Carta de crédito.

The key-informant interviews focused a great deal on the informants’ identification of streetcar goals and their assessments of the streetcars’ performance in attaining these goals. Three goals emerged across the interviews. First, in each city, informants noted a development rationale for the streetcar, including the streetcar’s potential role as a “permanent amenity” that might encourage developers to make investments in areas adjacent to a streetcar line. Portland’s experience with development loomed large for each of the cities that built their streetcars after Portland’s first line opened. Second, in many cities, informants emphasized the streetcar’s role as a symbol or icon that might be used to give identity to the city, or to a neighborhood at a more localized scale, and might be a valuable asset in marketing the city to attract tourists, conventioneers, and other visitors. Finally, in a couple cities, informants discussed the streetcar’s potential role as a transportation investment that might help to serve local goals to encourage more use of non-automobile transportation, including by serving as a pedestrian or bicycle “trip extender.” Particularly noteworthy here is the striking contrast between the significance accorded to this role in Portland versus most other cities. It is important to note that the goal(s) for streetcar development in each city affected the selection of alignment locations and their lengths, as well as stop locations, which had significant implications for ridership and transportation performance once the streetcar began operations.

Streetcar as Development Tool

Most key informants identified development promotion as the primary goal of streetcar investment in their city. The business leader informants in Tampa and the business leader informant in Portland used the word “catalyst” and the phrase “tool to assist development” when discussing the streetcar’s potential development role, while key informants in Memphis, Seattle, and Tampa referred to the streetcar as a development “amenity.” The business leader informant in Portland went even further and asserted that the “streetcar was never primarily a transportation tool” and that the streetcar’s goal was “assisting and reviving intercity neighborhoods” and “encouraging intercity development.” Figure 8 depicts a Portland streetcar operating near higher density urban development.

Figure 8. Portland Streetcar Near Higher Density Urban Development54

In Portland, the business leader emphasized the role of the streetcar as a good “catalyst for change in decayed or underdeveloped urban areas,” and he pointed to European cities as models because of their well-developed transit systems that served their urban cores. The streetcar advocate added that the first streetcar line (NS Line) was linked to a central city redevelopment plan that called for 10,000 residential units and 3.5 million square feet [325,160 square meters] of retail development in areas near the streetcar line. The regional transit planner concurred with these views and emphasized that key stakeholders in the decision making process around the first line viewed it as “more of a land use project than a transit project… It was part of the package of a development strategy.” The local land planner and local transit planner concurred with the idea that the streetcar was a development tool that was placed in an area that both planners and policymakers felt had significant development potential.

According to the regional transit planner, the “city had a high density vision” for the Pearl District located adjacent to downtown Portland, and the streetcar was seen as a “permanent… symbol of public investment and commitment to the area and its high density vision.” The same informant said the recent Central Loop line (opened in 2012) is driven by similar development goals, although the city is not promoting very high densities in the area, as they wish to retain its “mixed use character.”

Portland served as a model for many of the other cities, which adopted the streetcar to further their own development goals. In Tampa, the streetcar advocate pointed to Portland as a key model for the streetcar in that community. He articulated the view that “urban redevelopment follows transit,” in this case the streetcar, and cited Portland as “the model” of a community that had successfully used its streetcar to further its redevelopment and densification policies. The developer informants in Seattle also pointed to Portland as an inspiration for Seattle’s own streetcar line and its development promotion goals. They recalled that Seattle officials had commissioned an appraiser to study the value of new development along the Portland Streetcar line with an eye toward estimating development potential in their city. The Seattle informants also noted that local policymakers took a field trip to see Portland’s streetcar when they were making the decision whether or not to build the South Lake Union Line.

Memphis’ first streetcar line predates the Portland streetcar line, and the key informants also emphasized the development rationale for its implementation. The business and transit informants described downtown Memphis in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a distressed area in need of serious revitalization. The immediate impetus to the construction of the city’s first Trolley was a desire to revitalize a failed pedestrian mall along Main Street. The transit planning informants characterized the streetcar as a tool that would provide better access to this area, which was perceived as lacking good pedestrian access, and that the streetcar would in turn stimulate development activity. The redevelopment agency informant agreed that the Memphis Trolley was built primarily to encourage development. Figure 9 depicts a streetcar operating on Memphis’ Main Street Trolley Line.

Most informants across the five cities spoke favorably of the streetcar as a development tool. Informants spoke about the streetcar’s potential to “activate the street” by encouraging walking and outside activity. They spoke about the signals the investment sent to developers about a strong public “commitment” to an area in the form of a “permanent” investment, which would then presumably encourage developers to make their own investments. The stark contrast with bus services, which were not seen as permanent, and thus would presumably be of little or no interest to private developers’ long-term market interests, was implicit in many informant interviews.

Informants viewed the streetcar as important for development, although few characterized it as a cause of development activity on its own. Instead, they tended to discuss the streetcar as being one of many assets necessary to attain positive development outcomes in their community. Informants also emphasized the importance of strong regional economies, healthy local real estate markets, and synergies with other public and private investments in areas adjacent to the streetcar as key factors for successful development outcomes.

Figure 9. Trolley on Memphis’ Main Street Line55

Streetcar as Symbol or Icon to Construct Identity and Promote Tourism

The use of the streetcar as a symbol or icon was the second most noted goal that arose in the interviews. This goal was explicitly tied to local efforts to market a city to tourists, conventioneers, and other visitors, and it was particularly noteworthy in Little Rock, Memphis, and Tampa, the three cities whose streetcar ridership is overwhelmingly dominated by visitor-serving trips. These kinds of comments did not emerge as frequently or consistently in the Portland and Seattle interviews.

In Little Rock, the tourism promoter spoke about the “charming vintage streetcar experience” and the “nostalgic feel” of the local streetcar, which was something that the city tries to market to visitors. In Tampa, the regional planning informant spoke about the “abstract benefits” of the streetcar, including its role as “icon” or “symbol” of the city. He favorably noted the TECO Line streetcar’s visibility in television coverage of major events, such as the Super Bowl, in the city. He thought it served as a very positive symbol of the city. The Memphis business leader informant made similar statements when he referred to the Trolley as a “marketing investment” for the city and spoke approvingly of its appearance on television coverage of Memphis events. One of the Tampa transit informants noted that the streetcar has become an iconic image of the city. He further reported that “it’s cute,” although he also lamented that most people “don’t ride it.”

The nostalgic image of the streetcar, derived from its central role in an earlier era of urban development, loomed large in the minds of many informants. The Memphis business leader spoke of the streetcar helping to “support the historic feeling of the neighborhood… (it) creates an emotional connection to downtown and (helps communicate) the sounds/ smells of the city.” He characterized the streetcar as providing a “theatrical event” and a “unique feeling that can’t be achieved with other modes.” Along similar lines, one Tampa business leader informant characterized the TECO Line streetcar as a “cultural asset” that tells people what Tampa is “all about, (including) its historical significance.” Figure 10 depicts a TECO Line streetcar in Tampa.

Figure 10. TECO Line Streetcar in Tampa56

Streetcar as Transit Service

In three cities, the key informants did not cite any transportation-related goals for the streetcar. The regional planner in Little Rock emphasized that River Rail was “not a commuter service.” In Tampa, one business leader informant noted that the TECO Line was “less a mode of transportation” and “more of a cultural and entertainment piece.” The Memphis transit informants noted that they didn’t change any bus routes when the Trolley lines opened and do not try to coordinate Trolley service schedules with local buses. These comments together point to the lower priority placed on the Trolley’s role as a utilitarian transportation service than its use to achieve other ends.

By contrast, the streetcar’s transportation role emerged during the key informant interviews in Portland and Seattle. In Portland, the local land planner and local transportation planner characterized the streetcar as being a combination transportation service and development tool. They spoke of its placement in an area with ridership potential and its ability to serve as a pedestrian trip extender in the downtown that allowed people to shift from motorized transportation to combination streetcar-walking trips. The streetcar advocate and regional transit planner both spoke of a transportation role that has grown in importance as the streetcar lines have been extended over time. The regional transit planner further noted that now Tri-Met includes the streetcar lines as part of its frequent service transit network, which means they are seen by Tri-Met officials as important pieces of the regular local transit system.

In Seattle, the transportation role of the streetcar emerged in interviews, although not quite to the same degree as seen in Portland. The transit planner spoke about the South Lake Union line’s role serving the “last mile” in the local transit system. He further noted its role as a circulator that also links to other transit services and to the nearby downtown core. In both Portland and Seattle, the key informants spoke with some pride about the higher- than-forecast ridership of the streetcar lines, which indicates that they pay some attention to the streetcar’s ridership and other transportation performance measures.