Cincinnati signs streetcar construction contract


Cincinnati’s modern 100% lowfloor streetcars will be constructed in Elmira, NY by CAF USA.

Cincinnati, Ohio — After many months of civic agonizing and political wrangling over a budgetary shortfall, this city’s streetcar project is back on track with the signing on July 15th of the major contract for trackage and other infrastructure with the consortium of Messer Construction, Prus Construction, and Delta Railroad.


The $71.4 million contract has been facilitated by the City Council’s recent approval of $17.4 million in additional capital funding to cover the unanticipated shortfall, and includes an extra $492,933 for increases in material expenses, labor and equipment, cold weather protection, and bonding costs. With the purchase of rolling stock and other expenses, total capital investment cost of the project is now estimated at about $133 million. That’s about $37 million a mile for the 3.6-mile single-track-loop route.

Under the revised construction schedule, all work will be completed by March 2016 and passenger service is projected to begin in September 2016.

Read more:

Construction Contract Signed

Cincinnati Streetcar Scheduled to Open Sept. 15, 2016

New light rail projects in study beat BRT

Phoenix light rail transit (LRT, left); Los Angeles Orange Line "bus rapid transit" (BRT, right). Photos: L. Henry.

Phoenix light rail transit (LRT, left); Los Angeles Orange Line “bus rapid transit” (BRT, right). Photos: L. Henry.

by Lyndon Henry

New light rail transit (LRT) projects came out ahead of new bus rapid transit (BRT) projects that were included in a research study I presented last November (2012) to the 12th National Light Rail Transit Conference in Salt Lake City, sponsored by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and American Public Transportation Association (APTA). Dave Dobbs, a longtime colleague, helped me conduct the study.

In part, this research was a response to the assertions of critics of rail transit who maintain a constant barrage of attacks on rail, trying to convince the public at large and decisionmakers that public transit (especially rail) is just a waste of money … and that, if you must install something fancy, so-called “BRT” is invariably cheaper and better (or “Just like light rail, but cheaper…”). However, these attacks rarely appear in independent professional forums like this one, co-sponsored by the TRB (an affiliate of the National Academy of Sciences).

All papers accepted by the TRB for publication/presentation — including this work, titled Comparative examination of New Start light rail transit, light railway, and bus rapid transit services opened from 2000 — must undergo a rigorous peer-review process critically examining their methodology and conclusions.

My PowerPoint presentation to the conference has been placed online by the TRB and can be found here:

In addition, I discussed the study — both the methodology and the results — in several articles published in my online blog column at Railway Age:

Research study: New LRT projects beat BRT [26 November 2012]

Research: BRT can truly be pricier than LRT [14 January 2013]

Study: LRT ridership gains are spectacular [18 February 2013]

Here are some summary results, excerpted from the Railway Age articles:

How well did LRT and BRT final costs compare with budget estimates? LRT again did better, exceeding budget by only 2% on average, while BRT averaged 35% above budget.

In terms of capital cost, for “substantial” installations (5% or more of route length involving heavy civil works), LRT was a clear winner, with an average cost per mile of $80 million, less than a fifth of BRT’s average of nearly $452 million. (All costs in 2012 dollars.)

Where electric LRT really excelled was in achieving ridership goals. On average, LRT projects seemed to meet their ridership targets at about twice the rate of the BRT projects, using the “ridership achievement index” we developed for the study (which accounted for the pace at which projected ridership was being achieved).

It should be noted that some BRT projects didn’t do so badly — Cleveland’s “HealthLine” project (Euclid Avenue) was achieving its target at a 60% faster pace than expected, while Los Angeles’s Orange Line busway was reaching its ridership at nearly 3 times the projected rate.

But some of the LRT results were really spectacular. St. Louis’s St. Clair Extension of Metrolink, for example, was racing towards its ridership goals at over 7 times the predicted rate; Minneapolis’s Hiawatha line at six times; and Denver’s Southwest LRT at more than 6 times. (It should be noted that 3 out of the 20 LRT projects studied were failing to meet projected growth rate targets; nevertheless, the overall LRT average still exceeded BRT’s.

There’s a lot more, both in the PowerPoint presentation, and in the full Railway Age articles.

Providence streetcar plan hinges on federal funding

Simulation of Providence streetcars serving downtown crowds at night. Source: City of Providence.

Providence, Rhode Island — This mid-sized New England city is ready to install a new streetcar system. All it needs is some federal cash.

According to a recent report from WPRI-TV News in Rhode Island’s capital city, local and federal officials are asking the federal government for $39 million to help pay for about a third of the cost of constructing a new streetcar line to connect the Upper South Providence neighborhood near Rhode Island Hospital to College Hill on the downtown’s East Side.

The following infographic provides a map and further information:

(Click to enlarge) Source: City of Providence.

The 2.1-mile, $114.4-million starter line would have 11 station-stops and 4 streetcars. The federal money would come from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program, a component of the Obama administration’s original 2009 economic stimulus package.

As the news report explains,

The rest of the project would be paid for with an array of city and state bonds as well about $5.25 million in additional federal funds secured by the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority. Sponsorships, advertising revenues and $2 fares would be used to sustain the system once it got up and running.

Once the project gets a green light, construction would begin by late 2015 and streetcar service would open to the public in 2017.

Read more here

Alstom takes the leap into North American light rail market

Alstom’s Citadis Spirit for Ottawa. Simulation: Alstom

Philadelphia — With an opulent reception and major flourish, on the evening of June 3rd during the annual Rail Conference of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the third of the “Big Three” global rail transit car producers announced its entry into the North American light rail transit (LRT) rolling stock market.

Unveiling its car model called the Citadis Spirit, Alstom company executives emphasized that “the Citadis Spirit builds upon the experience of more than 1,700 Citadis light rail vehicles in service worldwide…” and noted that “with over 30 cities in the U.S. and Canada planning new light rail or streetcar systems, the vehicle includes unique features to satisfy the transit needs and support the economic development goals of North American cities.”

Alstom’s move is not only a major step for Alstom, and for the North American LRT car market, but also a de facto testament to the vigorous growth — and strong potential growth — of LRT across North America. The two other “Big Three” producers — Siemens and Bombardier — have been major supplliers for the transit railcar market, [articularly in the USA and Canada, and a number of other firms, both foreign and domestic (e.g., Kinkisharyo, Breda, Kawasaki, Rotem, Skoda, Inekon, Brookville Equipment Corporation, Oregon Iron Works), have also been important players in the industry.

Alstom’s June 3rd press release touted important features and advantages of the Citadis Spirit car:

Those features include a 100% low floor design and the ability to operate at speeds of up to 65 mph. Hence, the Citadis Spirit is versatile and can provide both a streetcar service in mixed traffic as well as a commuter service on dedicated infrastructure. Its low-floor boarding and interior, which is free of steps, provides better accessibility as well as a safer and more comfortable ride to users of all walks and ages. The vehicle also is totally modular in length and can be expanded as a city’s transportation needs grow over time. Additionally, the Citadis Spirit can be paired with one of Alstom’s proven off-wire power supply systems to preserve historic cityscapes and minimize impacts on the environment.

Alstom has already secured a major contract for the Citadis Spirit. In February, the company announced its first order — from the City of Ottawa for its new LRT system — with a contract to deliver 34 cars, plus an option for an additional 21 cars, and 30 years of maintenance services. The car for Ottawa will be a high-capacity version of the Spirit with a total length of 160 feet.

As of 2015, says Alstom, the Citadis Spirit will be manufactured in North America . Its design and manufacturing process are very modular and flexible, allowing final assembly to be localized close to end-users and municipalities.

In a statement, Alstom Transportation’s President, Guillaume Mehlman, underscored that

in developing the Citadis Spirit, we recognized that every city has a unique ambition for public transportation and an expectation that our mobility solutions boost sustainable economic development. With this vehicle’s versatility and modularity, Alstom is able to respond to those expectations as they evolve over time. Our Design & Styling department can also customize the train’s interior and exterior design to embody each city’s unique character. Each new Citadis Spirit will be shaped by and a reflection of the community it serves.

Graphic illustrates how Citadis Spirit’s capacity can be expanded by adding modules to the basic car. Graphic: Alstom

Alstom’s brochure on the Citadis Spirit provides this technical information:






[This article was first published on the Light Rail Now blog. Thanks to Light Rail Now for their kind permission to re-publish it.]

Milwaukee aiming to start streetcar line construction in 2014


Milwaukee streetcar simulation:


Milwaukee, Wisconsin — After well over a decade of controversy and political gridlock, engineering design is now under way, and squabbling has even started over who must pay for moving utilities.

Planners and city officials are aiming to start construction in 2014, with tentative completion and opening of the line targeted for 2016. The initial 2.1-mile starter line is projected to have an investment cost of $64.6 million. That’s about $31 million per mile — but the cars and maintenance shop (carbarn) are included. (For comparative purposes, when freeways and similar large road projects are discussed, the costs of motor vehicles and all their garages and maintenance facilities are never included in project estimates.)

The Federal Transit Administration has committed funding of $54 million to the project.

The route extends from 4th St. on the southwest, eastward along St. Paul, northward along the Van Buren corridor, then westward on Ogden to its northeastern terminus.


Map: Walker’s Point Blog


Consulting firms HNTB and HDR have been hired to perform final engineering work.

For more details, check out this recent article in the Milwaukee Business Journal: Milwaukee hires engineer to continue streetcar design work.

Walkable City book applauds John Schneider for “single-handedly bringing streetcars to Cincinnati”

[Graphic of book cover: CNU]

by Lyndon Henry

My Urban Rail Today colleague John Schneider is given some much-deserved kudos in Jeff Speck’s acclaimed book on urban livability and new urbanism, Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time.

A review posted on the website of the Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) describes Speck as ” a city planner who advocates for smart growth and sustainable design”; he’s also the author of Suburban Nation, depicted as a “landmark bestseller”.

“Bursting with sharp observations and real-world examples, giving key insight into what urban planners actually do and how places can and do change, Walkable City lays out a practical, necessary, and eminently achievable vision of how to make our normal American cities great again…” reports the review.

One of the “real-world examples”, cited on page 140 in a chapter titled “Let Transit Work”, is “John Schneider of Protransit, who is single-handedly bringing streetcars to Cincinnati, someone out there hunting down federal and state dollars, leading fact-finding junkets, and otherwise fighting the good fight for mass transit.” (Protransit is a Cincinnati-area group advocating rail transit alternatives for the city.)

John (known locally as “Mr. Streetcar”) declines credit for “hunting down federal and state dollars”, but he’s certainly forged new paths in terms of “leading fact-finding junkets” — through organizing enlightening trips, year after year, from Cincinnati, Ohio to Portland, Oregon, for groups of various regional civic officials and community leaders to visit Portland and inspect the metro area’s globally acclaimed rail transit systems first-hand. Those eye-opening excursions have clearly played a key role in persuading local community leaders (and similar participants from other communities) to back rail transit in Cincinnati and elsewhere — and represent a highly effective model for urban rail supporters to nurture local support in their own cities.

The CNU review includes excerpts from Speck’s book and a link for ordering a copy from Amazon.

So many urban rail projects — maybe this suggests success?

[Map: The Transport Politic]

by Lyndon Henry

Adversaries and critics of urban and regional rail projects often try to portray each new-start rail project in each city as some kind of an “outlier”, an isolated case of presumable folly that has failed almost everywhere. But factual evidence has a way of trumping deceptive propaganda.

The map above, from The Transport Politic blog this past January, illustrates the reality — a veritable avalanche of new urban and regional rail starts across the USA and Canada. Dozens of rail projects (and a few “bus rapid transit”) are listed in the article, tallying projects launching in 2013 or already under way, totaling over $64.3 billion in investment, with opening dates as far out as 2020.

This gives rail supporters a strong argument: Why would so many cities be launching new projects, and extending their existing systems, if rail were such a failure? On the contrary, it’s overwhelmingly more plausible to figure that it’s rail’s tremendous success that’s driving this huge expansion of rail transit — even in the face of Washington’s absurd, self-imposed, and recurrent budgetary crises.

City after city is finding that rail has expedited urban mobility, boosted transit performance (e.g., ridership, economic indicators, environmental factors), and bolstered the economy and livability of their communities.

Bottom line: Urban rail by and large is a huge success, and more and more cities are going for it. Let us help get your own city on board.

Yonah Freemark’s original article in The Transport Politic has links to virtually every project — well worth checking out:
Openings and Construction Starts Planned for 2013

Urban Mobility: Know Your Objective

Portland: With the objective of repopulating the city’s older neighborhoods by making them more car-light, electric streetcars are helping to connect work, housing, entertainment, and recreation so that a personal motor vehicle is no longer needed. [Photo: L. Henry]

by John Schneider

Ask yourself: What problem do you want to solve? And is the problem worth solving, or able to be solved, given the resources available to your community?

It would be nice to rid your town of congested highways, but the truth is, as you convert motorists into transit riders, other motorists are quick to fill up the empty roadway, so you never really get ahead in this game. A broad regional system of frequent, car-competitive transit designed to eliminate highway congestion will be very expensive to build and operate.

If you are focused on improving mobility in a particular corridor because of increasing jobs or strong housing growth in the corridor, then you need to consider the level of transit service that’s appropriate. If most trips in the corridor are short ones, adding buses may serve to meet the demand. If trips are longer, and if there is steady demand for travel many hours a day, rail solutions may be more appropriate.

Much of the recent interest in transit technologies is associated with the repopulation of dense city neighborhoods. This is happening in two out of three regions in the U.S. — even if the core city as a whole is losing population. So if your objective is to repopulate older neighborhoods by making them more car-light, electric streetcars can connect work, housing, entertainment and recreation so that a car is no longer needed in these neighborhoods. The money saved can be redirected toward better housing, better health care or for a child’s education. This sort of turns the transit for mobility argument inside out: less mobility can often mean greater savings and greater prosperity.

Once your objective is clear, make sure it is in sync with the aspirations of your city’s political leadership and leading institutions. Show them how achieving your objective can make their jobs easier.

Finally, can your objective be achieved in other ways? This is a very important question to answer. Your critics will always be insisting that other solutions are better and cheaper! You need to be able to show them they are wrong.

Ft. Lauderdale streetcar project rides a Wave

Simulation of streetcar line in downtown Ft. Lauderdale. [Graphic:]

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida — Strong top-level civic and political support is driving this south Florida city’s streetcar project, and it just took another major step forward when, on March 12th, Broward County — in a unanimous vote of the county commission — gave final approval for a 2.7-mile, $147 million central area streetcar project, locally branded The Wave.

As the Sun-Sentinel newspaper reported in a March 13th article, the electric streetcar system “initially will travel a small loop around the urban core.”

As the report goes on to notes, the starter line will be a 1.4-mile loop with an investment cost of $83 million. “Though many other agency approvals are still needed, the funding is lined up and the line is expected to be up and running by 2016…” says the paper.

Funding for this starter loop has been compiled from a variety of sources:

• Federal government — $18 million
• City of Fort Lauderdale — $10.5 million (in cash or land)
• State of Florida — $32 million
• Metropolitan Planning Organization — $8 million
• Private — $14 million (special assessment from property owners along the line)

According to the article, for its short initial route,

The streetcar will run from the Central Bus Terminal on Broward Boulevard, south on Brickell Avenue through the Riverfront complex, then east on Las Olas Boulevard.

At Southeast Third Avenue, the streetcar hangs a right and chugs south over the bridge, converting from overhead electrical lines to battery power.

Once over the bridge, the streetcar returns to electrical power via overhead lines, and heads east on Sixth Street, right past the County Courthouse.

At Andrews Avenue, the streetcar travels south a block in order to loop back around to Third Avenue and return to the bus terminal.

However, local officials are determined to expand the route to 2.7 miles — extending the route north to Sistrunk Boulevard, and south to 17th Street — but that will require $50 million in transit project funding from the federal government. Broward County has applied for a federal grant for that amount.

As the Sun-Sentinel notes, “When complete, the route will pass a lineup of major employment centers, many of them public employers — the school board, federal and county courts, county government, Fort Lauderdale City Hall and Broward Health Medical Center.”

In map above, dotted lines indicate route alternatives. [Map:]

While most of the line will receive electric power from an overhead contact system (OCS — a trolley wire), for a short segment on the Third Avenue bridge over the New River streetcars will operate with onboard battery power. This type of “offwire” capability gives designers the flexibility to address difficult problems in routing the OCS poles and wires, but it comes with drawbacks. For example, batteries may drain quickly when running an air-conditioned car, especially with a full passenger load.

Furthermore, the weight and cost of each car is increased, because of the battery and associated extra equipment. Thus, not only are rolling stock capital procurement costs typically increased, but there may be an operating cost penalty as cars must carry the additional battery weight and undergo a delay in transitioning between OCS and offwire running.

But these compromises, and the total costs, may be minuscule in comparison with the significant public benefits that these kinds of rail transit investments tend to bestow. As the Sun-Sentinel predicts,

The thousands of people who work downtown will be able to hop aboard and leave their cars in garages. Suburbanites with business at the county courthouse will be able to take a bus downtown, then connect to the modern rail. And those who remain in their cars will share the road with the stop-and-go streetcars.

“It’ll be a game changer…” said Broward Transit Director Tim Garling, whose background includes work in Portland, Oregon, “considered the model city for rail” according to the Sun-Sentinel. “Rail kind of uniquely attracts development…” he added. “We’ve seen this across the country.”

For more on this project, access to the original article:
The Wave streetcar system right on track for downtown Fort Lauderdale

Kansas City — Another new downtown streetcar project starts to take shape

Simulation of streetcar southbound on Main St. at 19th St. [Graphic: Downtown Corridor Alternatives Analysis]

Kansas City, Missouri — At a March 6th public meeting, city planners presented details of their construction schedule for Kansas City’s proposed 2.2-mile, $102 million streetcar project, approved by voters in late December (2012). The details may be instructive for streetcar advocates in other cities, giving them an idea of what’s typically involved in this kind of project.

The line is planned to run through the city’s Central Business District from River Market to Union Station, also serving Crossroads and Crown Center. According to a Dec. 28th report in the Kansas City Business Journal, “Proponents of the plan say the line … will spur development along Main Street while helping to attract young, creative residents to the city’s urban core.” The system is currently projected to open for service in 2015.

[Map: Downtown Neighborhood Association of Kansas City]

Particularly for transit supporters in other cities considering a streetcar or large light rail transit (LRT) system, it’s instructive to look at the elements of this kind of project. A more recent report (March 7th) in the KC Business Journal provides an opportunity for this kind of examination, laying out the three main phases of the project.

At more than $46 million a mile, KC’s streetcar line will be far less costly than, say, a subway or monorail, or even many busways — but that per-mile price tag also buys a lot more than just the rail transit infrastructure, as we’ll see. First, let’s itemize the railway components themselves, some of which will occur over several of the phases:

• Streetcar rolling stock — to be selected, ordered, delivered.
• Tracks installation along Main Street from the River Market to Union Station.
• Rolling stock maintenance facility in the River Market to be designed.
• Underground utilities to be relocated.

That last item — relocating utilities — is not directly part of the rail infrastructure, but it’s a task that usually has to be done (although there are some ways to minimize or avoid it). In many cases, the utilities may have actually needed replacement for years, but the municipality or private utility owner holds off, hoping that the rail project will pick up the tab. There’s also wide divergence from city to city in terms of who the law specifies should be responsible for paying for such relocation — the agency sponsoring the rail project, or the utility owners.

Phase 1 (from 2013 until early 2014) will mainly focus on utility relocation and the construction of the maintenance facility. Utilities work will include:

• Opening trenches to remove and relocate utility lines.
• Suspending temporary overhead lines for temporary utility relocations.

According to the news report, this work will be done in three-block sections and taking two to eight weeks. “During the work, Kansas City residents can expect partial lane closings and temporary service interruptions.”

Work on the maintenance facility, lasting 12 to 18 months, will include:

• Clearing the site for the facility and starting construction of the building’s foundation.
• Commencing civil engineering work startup of actual shop construction.

Phase 2 (from late 2013 to late 2014) includes track installation (in pavement), station construction, and rebullding of streets and sidewalks. It’s debatable whether this last item, street and sidewalk reconstruction — routine for most urban rail projects — should be considered an indispensable component of the rail transit and assigned as a cost totally to the rail project.

To some extent, as with utilities, public works planners often realize that the streets and sidewalks need to be rebuilt anyway, and often wait to let the cost be picked up by the rail project. Also, these kinds of upgrades might be considered as more in the category of “urban amenities”, and some rail advocates argue they should be tallied separately as something like “urban renovation”.

On the other hand, it’s arguable that effective access to the new line requires good pedestrian facilities. Furthermore, for federal funding the Federal Transit Administration usually requires it (along with other amenities not directly essential to the transit operation, such as artwork at the stations).

In any case, both for track installation and the street/sidewalk reconstruction, the project schedule calls for closing “two city blocks … for three to four weeks to accommodate construction of the streetcar’s tracks and stops.” This will include:

• Removing existing pavement and sidewalks.
• Reconstructing sidewalks, curbs, and gutters.
• Installing railway hardware on track slabs with drainage facilities and special trackwork (switches, crossovers, etc.).
• Rebuilding existing curbs, gutters, and sidewalks near stations.
• Building concrete platforms and canopy foundations, and installing “amenities and finishes at the streetcar stops.”

As the Business Journal report indicates,

Construction of each station is expected to last three to four weeks. Track installation will require a 20- to 25-foot work zone and will close multiple lanes or entire sections of Main Street, depending on the width of the street at the work location.

Phase 3 (from late 2013 to late 2014), the final phase of construction, will focus mainly on the power system and traffic signals, with some replacement of street lighting (again, this last item may be one of those “urban amenity/renovation” elements not strictly essential to the urban rail project). There’s an advisory that “Temporary closures during non-peak hours are expected at each two-block section for the three to four weeks it will take to complete this phase of the work.” This last phase will include:

• Installing the overhead contact system (OCS) — i.e., the support poles and wiring for the electric propulsion system (this is often erroneously referred to as “catenary”, which is actually a somewhat heftier type of OCS; however, many streetcar lines and even some larger LRT lines use much simpler single-contact-wire OCS to minimize its visibility).
• Installing new traffic signals and street lighting (again, see the discussion above about “urban renovation” and whether the cost of these project elements should be assigned to the urban rail project).
• Installing power substations (these are just relatively small power booster units to maintain adequate voltage on the OCS, which tends to drop because of the resistance of the OCS wire).

“After construction is complete,” notes the Business Journal report, “the city expects to take four to six months for testing and startup work between late 2014 and early 2015.”

That, then, is what this relatively small KC urban rail project will involve. Hopefully, this information will be helpful to those of you contemplating similar projects for your own cities.