IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jotrge/v54y2016icp383-390.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Streetcar projects as spatial planning: A shift in transport planning in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • King, David A.
  • Fischer, Lauren Ames

Abstract

Currently dozens of U.S. cities are in the midst of planning and building modern streetcar systems. Though seemingly mobility investments, the intended impacts of these streetcar projects reach beyond transportation and represent a strong turn toward strategic spatial planning through transportation infrastructure. Proponents of modern streetcars argue that they are tools of placemaking as much as if not more than improvements for transit services. Unlike transit investments of a century ago, when privately operated streetcars were a decentralizing force that helped disperse overcrowded central city cores and open new land for real estate development, current streetcar projects in the United States are expected to concentrate activity and economic development in select corridors. The majority of these new systems rely on transit technologies that are significantly improved over the carriages of old, with modern features, smooth rides and quiet operations. Yet for all the improvements to the vehicles and services, new streetcar investments no longer primarily improve transit accessibility. Rather, modern streetcars are part of strategic amenity packages cities use to achieve real estate and economic development goals. This use of transportation infrastructure as an amenity for a particular location is a shift away from traditional transportation planning processes, and the expected benefits, in particular, stand apart as being deliberately spatial. We use planning documents and data from ballot box initiatives to evaluate expected transportation benefits relative to indirect benefits through economic development. We find that approximately three-quarters of all expected benefits from streetcar projects accrue to property development with the remaining expected benefits assigned to transportation. However, we do not find sufficient empirical evidence in the literature to support such certain claims of positive effects on property values and the built environment. We argue that the increasing tendency of cities to leverage streetcar projects for non-transportation purposes represents a turn to the use of infrastructure as a tool of spatial planning.

Suggested Citation

  • King, David A. & Fischer, Lauren Ames, 2016. "Streetcar projects as spatial planning: A shift in transport planning in the United States," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 383-390.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:54:y:2016:i:c:p:383-390
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.02.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692316000181
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.02.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cervero, Robert & Landis, John, 1995. "The Transportation-Land Use Connection Still Matters," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9sg3w7q5, University of California Transportation Center.
    2. Jeffery J. Smith & Thomas A. Gihring, 2006. "Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(3), pages 751-786, July.
    3. Feng Xie & David Levinson, 2010. "How streetcars shaped suburbanization: a Granger causality analysis of land use and transit in the Twin Cities," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 453-470, May.
    4. King, David, 2011. "Developing Densely: Estimating the Effect of Subway Growth on New York City Land Uses," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 4(2), pages 19-32.
    5. Levinson, David & Zhang, Lei, 2006. "Ramp meters on trial: Evidence from the Twin Cities metering holiday," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 810-828, December.
    6. Giuliano, Genevieve, 1995. "The Weakening Transportation-Land Use Connection," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1dn8t3w7, University of California Transportation Center.
    7. Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia & Banerjee, Tridib, 2000. "The Blue Line Blues: Why the Vision of Transit Village May Not Materialize Despite Impressive Growth in Transit Ridership," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8jd663ht, University of California Transportation Center.
    8. Cervero, Robert & Landis, John, 1995. "The Transportation-Land Use Connection Still Matters," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt7x87v1zk, University of California Transportation Center.
    9. Lisa Schweitzer & Brian Taylor, 2008. "Just pricing: the distributional effects of congestion pricing and sales taxes," Transportation, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 797-812, November.
    10. Wachs, Martin, 2003. "Local Option Transportation Taxes: Devolution as Revolution," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt2d38m621, University of California Transportation Center.
    11. Bollinger, Christopher R. & Ihlanfeldt, Keith R., 1997. "The Impact of Rapid Rail Transit on Economic Development: The Case of Atlanta's MARTA," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 179-204, September.
    12. King, David & Manville, Michael & Shoup, Donald, 2007. "The political calculus of congestion pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt9js9z8gz, University of California Transportation Center.
    13. King, David & Manville, Michael & Shoup, Donald, 2007. "The political calculus of congestion pricing," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 111-123, March.
    14. David Levinson, 2008. "Density and dispersion: the co-development of land use and rail in London," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 55-77, January.
    15. Michael Manville & Benjamin Cummins, 2015. "Why do voters support public transportation? Public choices and private behavior," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 303-332, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Xinjian & Love, Peter E.D. & Luo, Hanbin & Fang, Weili, 2022. "A systemic model for implementing land value capture to support urban rail transit infrastructure projects," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 90-112.
    2. Linovski, Orly & Baker, Dwayne Marshall & Manaugh, Kevin, 2018. "Equity in practice? Evaluations of equity in planning for bus rapid transit," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 75-87.
    3. Meng An & Xuewu Chen, 2022. "Streetcar Development in China: The Motivations Behind," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, March.
    4. Houston, Douglas & Zuñiga, Michelle E., 2021. "Perceptions of neighborhood change in a Latinx transit corridor," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Kristian Olesen, 2020. "Infrastructure imaginaries: The politics of light rail projects in the age of neoliberalism," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(9), pages 1811-1826, July.
    6. Chatman, Daniel G. PhD & Barbour, Elisa PhD & Kerzhner, Tamara & Manville, Michael PhD & Reid, Carolina PhD, 2023. "Policies to Improve Transportation Sustainability, Accessibility, and Housing Affordability in the State of California," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt03z7t8r1, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    7. Culver, Gregg, 2017. "Mobility and the making of the neoliberal “creative city”: The streetcar as a creative city project?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 22-30.
    8. Sovacool, Benjamin K. & Yazdi, Asieh Haieri, 2019. "Technological frames and the politics of automated electric Light Rail Rapid Transit in Poland and the United Kingdom," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    9. Michael J. Smart & Nicholas J. Klein, 2020. "Disentangling the role of cars and transit in employment and labor earnings," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 1275-1309, June.
    10. Diemer, Matthew J. & Currie, Graham & De Gruyter, Chris & Hopkins, Ian, 2018. "Filling the space between trams and place: Adapting the ‘Movement & Place’ framework to Melbourne's tram network," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 215-227.
    11. Athanasios-Alexandru Gavrilidis & Andreea Nita & Mihaita-Iulian Niculae, 2020. "Assessing the Potential Conflict Occurrence Due to Metropolitan Transportation Planning: A Proposed Quantitative Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, January.
    12. Diemer, Matthew J. & Currie, Graham & De Gruyter, Chris & Kamruzzaman, Md. & Hopkins, Ian, 2021. "A streetcar to be desired? The development of a new approach to measure perception of place quality in the context of tram network modernisation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dena Kasraian & Kees Maat & Dominic Stead & Bert van Wee, 2016. "Long-term impacts of transport infrastructure networks on land-use change: an international review of empirical studies," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(6), pages 772-792, November.
    2. Wang, Xize & Rodríguez, Daniel A. & Mahendra, Anjali, 2021. "Support for market-based and command-and-control congestion relief policies in Latin American cities: Effects of mobility, environmental health, and city-level factors," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 91-108.
    3. Myung-Jin Jun & Simon Choi & Frank Wen & Ki-Hyun Kwon, 2018. "Effects of urban spatial structure on level of excess commutes: A comparison between Seoul and Los Angeles," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(1), pages 195-211, January.
    4. Boeing, Geoff, 2017. "Methods and Measures for Analyzing Complex Street Networks and Urban Form," SocArXiv 93h82, Center for Open Science.
    5. Jiawen Yang, 2008. "Policy Implications of Excess Commuting: Examining the Impacts of Changes in US Metropolitan Spatial Structure," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(2), pages 391-405, February.
    6. Tarduno, Matthew, 2021. "The congestion costs of Uber and Lyft," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    7. Dai, Danielle & Weinzimmer, David, 2014. "Riding First Class: Impacts of Silicon Valley Shuttles on Commute & Residential Location Choice," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2jr7z01q, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    8. Vonk Noordegraaf, Diana & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2014. "Policy implementation lessons from six road pricing cases," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 172-191.
    9. Ibraeva, Anna & Correia, Gonçalo Homem de Almeida & Silva, Cecília & Antunes, António Pais, 2020. "Transit-oriented development: A review of research achievements and challenges," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 110-130.
    10. Zhong-Ren Peng, 1997. "The Jobs-Housing Balance and Urban Commuting," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 34(8), pages 1215-1235, July.
    11. Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Bascuñán, Raúl & Rizzi, Luis Ignacio & Salata, Andrés, 2021. "Assessing the potential acceptability of road pricing in Santiago," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 153-169.
    12. Krabbenborg, Lizet & Molin, Eric & Annema, Jan Anne & van Wee, Bert, 2020. "Public frames in the road pricing debate: A Q-methodology study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 46-53.
    13. Kuldeep Kavta & Arkopal K. Goswami, 2021. "A methodological framework for a priori selection of travel demand management package using fuzzy MCDM methods," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3059-3084, December.
    14. Lennox, James, 2023. "Spatial economic dynamics in transport project appraisal," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    15. Bruno Borger & Stef Proost, 2016. "The political economy of pricing and capacity decisions for congestible local public goods in a federal state," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 23(5), pages 934-959, October.
    16. Le Vine, Scott & Polak, John, 2016. "A novel peer-to-peer congestion pricing marketplace enabled by vehicle-automation," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 483-494.
    17. Paul J. Burke, 2014. "Green Pricing in the Asia Pacific: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(3), pages 561-575, September.
    18. Zhao, Pengjun, 2013. "The implications of and institutional barriers to compact land development for transportation: Evidence from Bejing," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 6(3), pages 29-42.
    19. Olaru, Doina & Mulley, Corinne & Smith, Brett & Ma, Liang, 2017. "Policy-led selection of the most appropriate empirical model to estimate hedonic prices in the residential market," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 213-228.
    20. Atack, Jeremy & Margo, Robert, 2011. "The Impact of Access to Rail Transportation on Agricultural Improvement: The American Midwest as a Test Case, 1850-1860," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 4(2), pages 5-18.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jotrge:v:54:y:2016:i:c:p:383-390. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-transport-geography .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.