Ka-Ching, Ching Ching: Roanoke Officials and Business Leaders Say a Trolley System Along Jefferson Street to Reserve Avenue Could Spur Development.

By Duncan Adams, The Roanoke Times, Va.

Jul. 9–A Roanoke trolley line just might be far from folly.

Vintage trolley tracks laid along Jefferson Street from downtown Roanoke to Reserve Avenue could stimulate development and redevelopment along the 1.3-mile route, according to an economic impact analysis released last week.

Among several variables, the study by the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization examined other cities’ streetcar experiences. And it seems many of the lines of throwback conveyances have indeed been development catalysts, in some cases playing major roles in stirring millions or even billions of dollars in new construction and redevelopment along their routes.

Development spurred by a trolley system is but one impetus for such lines, said Len Brandrup, director of transportation for the city of Kenosha, Wis. There’s a wider, big-picture view, he said, one that considers “what we want to be when we grow up.”

The nation’s heavy reliance on the automobile has created ailing transportation networks and sprawling development patterns that cannot be sustained, he said. Unlike many other countries, either developed or developing, the United States has neglected and then abandoned passenger rail and other transportation modes, bowing to the automobile to provide transportation in and between cities and states, he said.

In Kenosha, a trolley line from the city to an area blighted by an abandoned auto plant and a former Lake Michigan port was a key component of a strategy to redevelop the industrial site, now called Harbor Park.

Brandrup said the streetcar system’s rail lines provided a necessary sense of permanence for developers.

“Here’s the dirty little secret — developers don’t write checks for buses,” he said.

Redevelopment along and adjacent to the Jefferson Street corridor has been the point all along, said Bev Fitzpatrick, a city councilman, train buff, executive director of the Virginia Museum of Transportation and president of the Commonwealth Coach and Trolley Museum.

Fitzpatrick, a longtime advocate for a trolley route along Jefferson Street, said regional critics of such a system have focused too much on whether the line would offer a fast, efficient public transportation option.

“This project, from the beginning, has been about creating economic development along Jefferson Street,” he said Tuesday.

Although he and Fitzpatrick often spar, City Councilman Brian Wishneff agreed that a trolley could benefit the Jefferson Street corridor, as well as downtown Roanoke and the redevelopment area along Reserve Avenue. Wishneff is an economic development consultant who travels frequently to other cities. He was once chief of Roanoke’s department of economic development.

Others who expressed support Friday for serious consideration of a trolley line down Jefferson Street were Tom McKeon, chairman of the board for Downtown Roanoke Inc.; Roanoke native Tom Low, whose consulting company produced a plan for the Roanoke City Market; and, through a spokesman, Dr. Ed Murphy, president and chief executive officer of Carilion Clinic, the region’s largest employer.

In addition to development, Wishneff said, trolley systems in other cities have brought more middle-class residents into downtowns. The theory, echoed by a redevelopment official in Tampa, Fla., is that some people simply don’t like riding noisy buses emitting smelly exhaust.

The terms “trolley” and “streetcar” are frequently used interchangeably. But there can be distinctions. In some cities, for example, trolleys travel on tires, whereas streetcars always move along rails. Roanoke’s proposed line would move replicas of vintage trolleys on rails embedded in pavement and rely on overhead electric lines for power.

Wishneff cited one key caveat.

“It would only make sense in Roanoke if grants paid for the capital costs,” he said.

The city already faces numerous funding demands for capital projects, he said. They include, among others, construction costs for a new William Fleming High School and possible costs for a new amphitheater.

In 2004, a feasibility study by Wilbur Smith Associates estimated that capital costs for a Roanoke system — including trolley cars, rail lines, overhead lines and a maintenance building — would be about $17 million. Annual operating costs would be about $275,000, the study predicted. In 2006 dollars, estimated capital costs would increase by more than $1 million, according to one inflation calculator. That study’s calculations assumed funding would include $8 million in city money.

Cities with trolley lines have used various ways to fund their construction and operations. Some have relied on public-private partnerships. Many, like Kenosha, combined federal transportation dollars (about 80 percent of funding) and local money to pay for their systems. Kenosha’s trolley line, which began operating in June 2000, cost about $5.2 million. Brandrup said the city reduced startup costs when it got a great deal on some rehabbed trolleys.

Replica trolleys can be expensive. Little Rock, Ark., recently purchased two new replica cars from Iowa-based Gomaco Trolley Co., a dominant player in this manufacturing niche. Each car cost nearly $900,000, said Betty Wineland, acting executive director for the Central Arkansas Transit Authority.

Kenosha’s federal dollars came from the city’s regular transportation apportionment, Brandrup said.

Little Rock’s federal funding, which also paid for about 80 percent of the project, came from specific grant programs offered by the Federal Transit Administration — New Starts and Smart Starts.

Brandrup described the Smart Starts application process as nightmarish, requiring strenuous bureaucratic leaps through hoops. Wineland said that was not Little Rock’s experience.

Paul Griffo, a spokesman for the Federal Transit Administration, said money from a Smart Starts grant “would be over and above a city’s annual transit apportionment [from the FTA].”

Few cities seem to fret much about whether their streetcar lines pay their way. Fares are often quite low. A ride in Kenosha costs 25 cents. It’s 50 cents in Little Rock.

“Transit operations almost anywhere do not pay for themselves,” said Wineland.

Tampa, Fla.’s 2.4-mile system is losing money and eating into an endowment fund. But it appears that the Teco Line Streetcar System has been quite revenue-friendly overall and the city will likely extend the line to better serve the city’s core.

Michael Chen is manager for Tampa’s Downtown and Channel District Community Redevelopment Area. He serves on the streetcar system’s board of directors. Chen said Thursday that about $450 million has been invested to date in residential and retail space development along the route of the Teco Line. He said work is under way on an additional $450 million worth of projects and that about $1.1 billion in proposed development has cleared necessary zoning hurdles.

But Chen said the streetcar system was but one of a number of lures for development downtown.

“I would say you could attribute some of that investment to proximity to the streetcar line,” he said.

Wineland provided a similar observation. In Little Rock, at the end of the trolley line’s first year, about $140 million in development had occurred along its route. But redevelopment was already under way in the area, she said.

“We aren’t saying that we are generating [development or redevelopment],” she said. “We think that we serve as an enhancement.”

Eric Earnhart, a spokesman for Carilion Clinic, said Murphy has discussed the trolley line with City Manager Darlene Burcham and supports additional consideration of the project. Earnhart said the line could serve the “medical campus” Carilion envisions along Reserve Avenue. But Murphy’s support for the trolley concept is motivated more by his sense that it could benefit the city, said Earnhart.

Might Carilion help finance a system? It hasn’t been ruled out, Earnhart said.

The metropolitan planning organization’s analysis suggests that the Roanoke trolley, if it follows the trend of other cities, could stimulate “between $31.5 million to $78 million of new construction along Jefferson Street and $336,945 to $842,363 in annual real estate tax revenue to the city.”

But those numbers ride the rails of at least one major assumption, according to the report: “This assumes that the trolley project is initiated as a component of other significant economic development efforts in the corridor.”

For example, if the Jefferson Street streetcars delivered riders to Reserve Avenue, what would be the draw? Might it be a new amphitheater?

Larry Davidson, owner of Davidsons Clothing for Men, has continued to operate his anchor store on Jefferson Street even though many nearby storefronts are empty. Davidson said Friday that he believes a trolley line along Jefferson Street is a good idea.

Investment dollars will influence the number of trolley stops, he said, the number of trolley cars, the frequency of service and the overall length of the line. Davidson said he believes the line would bring more people downtown if it extended into South Roanoke.

“Will it create economic development? I think it will, but in relationship to how much is invested in the system,” he said.

—–

To see more of The Roanoke Times, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.roanoke.com/.

Copyright (c) 2007, The Roanoke Times, Va.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.