regularity.

He acknowledged that streetcars do tend to drive economic development because of their perceived permanence and attractiveness compared to buses. But he urged planners to remember that 50 years from now, any economic development potential today will be distant history, but the travel time riders gain from a bus which can navigate around obstacles will endure. He further cautioned against thinking of laying rails as signifying permanence, since most of DC's original streetcar tracks have been paved over.

Above all, Walker emphasized, transit agencies and the governments that fund them should see their job as enhancing freedom by making as much of the region as possible accessible by frequent, reliable service. The other things transit does, such as spurring economic development, providing jobs, protecting the environment and enhancing social equity, are all secondary to this primary purpose of transit.

If you missed Jarrett last week, you can watch his presentation to the Montgomery County Planning Department, below:

K Street at Union Station

Somewhere near Union Station, the H Street streetcar will shift north 2 blocks before continuing west along K Street into downtown. The adopted plan calls for the shift to take place on New Jersey Avenue, but it could be done on 1st Street NE instead.

The 1st Street alignment would provide more direct service through the heart of the emerging NoMa office district, and to the huge Greyhound bus station at the corner of K and 1st. The downside is this alignment would remove direct access to the New Jersey Avenue Walmart, which is sure to become a major destination.

Poplar Point and downtown Anacostia

Poplar Point could one day be the location of a large new mixed-use development. Unfortunately the location is isolated by I-295, and difficult to access by foot or transit. Meanwhile, the MLK Avenue alignment through downtown Anacostia is narrow, and proving difficult to work with. Adding tracks to Poplar Point would add a major new attraction and remove stress from a likely choke point.

Southwest Waterfront

Like Poplar Point, the Southwest Waterfront is primed for major redevelopment. The planned streetcar alignment follows Maine Avenue, but shifting it one block over to Water Street would put it closer to the action, for basically no additional cost. There is so much pavement in this area that it may be a location where a dedicated transit lane is possible. If that is the case, DDOT should put the streetcar wherever they can get the lane.

Buzzard Point

Diverting the M Street SW/SE streetcar to Potomac Avenue would more directly serve Nationals Park and much of the associated nearby development. Unfortunately, doing so would add a lot of travel time for other riders, since it would turn what is currently planned to be a direct 3-block trip along M Street into a lengthy 10-block crescent. Additionally, M Street is one of the few locations where a dedicated transit lane may be possible, so diverting from it would forfeit that possibility.

14th and 15th Streets

Shifting the streetcar from 14th to 15th through downtown DC would be easier to construct from an engineering perspective, and would put the streetcar on a busy tourist street close to the White House. The study does not discuss the implications of running a streetcar on the same street as a cycle track, but if they can both be accommodated it would certainly be an impressive sight.

7th/9th couplet

The adopted streetcar plan calls for both both north and southbound streetcars to use 7th Street south of Gallery Place. Shifting the southbound trains to 9th Street would mirror existing bus service, reduce impacts on congested 7th Street, and permit use of the 9th Street transit lane.

Washington Hospital Center

DDOT's streetcar plan calls for half the streetcars on one line to take Irving Street and the other half to take Michigan Avenue. Eliminating this split around the hospital campus and instead routing the streetcar through the campus, or along its southern edge, would save tens of millions of dollars and have no serious negative effect on service to the hospital or any future development at the McMillan Sand Filtration site.

It would take away convenient service from the Armed Forces Retirement Home and development the home plans at the edge of its property, but that may not happen for some time and the size is still in question.

Columbia/Harvard couplet

The adopted plan calls for bi-directional streetcar travel along one-way Columbia Road. Adding tracks to Harvard Street and operating one-way couplets through Columbia Heights would be similar to the way existing bus service uses Irving and Columbia as couplets, and would improve operations. It would be worth exploring mirroring bus service exactly and using Irving instead of Harvard for eastbound tracks, but doing so would require more complicated engineering and may therefore be more difficult.

South Dakota Avenue and Fort Lincoln

Rerouting the eastern end of the Rhode Island Avenue streetcar to turn south on South Dakota Avenue and terminate at Fort Lincoln would bring service to potential redevelopment areas along South Dakota Avenue, as well as provide a convenient location for a maintenance facility. However, this would add significant new length and expense to the line, and would make it more difficult to ever extend rail service into Maryland.

Silver Spring

The Georgia Avenue line would end at Takoma Metro rather than Silver Spring in order to keep the entire line within the District of Columbia. However, Silver Spring is a tremendously more compelling destination, with very high density and one of the region's most important transit transfer stations. Rerouting to Silver Spring would almost certainly be worth the cost, if Maryland is willing to participate as a partner.

Wisconsin Avenue

Wisconsin Avenue has repeatedly come up as a potentially strong streetcar corridor that was left out of the adopted plan. There is less opportunity along Wisconsin Avenue for substantial infill growth, which makes it a lower priority for streetcar service. However, if the system does expand significantly beyond its current scope, this would be a natural corridor.

Rosslyn

Curiously, the land use study does not consider the possibility of extending the Georgetown streetcar line across the Key Bridge into Rosslyn. Certainly such an extension would be compelling, for many of the same reasons as the Silver Spring extension. It could be that the cost or engineering challenges of extending rail to Rosslyn are prohibitive, but it seems odd to leave out any discussion of the possibility.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

Alexandria is in a period of urbanization, a transformation from largely suburban apartment housing, strip mall shopping centers, and industrial brownfield areas to a series of walkable, mixed-use, transit oriented places. At the same time, the housing stock in much of Alexandria is aging and reaching the end of its useful life.

Now the city is working feverishly, using a rare opportunity when so many developments need to be replaced within a few decades to undo mistakes of the past 40 to 50 years. Simultaneously, the city is riding the Transit Oriented Development wave and filling in formerly industrial brownfield sites while trying to keep traffic impacts to a minimum.

Not everyone welcomes all these changes. Real estate values in walkable neighborhoods are on the rise, a sure sign that demand for such units outstrips supply. Unfortunately, that also means creating new walkable places will often drive housing prices out of the affordable range, even for those making 70 or 80% of Area Median Income (AMI).

But what can be done when a building reaches the end of its useful life? With today's construction costs, even renovating or rebuilding an old building will drive rent prices out of reach for many existing residents.

Deputy City Manager Mark Jinks highlighted one example of this in the Beauregard corridor, where the Encore building saw rent increases of 90% after renovation. Jinks warned that without proper planning, this pattern will be repeated as developers update and replace their aging buildings and look to recoup costs.

With the Beauregard Small Area Plan, Alexandria may have partially solved that problem. Under the proposed plan, as the corridor rebuilds, the 5 developers involved will fund the majority of the creation of 703 dedicated affordable and workforce housing units. The development footprint currently contains over 5,500 total units of housing.

According to the plan, "approximately 44% of the existing units [in the plan area] are market rate affordable units, which constitutes more than 25% of the City's total market affordable housing inventory." Of the current 2515 units of market rate affordable housing, the plan as drafted would ensure that 28% of the existing affordable housing units are retained as dedicated affordable and workforce housing units. Depending on future market rates, additional housing may stay in the affordable range.

The units will be broken down into three levels of affordability, with those making a maximum of 55%, 65%, and 80% of AMI eligible to rent the various units. As is the standard, rents of affordable housing units will be set to a maximum 30% of the AMI tier.

For example from the following chart, 60% of AMI is currently about $58,050 for a three-person household, and rent for a two bedroom apartment is set to a maximum of $1,432 per month and a three bedroom comes in at no more than $1,655. The two bedroom rate is below 30% of their earnings, while the three bedroom comes in slightly above. Of course, those making less than 55% of of AMI are still eligible to rent the units as long as they are tenants in good standing. In some cases, housing vouchers could help lower earning tenants make rent.

Each affordable housing unit will cost the City somewhere in the ballpark of $47,000. Montgomery County recently posed as much as $90,000 per affordable housing unit in a similarly sized affordable housing push. Alexandria's lower share per unit in this plan appears due to the developer picking up a substantial chunk of the cost in exchange for upzoning.

The Beauregard Small Area Plan covers 220 acres, more than three times the 70 acres of the North Potomac Yard Small Area Plan. The planning process was led by a developer-funded consultant working closely with the City and the community over a 2-year planning period.

The study area currently contains development totaling about 6 million square feet. Current zoning allows up to about 10 million square feet, but the plan calls for upzoning to allow 12-million square feet of development. This would include a minimum of 250,000 square feet of retail between a town center area and around a traffic oval dubbed "the ellipse".

As a comparison, the Potomac Yard plan allows up to 7.5 million square feet in approximately one third of the acreage, making the Beauregard plan almost exactly half as dense as the Potomac Yard plan. However, even at half the density of the Potomac Yard plan, this upzoning would bring a very large development proffer.
The developer contribution of $187 million will be augmented by $33 million from tax revenues for an extensive list of community benefits.

The most dramatic changes will be Bus Rapid Transit along the entire corridor, the dedicated affordable housing units, the creation of the "ellipse" traffic oval at the intersection of Seminary and Beauregard Roads, a new fire station, and an expanded street-grid with smaller block sizes. These specific contributions will be in addition to typical developer public benefits such as streetscape enhancement, sewer and utility upgrades, public art, etc.

The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route will run the length of the corridor and connect to the Landmark area and Van Dorn Metro. The plan calls for the BRT route to run in a separate right-of-way where possible and includes the possibility of future conversion to streetcars. This BRT line would likely connect to the City's other BRT corridors at Landmark and the Pentagon.

A selling point of the draft plan is that many of the community benefits would be in place by 2020. Alexandria plans to use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to fund the BRT corridor, the "ellipse" improvements, initial street grid improvements, and Beauregard landscaping.

One common concern with TIF is that if too much of the incremental tax value is obligated to repay the debt service, the area benefited by the TIF ends up without enough tax revenue to cover general city services, which are then essentially paid for by tax revenue from the rest of the City.

Mark Jinks ensured this would not be the case, as the projected demographics of the plan area include fewer school aged kids than in more suburban portions of the City. Since schools are the main cost driver on the list of general City services, the plan area will be relatively low cost.

Despite an additional 2,800 units of housing, additional retail and office space, Alexandria Division Chief of Transportation Planning Sandra Marks stated traffic conditions are expected to improve as the plan area is built out.

The introduction of mixed-use development, a more connected street grid that applies complete streets principles, the BRT corridor, and parking maximums are primary factors that are expected to lead to fewer traffic delays. Parking maximums will be 1.75 spaces per multi-family unit (and 2 spaces per townhouse) before transit is built out, and 1.33 spaces per unit afterwards.

Marks pointed out how little the existing streets and bike and pedestrian facilities connect to those of surrounding neighborhoods. The Beauregard Small Area Plan seeks to remedy that problem, which should distribute traffic more evenly throughout the neighborhood. It also helps that all residential units within the plan area will be within a 5-7 minute walk to a transit stop.

Alexandria will hold a community meeting about the plan on Tuesday, Feb. 21 from 7:00 PM - 9:00 PM at John Adams Elementary School. Alexandria is currently accepting comments on the plan through the City website. There is room for revision as the plan is in a draft stage.

One thing is clear. The City of Alexandria plans to gradually increase density into a more urban development pattern over the next few decades. Arguments for and against this change are sure to rage for years to come, but as Jeff Farner said, people are coming, so the City and other regional municipalities must absorb this demand and grow responsibly.

Do we want urban, transit oriented development close to and within the District, or additional exurban sprawl? Alexandria is making it clear that while it plans to manage that growth, it definitely plans to grow.

Positive impacts

According to the study, the great benefit of streetcars will be that they tremendously expand the number of households and business properties that are within walking distance of a rail station. With streetcars complementing Metro, the share of DC residents within a quarter mile of a rail stop will increase from today's 16% up to 50%.

That will correspond to an increase in the value of properties along streetcar lines by $5-7 billion. Another $5-8 billion in new development can be expected, resulting in a total property value increase of $10-15 billion due to streetcars.

That would result in $238-291 million in new tax revenue for the city each year, after completion of the 37-mile streetcar network. At that rate it would take only 6 years for the city to recuperate the full $1.5 billion cost. After that, the additional property tax revenues would be pure profit.

Tax revenue isn't the only benefit, of course. Compared to a no-streetcars baseline scenario, over a 10 year period the streetcar network is anticipated to induce 6,300-7,700 new jobs in the District, up to 12,000 new households, and up to 1.3 million square feet of new retail development.

That is a big deal.

The study goes on to conclude that these sort of dramatic results are only practical with streetcars.

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is often mentioned as a less expensive alternative to streetcars. However, according to the study BRT would require exclusive rights-of-way in order to begin to achieve some of the same benefits as mixed-traffic streetcars. The property acquisitions necessary to provide exclusive bus lanes would more than negate any cost savings achieved by using buses, and the impacts on development would still be less. At the end of the day, BRT would be neither cheaper nor as effective.

Meanwhile, the expense of Metrorail and light rail would make them cost prohibitive to use for such an extensive network. If the District wants 37 miles of new transit, they are not options.

Negative impacts

There are of course some negative impacts. The largest of which is the effect such a tremendous increase in development demand would have on affordable housing.

The study recommends a range of policies to mitigate that impact. These include upzoning certain areas for greater density so that supply can keep up with demand, mandating inclusionary zoning in new developments, and greater code flexibility to allow accessory dwelling units such as alley houses.

Another negative impact is that streetcars running on a curbside alignment preclude the possibility of converting parking lanes to travel lanes during the peak period. With curbside streetcars, parking lanes must be either permanent or absent.

The report also mentions the complications inherent to bicycle-streetcar coexistence. It notes that quality bike infrastructure will be necessary along streetcar corridors in order to minimize conflict.

Funding mechanisms

Although federal funding may become available at some time, any realistic scenario for the funding of this network must include a substantial local contribution.

In addition to DDOT's normal funding mechanisms, the study identifies potential other sources of streetcar construction funds. Developer contributions and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) appear to be the most promising.

Developer contributions may be possible where very large developments would benefit from streetcar services, such as at Walter Reed or the Southwest Waterfront. The city could negotiate for a contribution of a few million dollars, knowing that the value of the development will increase by a greater amount with the presence of a streetcar.

Tax Increment Financing has even greater potential to fund a very large percentage of the program. TIF is a process in which the city uses bonds to build the initial capital investment, then repays the bonds using the increase in property tax revenue.

The report estimates that using the TIF process, the District could realistically support $600-900 million in bonds. That would approximate to between 40-60% of the total $1.5 billion cost.

These funding strategies will have to be explored in greater detail, and the negatives associated with streetcars will have to be addressed. But if this study proves correct, streetcars are going to be a big, big win. A decade after the system is built the city will be a better and more livable place, construction debt will be repaid, and the tax revenue will be rolling in.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

I distributed a questionnaire to 5 participating candidates, and received responses from Bondi, Garvey, and Kim Klingler. The questionnaire asked about the candidates' positions on the Crystal City Sector Plan, the Columbia Pike streetcar, the need for more affordable housing, and more. The candidates also participated in a January 4th debate at GMU's Founder Hall that featured many similar questions.

While the 3 respondents agreed on many points, key distinctions emerged. Bondi and Klingler offered more pointed, direct suggestions for bolstering Arlington's affordable housing stock, while Garvey's experience serving 15 years on the Arlington County School Board gave her detailed knowledge of the ACPS system's current efforts at mitigating the capacity crisis.

All 3 candidates, when asked about the County Board's October 2011 decision to approve Boeing's new regional headquarters in Crystal City, cited concerns with poor urban planning and citizen involvement throughout the process.

Below are exerpts from the candidates' positions on some of the most significant urban issues in Arlington County right now.

What do you see as the most pressing issue facing Arlington County today?

From the need for more affordable housing to transparent governance, each candidate expressed a different view on Arlington County's greatest challenge. What all three candidates appeared to agree on in their answers, however, is the need for collaborative, systematic planning between the County Board and the County's citizens for Arlington's growth.

Melissa Bondi:

I think the most pressing issue is to mitigate the continued threats to, and losses in, Arlington's affordable housing stock. A significant portion of our diverse Arlington population, from immigrants to seniors to persons with disabilities and young families need access to safe, decent affordable housing.

Kim Klingler:

As Arlingtonians, I believe our most pressing issue is to be able to maintain our identity, diversity, and quality of life as we continue to grow as a community. Therefore, we must pay special attention to:
a. Smart Growth and Transportation.
b. County/Schools Collaborative Planning.
c. Maintaining a Diverse and Caring Community.

Libby Garvey:

I think the most pressing issue is the need for more intentional and transparent systems for planning and improvement to manage growth: an overall strategic plan with clear goals, measurable data points and monitoring systems to see if we are progressing towards our goals and working as efficiently as possible.

What are your thoughts on the practicality and cost of the Columbia Pike streetcar? Is this project a good use of funds?

Arlington plans a $261 million streetcar project along Columbia Pike, which leaders say will drive economic growth and improve mobility far beyond what buses can provide, but critics charge is too expensive to justify the benefits. Bondi is a strong supporter of the project, while Garvey and Klingler expressed some doubts in their answers.

Garvey:

While I can see many benefits from a streetcar, the question for me and many people is, are those benefits worth the cost. Arlington needs a clear cost benefit analysis for the streetcar so we can make an informed decision as a board and a community.

Klingler:

In order to determine whether this $261M investment is justified, we need to take a step back and address the following:
a. What do Arlingtonians want? What is their strategic vision and plan for Arlington?
b. How will the street car project be implemented?
c. Can we afford it?
d. Do we have the resources to appropriately manage the contractors?
With the appropriate planning I think the Columbia Pike streetcar could be a promising investment; however, per my points above, I would need to be convinced that now is the right time.

Bondi:

I am a supporter of the Columbia Pike Streetcar, as an integral piece of Arlington's transportation network that will insure mobility for the residents of Columbia Pike in the near term, and for the region in the long term. Major transportation efforts, like a modern streetcar system, require extensive planning and are subject to rising costs. We need to be able to explain any changes in costs and to provide context that helps to reinforce the overall value Arlington residents will realize through such an important investment.

What is your opinion of the Crystal City Sector Plan and its impact on the economic development of Crystal City?

In response to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, which could take up to 18,000 jobs from Crystal City and leave millions of square feet of office space empty, Arlington embarked on a years-long planning process to develop a Sector Plan to shape the neighborhood's future growth.

The plan calls for a modified street grid and a shift in demographics to better balance workers and residents. In their responses, Bondi and Klingler are supportive of the Sector Plan, while Garvey is skeptical that Crystal City residents truly had their voices heard throughout the planning process.

Klingler:

If it can be fully executed, the plan will favorably impact the economic development of Crystal City. [However], the plan will need to be updated to address: offering competitive pricing per square foot, lowering and maintaining emergency response times to Crystal City, planning for additional school and health services, and designing appropriate transitions between denser areas and traditional neighborhoods.

Bondi:

Among the positive achievements I see in the plan are: 1) generally better urban design, more walkable streets, enhanced parks and public spaces; 2) affordable housing targets, perhaps the most ambitious yet included in an Arlington sector plan; 3) a commitment to transportation infrastructure, especially streetcar, which is essential; 4) inclusion of a vehicle for on-going citizen participation and monitoring in implementation, through the "CCCRC," a permanent advisory body led by residents.

Garvey:

Residents of Crystal City value the underground networks for their convenience and protection from the weather. They value the small open spaces that provide relief from many tall buildings. [With the Plan], these amenities will be lost. I've heard from several the sense that excellence in planning, emphasis of transit use and preserving the amenities valued by residence were not included in the plan. Only two residents were on the task force and many residents who tried to participate and work on the plan as citizens, finally quit the process in frustration and anger. This is very unfortunate.

Tomorrow, we'll post Bondi's, Klingler's, and Garvey's responses on the impact of defense spending cuts on the Arlington economy, the capacity crisis in Arlington County Public Schools, and what each candidate would most like to improve about Arlington County.

• Melissa Bondi's questionnaire responses
  
• Libby Garvey's questionnaire responses
  
• Kim Klingler's questionnaire responses

The map was published as part of an extensive post that lists every major transit line in the US that will either open or be under construction in 2012.

The list is impressive. Nearly every major metropolitan area in the country is represented, and even more would be if the list included projects in the planning stages but not yet slated to begin construction.

The listed projects range from the gargantuan to the mundane. From New York's Second Avenue subway, to a BRT line in Fort Collins, Colorado.

The three map icons next to Washington indicate DC's streetcar projects and the two phases of the Silver Line. Other local projects, such as the Purple Line, the Columbia Pike streetcar, and the Corridor Cities Transitway, aren't shown because they are still in planning.

Our country still has a long way to go before the decades of automobile-focused planning are fully repaired. Even this list, impressive as it may be, is short compared to the highway construction list from most individual states. But still, we're making progress as a country. We're doing things now that we weren't doing a few decades ago. Transit is reaching more people, in more places.

So let's congratulate ourselves for a solid step forward. But let's not be too happy; there's still much work to be done.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

But focusing only on the cost increase obscures that, on a per-mile or per-user basis, the streetcar still costs much less than other projects:

• Beltway HOT lanes: $1.4 billion for 14 miles and estimated 66,000 users per day
  
• Maryland Intercounty Connector: $2.6 billion for 18 miles and estimated 30,000 users per day

These simple figures don't even include the huge cost to road users of buying, fueling, maintaining, and insuring a car. They also omit the massive air quality, public health, climate change and other costs of vehicle pollution, and the strains on open space and government services that come from the sprawling development this highway building enables.

The streetcar's mere $261 million price tag, by contrast, covers a 5-mile segment to be used by an estimated 26,000 riders per day.

Instead of further straining public resources by feeding sprawl, the Columbia Pike Streetcar is expected to help revive an existing commercial corridor, contributing positively to Arlington County's balance sheet over time as new development produces tax revenue while adding minimal costs to county services. "County officials believe that by 2040, 3,900 residences and 2.2 million square feet of commercial development, with 7,000 new jobs, will be added," reports the Post.

Yes, $261 million is a heavy lift at a time of economic uncertainty, but a generation ago, so was Metrorail. "Lots of people were vehemently against an infrastructure investment of that magnitude at that time—especially when the decision was made to move it off I-66 and put it underground, which cost that much more," Arlington County Board Member Jay Fisette told me in an interview. "If any community should be able to point to a historical experience of why this kind of investment is worth it for economic impact, quality of life and community planning value, it's Arlington."

More broadly, the Columbia Pike Streetcar is part of the region's next generation of transportation, along with Maryland's Purple Line and a mix of new and revived DC lines. Streetcars are cheaper and have a smaller footprint than Metro's existing heavy rail, while enticing more riders than buses.

County officials say they're hoping to get word on a federal funding commitment to the streetcar in 2012, which would put it on pace for a 2014 groundbreaking and a 2016 opening. From there, extensions to Falls Church or Alexandria are possible.

"The community has endorsed this for years," said Fisette. "As we continue to refine this project and bring it towards the finish line, I'm confident it will be good for Columbia Pike, our economy, our quality of life, and for beginning the next generation of regional rail."