VINTAGE STREETCARS
IN OTHER CITIES
Introduction
The recent American
quest for our roots, amid the context of our historical experience,
has led to a revival of interest in not only the preservation of
Historic Districts and urban neighborhoods, but also the growing
interest in vintage streetcars. In the following pages, information
on such projects is presented. The specific projects have been chosen
because of their proximity to Huntington and because they serve
smaller communities and focus on tourists and visitors.
OPERATING SYSTEMS
Memphis, Tennessee
Memphis Area Transit Authority
The initial 2.5
mile segment of this line opened for service on April 29, 1993.
It runs north and south on Main Street. Approximately one mile is
on a mall, which is open to the trolleys and pedestrians only. The
remainder shares the street with traffic. In 1997, a parallel line
was opened using an old railroad right-of-way closer to the Mississippi
River, giving a total length of about 4.5 miles. Shuttle service
along Main Street operates on five-minute headway during the day,
with somewhat less frequent service along the River route. The vehicle
fleet consists of rehabilitated single-truck cars from Oportoo and
double-truck rehabilitated cars from Melbourne, plus one replica
single-truck car. All are of the closed type, and details are given
in the table on the following page. Accessibility is provided by
means of elevators at the station stops along Main Street, and by
fixed high platforms along the River route. The line carries about
3000 passengers per day. The capital cost of the system was funded
by Federal Interstate Transfer funds. Memphis is planning to extend
the Main Street line to serve the Medical Center.
Fort Smith, Arkansas
Fort Smith Trolley Museum
This line is primarily
a museum operation. It began operation in 1991 on a .25 mile former
freight spur of the Frisco Railroad, using a restored single-truck
car which had previously operated in Fort Smith. It has been extended
twice, and currently operates over .5 miles. It operates daily from
May to November, and on weekends the rest of the year. For the first
two seasons of operation, some 26,000 passengers were carried. The
line has been built largely with volunteer labor and donated material,
although public funding is currently being used. The system owns
several cars suitable for restoration, as detailed below. It operates
a transit museum in conjunction with the trolley.
Fort Collins, Colorado
Fort Collins Municipal Railway Society
This tourist line
operates about .5 miles from the fringe of the old downtown area
to a city park, using the original right-of-way of the Fort Collins
Municipal Railway, which abandoned streetcar operations in 1951.
One car is in service during the summer and early fall. It is an
original Fort Collins single-truck closed car which had been on
static display in a civic park until restored to operating condition
by volunteers. The line has run during the summer since 1984. The
system is funded through fares and private donations and is primarily
a tourist operation. While there have been plans to extend it, they
have as yet been unrealized.
Lowell, Massachusetts
Lowell National Historical Park
The water-powered
mills which had once made Lowell America's number one textile producing
town were abandoned by 1970. These mills were part of a largely
intact historic district, which attracted the interest of the National
Park Service. The Service wished to create an industrial heritage
park as an interpretive museum of 19th Century American manufacturing.
Work began in 1978, and included the provision of a trolley shuttle
to connect the various venues along about one mile of trackage.
Three replica streetcars were built for the system, two 15-bench
double-truck opens and a closed double-truck car. The line began
service in 1984.
Galveston, Texas
Galveston Park Board of Trustees
A turn of the
century boom town and major Gulf Port, Galveston suffered decades
of neglect and commercial development went largely to Houston until
its resurgence as a tourist attraction. Because of the long slow
decline, the city had retained a large and diverse concentration
of Victorian commercial buildings and homes, mostly in the downtown
area and along the Strand, facing the Gulf of Mexico. With the resurgence
of interest in the historic areas, the City felt a streetcar line
could best link the Downtown and the Strand and provide an alternative
to the automobile. A 2.5 mile line resulted, using four closed double-truck
replica cars and operating year-round. The cars are propelled by
on-board diesel engines driving generators which provide electricity
for the motors. A key reason for this choice was that Galveston
is subject to hurricanes, and there was fear that such a storm would
blow down an overhead power system. The line was built with Federal
funds, but operating costs have been borne locally, with a combination
of public and private dollars.
Other Cities
There are numerous
other vintage trolley systems in operation throughout the country.
Summary information on some of the more important lines is given
in the following table. The four systems described above are also
listed for ease of comparison.
TABLE
4-1
CHARACTERISTICS OF OTHER OPERATING SYSTEMS
|
CITY
|
LENGTH
|
OPERATING
CARS
|
ADA
|
OPERATES
|
DATE
|
NO
|
DESIGN
|
TYPE
|
Tucson
|
1.5
mi.
|
1
|
DE,
DT, C
|
Rehab.
|
No
|
Weekends
|
1993
|
Fort
Smith
|
.5
mi.
|
2
|
DE,
ST, C
|
Restor.
|
No
|
Daily,
6 mos. Wkends 6 mos.
|
1991
|
San
Francisco
|
("F"
Line)
4.5 mi.
|
17
|
DT,
SE, C
|
Rehab.
|
Yes
|
Daily
|
1995
|
San
Jose
|
2.2
mi.
|
5
|
DT,
DE, C and O
|
Restor.
Rehab.
|
Yes
|
Daily,
3 mos. Wkends 9 mos.
|
1987
|
Ft.
Collins
|
.5
mi.
|
1
|
ST,
DE, C
|
Restor.
|
No
|
Wends,
6 mos
|
1984
|
New
Orleans
|
4.5
mi.
|
42
|
DT,
DE, C
|
Restor.
Replica
|
Yes
|
Daily
|
1831?
|
Lowell
|
1.0
mi.
|
3
|
DT,
DE, O and C
|
Replica
|
Yes
|
Daily,
9 mos
|
1984
|
Portland
|
?
|
4
|
DT,
DE, C
|
Replica
|
Yes
|
Daily
7 mos, Wkend 3 mos
|
1991
|
Dallas
|
3.0
mi.
|
4
|
DE,
C, ST, and DT
|
Restor.
Replica
|
No
|
Daily
|
1989
|
Memphis
|
5.0
mi.
|
10
|
DE,
C, ST and DT
|
Rehab.
Replica
|
Yes
|
Daily
|
1988
|
Galveston
|
2.5
mi.
|
4
|
DE,
DT, C
|
Replica
|
No
|
Daily
|
1988
|
Seattle
|
1.3
mi.
|
4
|
DE,
DT, C
|
Rehab.
|
Yes
|
Daily
|
1982
|
KEY
-- ST: Single-truck DT: Double-truck DE: Double-end SE:
Single-end C: Closed O: Open ADA: Accessibility compliant |
|
PLANNED SYSTEMS
Little Rock, Arkansas
Central Arkansas Transit Authority
Downtown Little
Rock has a Convention Center with three major hotels and the historic
legislative building in close proximity. Several blocks away, along
Markham Street, the River Market area is emerging as an area of
Victorian buildings renovated for commercial and residential uses.
The planned Presidential Library will be just to the east of the
River Market area. Across the Arkansas River, in North Little Rock,
a new sports arena is under construction. The City has approved
plans to build a vintage trolley system to connect these attractions,
and initial Federal funding for the $16 million project has been
obtained. The line will allow users of the convention center and
the sports arena to park their cars and take the trolley to their
destination, as well as to the entertainment venues and restaurants
at the River Market. Detailed engineering is scheduled to begin
in 1998, with construction to follow. The completed line will be
about 2 miles in length and a fleet of six replica closed double-truck
cars has been recommended.
Kenosha, Wisconsin
City of Kenosha
Jutting into Lake
Michigan in downtown Kenosha is a 70 acre site which was a former
Chrysler plant. This site is being redeveloped into residential,
commercial and recreation uses. To connect this site with the downtown
retail area and the Metro commuter rail station, the City of Kenosha
is designing a 2 mile electric streetcar line, arranged in the form
of a large loop which will operate counterclockwise. A fleet of
rehabilitated PCC streetcars will be used, with two cars in regular
operation. (The President's Conference Committee - or PCC - streetcar
is a streamlined vehicle originally developed in the 1930's and
widely used on American trolley systems until recently.) The cars
will be painted in different liveries, and will be retrofitted with
lifts for accessibility. Federal funding has been obtained for the
majority of the capital cost, and the line is intended to be operated
as part of the local public transit system. Construction will be
undertaken in 1999.
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Pikes Peak Historical Street Railway Foundation
Founded in 1982,
the Foundation has methodically taken several steps toward its goal
of implementing a vintage trolley line in Colorado Springs. Through
a combination of public and private funding they have completed
a planning study which ultimately envisions a system of five routes
covering over 16 miles of track. Three separate short lines have
emerged as candidates for the initial phase, all of which serve
retail districts which have a large concentration of visitor traffic.
The Foundation has purchased ten PCC cars, all of which have corporate
sponsors. In addition, the organization is restoring a double truck
closed car which was built in 1901 and formerly ran on the Colorado
Springs and Interurban Railway. They have also leased a single-truck
closed car, virtually identical to cars which ran in the Springs,
from the Rocky Mountain Railroad Club, where it had been on static
display. The foundation established a short section of electrified
trackage on which it can test cars and give rides to the public,
which opened in November, 1995. The Foundation is now obtaining
the necessary public and political support with which it hopes funding
for the first segment can be obtained.
Other Cities
TABLE
4-4
CHARACTERISTICS OF OTHER PLANNED SYSTEMS
|
CITY
|
LENGTH
|
CARS
|
ADA
|
NOTES
|
Colorado
Springs
|
16.5
mi.
|
12
Restor. & Rehab.
|
Yes
|
See
text
|
Denver
|
5
mi.
|
1
Replica
|
Yes
|
Plans
to extend downtown
|
Pueblo
|
1
mi.
|
2
Restor
|
Yes
|
Park
of renewal project
|
Tampa,
FL
|
2
mi.
|
4
Replica
|
Yes
|
$21.3M
Federal funds
|
Sioux
City
|
?
|
?
|
Yes
|
See
Note below
|
Brooklyn
|
.8
mi.
|
3
Rehab.
|
?
|
ADA
status unknown
|
Charlotte,
NC
|
1.7
mi.
|
2
Restor. & Rehab.
|
Yes
|
Engineering
underway
|
Wilmington,
NC
|
2.9
mi.
|
6
Replica
|
Yes
|
Engineering
to begin
|
Kenosha
|
1.9
mi.
|
2
Rehab.
|
Yes
|
Build
in 1999
|
El
Paso, TX
|
4.0
mi.
|
6-8
Replica & Restor.
|
Yes
|
On
hold
|
Little
Rock, AR
|
2
mi.
|
6
Replica
|
Yes
|
Engineering
underway
|
NOTE:
The
Sioux City project received an "earmark" for $10
million in TEA-21 funds as part of 1998 Federal Legislation,
even though planning had not progressed to the point that
a specific alignment and fleet size has been determined.
|
BENEFITS EXPERIENCED
IN OTHER CITIES
Introduction
While there is
no rigorous study of the broader economic and social benefits of
a vintage trolley line, there has been research done in this area.
The firm of Kimley Horn & Associates, has conducted planning
studies and engineering design for a number of such projects. The
material in this section was prepared for the River Rail project
in Little Rock, and represents 1998 data. The Sam St.Clair is indebted
to Kimley Horn & Associates for this material.
This overview
is not representative of a comprehensive statistical research effort,
but reflects "snap-shot" interviews with individuals in
several cities. In addition to visits to several cities to personally
observe the current operations of vintage trolley systems (Portland,
Dallas and Galveston), telephone interviews were also conducted
with individuals in Galveston, Dallas, Memphis, New Orleans, Portland,
San Jose, Tucson and Fort Collins.
During the conduct
of interviews, specific questions were raised to determine:
- The
direct impact of the vintage trolley system on business (increased
sales, higher occupancy rates, tourism, etc.)
- Disruption
of vehicular flow
- Impact
of the overhead power distribution wire.
- Impact
on commercial real estate
- In-depth
interviews were conducted with business leaders as well as transit
system personnel.
Summary of Conclusions
Recently implemented
vintage trolley systems are closely tied to revitalization and enhancement
of commercial districts. Several additional conclusions can also
be derived:
- The
collective business communities in the cities researched give
vintage trolleys high marks for being positive influences in those
cities.
- The
projects have been positive activities for both the city as a
whole as well as the commercial interests directly affected.
- Disruption
due to construction has been minimal and more than overcome by
the positive factors once operation began. There does not appear
to be any significant impact on general traffic flow on those
systems where mixed traffic is allowed. (However, in none of the
cities investigated are existing street configurations as tight
as in Huntington)
- The
use of an overhead wire for electrical power is not perceived
as having any negative impact on the aesthetic of the urban landscape.
On the contrary, vintage trolley projects offer opportunities
for improvement of the urban scene through lighting improvements,
sidewalk amenities and other beautification.
- Vintage
trolley projects have been shaped by the involvement of the local
business community, with individuals and associations playing
major roles in planning, implementing and operating the systems.
Detailed Observations
Individuals from
Galveston, Memphis, Dallas, New Orleans, Portland, San Jose and
Tucson stated that the impact of the local vintage trolley ranged
from negligible to immense. In cases where the impact was considered
extremely positive, the trolley was seen as an important component
of overall downtown improvement efforts, and thus could not be given
sole credit.
Impact on Business Activity
A vintage trolley's
positive impact on business was substantial in many cities surveyed.
Representatives
from both the Memphis Chamber of Commerce and the Memphis Center
City Commission expressed elation with that city's trolley project.
The trolley was seen as taking a liability (the unsuccessful pedestrian
mall) and turning it into a tremendous asset for the community.
It was seen as the key activity in setting off a flurry of development
downtown. The Director of the Center City Commission credited the
trolley system as being responsible for a variety of developments
ranging from a $100 million Peabody Place development to rehabilitation
of many small storefronts.
One of the projects
related to the major development will provide corporate headquarters
for an auto parts retail chain and bring 800 jobs with it. The Commission
offers low interest loans to restore the facades of buildings. With
the construction of the trolley more than twenty such loans have
been made (with only three made prior to that). The Commission can
also offer tax freezes to small businesses to assist with retaining
business in the central city. Prior to the trolley project, two
tax freezes had been arranged; since the coming of the trolley,
nearly 15 have been awarded. One eighteen-story building near the
trolley line had been vacant for 17 years, but will shortly open
as a 202-unit apartment complex.
Lunch traffic
on the trolley street is also seen as a plus. As one interviewee
said, a person can now go farther during lunchtime, thus both broadening
eating choices and allowing more expanded shopping opportunities.
The system also attracts a large number of visitors and Memphis
residents who do not live or work downtown. The positive impact
on weekend retailing was adjudged high.
In Portland, there
is extremely high occupancy of business locations on the rail line.
One of the executives of the downtown association expressed his
belief that this was due in part to vehicular traffic being allowed
to operate within the trolley system right- of-way. He said that,
in that way cyclists, pedestrians, motorists and trolley riders
all had direct access to local establishments. The manager of a
Starbucks Coffee shop at Powell Square in Portland was effusive
about the rail service. She claimed a definite direct positve impact
on her business, with increased walk-in traffic almost every time
the trolley or light rail car stopped nearby.
As mentioned several
times, the trolley projects are not seen as being solely responsible
for the positive business environment, perhaps with the exception
of Memphis. In Portland, there was a great deal of effort focused
on the downtown area, including sidewalk amenities and public places
(squares, plazas, etc.) The combination of these factors has led
to a true rejuvenation of the downtown environment that reflects
a great deal of pride in the city's central area.
The same can be
said of Galveston. The rejuvenation of The Strand was already underway,
and the trolley project was an added facet of this jewel of restoration.
Individual retailers who were contacted did not see much direct
impact on their business from the trolley, but they were very favorable
to the system and its general influence on the area's aesthetics.
The McKinney Avenue
line in Dallas engenders similar comments. Few of the restaurant
owners contacted could point to measurable patronage increases on
account of the trolley, yet all but one were very favorably disposed
toward it.
The St. Charles
and Riverfront Streetcar systems in New Orleans are unique in considering
their impact on business. The St. Charles line has been in continuous
operation since the 1830's. As such, it is considered as much a
part of New Orleans as any other public or private institution.
It serves residential areas and downtown, providing a link for residents
and a way to tour the city for visitors. The Riverfront Streetcar
was an idea born of the developers who made the most of the infrastructure
created for the Worlds' Fair in new Orleans. The Convention Center
and several private developments sprang from that international
exposition.
The Riverfront
Streetcar served to tie together those developments. It has been
extended once since initial service began in 1988, and further extensions
are currently being considered. Original ridership estimates of
2,000 per day for the extension proved to be 40% of the number actually
recorded. Throughout its planning and implementation, the line was
a partnership of public and private interests. Funds were contributed
by private interests, and all of the fifteen organizations -- public
and private -- were included in the process. One restaurant owner
along the Riverfront claims that his business increased one-third
when the line opened. Other retailers in new Orleans have freely
attributed their store location decision to the proximity of the
trolley line.
In each of the
systems investigated, it was the business community that was at
the heart of the development of the vintage trolley. In some cases,
the local community was a participant in the development of the
system, and it continues to play some role in the operation of the
trolley service. Community participation in the projects was varied
and widespread, from private corporate contributions to assessment
districts to providing volunteer labor.
Several of the
systems were characterized as appealing to tourism ridership --
such as the Galveston Island Trolley, the McKinney Avenue line in
Dallas, the Waterfront Streetcar in Seattle, the San Jose Trolley,
the Fort Collins Municipal Railway and the Old Pueblo Trolley in
Tucson. Of these systems, the general impact on business was judged
minor by most business owners. However, reflecting a common view,
one of the major Dallas developers with a large hotel/retail/office
complex having frontage on the street served by the trolley system
felt that the system provided a cohesiveness to the whole district.
He also reported that his own favorite restaurant owner had told
him that the diners took great pleasure in "watching the trolley
go by."
As mentioned,
trolley systems were often part of a larger effort aimed at the
revitalization of certain areas. Such was the case in Galveston,
where emphasis was being placed by the entire community on the redevelopment
of The Strand, an historical area with high tourism attraction levels.
The trolley system in Tucson has been a key to the development of
a number of small retail establishments and restaurants which might
not have occurred without it. Systems in Memphis, Portland and New
Orleans are seen as being a local transportation alternative as
well as attracting visitor ridership.
The impact of
construction related to the systems' implementation differed. In
the case of Memphis, where an existing pedestrian mall was used
for the Main Street Trolley, the impact was minimal. An intensive
information campaign during the construction period was coordinated
by the Memphis Center City Commission. In the case of the New Orleans
Riverfront line, very little impact was apparent during construction
because the line was built largely on an abandoned railroad right-of-way,
and in the case of the St. Charles line, the construction of 1831
had preceded development of the area.
In Portland and
San Jose, the vintage trolley uses the same trackage as the light
rail line, and there was some impact. An official with the Portland
downtown business association said that some weaker businesses were
lost during the construction phase, although he was quick to add
that every business that had been lost was eventually replaced.
In San Jose, a major participatory effort was undertaken to maximize
access to local retailers during construction and minimize disruption,
to the extent that construction was entirely shut down during the
Christmas shopping season.
Impact on Vehicular Traffic Flow
None of the individuals
interviewed mentioned any negative impacts on vehicular traffic
flow. In Portland, the trolleys share the street with autos, trucks
and buses; as in many vintage trolley cities. In some cases in Portland,
the vehicular traffic is confined to one lane and some left turns
are restricted, but there were no complaints about traffic slowdowns,
and no one contacted there knew of or mentioned anything about trolley
breakdowns. Indeed, they all felt the trolley vehicles were very
reliable.
In Portland, where
most on-street parking was removed from the streets on which the
trolleys run, the lost spaces were more than compensated for by
additional public parking lots that were also in the planning stages
while the rail system was under development. Parking was not an
issue in Memphis (where the former pedestrian mall had no parking),
nor in New Orleans, Galveston or Fort Collins. In San Jose, the
rail development in the downtown was accompanied by a two-street
semi-mall, and widened sidewalks and pedestrian areas caused the
loss of two traffic lanes and one parking lane. However, compensating
off-street capacity was designed and built concurrently, and the
end result was a much more attractive and lively downtown business
district.
Impact of Overhead Wire
None of the individuals
interviewed felt that the visual impact of the overhead wire was
an issue. In Portland and San Jose, the rail project afforded the
opportunity to install attractive vintage street lighting, and that
was implemented at the same time that wire was erected. Several
cities have used the opportunity to combine functions and minimize
the use of separate poles or posts in the business district. In
San Jose and elsewhere, the Fire Department was involved in the
design of the overhead to assure that it did not interfere with
possible emergency situations.
Impact on Residential Areas
All of the individuals
contacted were asked about any impacts on residential areas. Few
were reported. In Galveston, one person living on the trolley line
did not believe there was any impact on residential areas -- positive
or negative. Representatives of a Catholic school located on the
Galveston line judged the impact to be zero, except for the opportunity
for students to take group excursions. In Dallas, the manager of
an apartment complex viewed the impact of the trolley as non-existent,
and that it was not a factor in tenant location decisions.
On the other hand,
classified advertisements in the local Galveston newspaper highlighted
proximity to the trolley in describing residential property, as
was the case in Memphis. Even though Galveston's system is used
predominantly by visitors to the island, there are a number of local
riders who use the line for routine trips to the post office, grocery
store or other business purposes.
In Portland, the
vintage trolley was itself a mitigation measure to compensate for
the impact of the city's light rail line on two historically significant
residential areas. Historic trolleys had been considered previously
as a possible linkage between the two historic districts, and the
construction of the light rail line served as a catalyst to implement
that idea.
In Fort Collins,
representatives of the streetcar system expressed their belief that
several home-buying decisions had been positively influenced by
the presence of the trolley.
Impact on Commercial Real Estate
While it appears
that the Portland and Memphis trolley systems have been factors
in commercial real estate decisions, no quantifiable information
exists. In Portland, there are claims that real estate prices near
the line are higher, yet this equation also includes other improvements
in the downtown area. In Memphis, because of the abundance of available
property, real estate rates do not yet seem to have been affected
by the trolley line. As mentioned, the impression in Tucson is that
the trolley's proximity has attracted a number of small retail and
restaurant establishments. And while there is not specific data,
the impression is that the presence of the trolley in San Jose,
Galveston and Dallas -- by itself -- has not had major impact on
real estate prices. Proximity to these lines, as well as to the
St. Charles line in New Orleans, is seen as a plus, but no quantifiable
data is available.
|