More New LRT Systems Sprouting Across North America

 

Ottawa Confederation LRT (left), Oklahoma City Streetcar (right). Photo: YouTube screenshots by LRN.

It’s no secret that the Covid pandemic cast a pall upon public transport, and light rail transit (LRT) has certainly been no exception. But the good news, particularly in North America, is that, while ridership has taken a hit, major construction and enhancements have proceeded for many existing LRT operations. 

Moreover, in recent years, even through the pandemic, totally new-start LRT projects for several North American cities (including in some metro areas already operating other forms of urban rail) have also been making progress. Light Rail Now reported briefly on several of these systems as they were under construction eight years ago. 

At that time, the major new North American light rail system to open had been Norfolk’s <em>The Tide</em> rapid-type LRT in 2011. Now, since then, a swath of additional new systems have opened in the United States and Canada, and more projects are heading toward startup. Tabulated below is a quick rundown of these most recent new-start LRT projects, both “rapid” light rail and streetcar.

In this brief summary, all new rolling stock in the new streetcar lines described is modern except for heritage PCC cars in El Paso. In most cases, power to rolling stock is supplied by an overhead contact system (OCS, typically simple trolley wire or catenary), but some installations include battery operation as noted. Power is supplied at 750 VDC unless indicated otherwise.

 

 

LRT new starts: USA

► Salt Lake City: S-Line streetcar • Opened 2013 ► Using a former railway branch alignment, this 2.0-mi/3.2-km route connects the city’s Sugar House district with the nearby suburban community of South Salt Lake and links up with the region’s Trax rapid-type LRT system.

► Tucson: Sun Link streetcar • Opened 2014 ► Currently operating over a 3.9- mi/6.3-km route and powered by a standard OCS installation, the city’s streetcar-based urban rail system connects the University of Arizona campus with downtown Tucson and the Mercado District under development to the west.

► Atlanta: Atlanta streetcar • Opened 2014 ► This 2.7-mi/4.3-km line currently provides connections and pedestrian circulation services in a loop connecting Centennial Olympic Park with the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historical Park and nearby neighborhoods east of downtown, including a direct link to the MARTA rapid transit system’s Peachtree Center station and other transit lines.

► Dallas: Dallas streetcar • Opened 2015 ► This 2.4-mi/3.9-km line modern streetcar line connects downtown Dallas to Oak Cliff, across the wide Trinity River flood plain, by way of the Houston Street Viaduct. An extension to the Bishop Arts District opened in 2016. Cars are mainly powered by OCS, but run on battery power over the viaduct. The modern system is totally separate from, and unconnected to, the heritage McKinney Avenue Streetcar line that has served its important neighborhood and commercial district since 1989.

► Charlotte: CityLynx streetcar • Opened 2015 ► Designated the Gold Line within Charlotte’s urban rail system, this 4.0-mi/6.4-km modern streetcar line initially opened over a mainly east-west route following Beatties Ford Road, Trade Street, and Central Avenue through central Charlotte. Additional links from the Charlotte Transportation Center to French Street, and from Hawthorne & 5th to Sunnyside Avenue opened for service in 2021.

► Washington: DC Streetcar • Opened 2016 ► Currently streetcar service operates over a 2.4-mi/3.9-km segment running in mixed traffic along H Street and Benning Road in the city’s Northeast quadrant.

► Kansas City: KC Streetcar • Opened 2016 ► Kansas City’s streetcar-based urban rail system follows a 2.2-mile/3.5 km route between the River Market and Union Station, mostly along Main Street, running through the city’s central business district and the Crossroads Arts District.

► Cincinnati: Cincinnati Bell Connector streetcar • Opened 2016 ► The service operates in mixed traffic on a 3.6-mi/5.8-km loop from The Banks, Great American Ball Park, and Smale Riverfront Park through downtown Cincinnati and north to Findlay Market at the northern edge of the historic Over-the-Rhine neighborhood.

► Detroit: QLine streetcar • Opened 2017 ► Originally called the M-1 Line by its developers, this 3.3-mi/5.3-km streetcar service connects Downtown Detroit with Midtown and New Center, running along Woodward Avenue for its entire route. Lithium batteries provide power in about 60% of the operating cycle, with OCS powering cars and recharging in the remainder.

► Milwaukee: The Hop streetcar • Opened 2018 ► Milwaukee’s Streetcar, branded as The Hop, provides a modern streetcar service over an initial 2.1 mi/3.4 km route connecting the Milwaukee Intermodal Station and Downtown to the city’s Lower East Side and historic Third Ward neighborhoods. A 0.4-mile/640-m Lakefront branch to the proposed “Couture” high-rise development has been mostly constructed, and is expected to open imminently. Power is supplied by OCS, mostly simple trolley wire, except for 3,300 feet (1 kilometer) in sections along Kilbourn Avenue and Jackson Street where cars are powered only by their batteries.

Passengers deboarding Milwaukee’s The Hop streetcar. Photo: The Hop.

► Oklahoma City: OKC Streetcar • Opened 2018 ► This 4.8 mi/7.7 km system is routed over two lines that connect Oklahoma City’s Central Business District with the entertainment district, Bricktown, and the Midtown District. Most operation is powered under OCS except for two short segments where cars operate under battery power. (See photo at beginning of article.)

► El Paso: El Paso Streetcar (heritage) • Opened 2018 ►Using a fleet of renovated historic streetcars, this line runs 4.8 mi/7.7 km over two loops from through El Paso’s uptown and downtown areas to the University of Texas at El Paso. Notably, the historic PCC cars refurbished for the project had been kept in storage since the city’s last original streetcar operation was abandoned in 1974.

► Phoenix: Tempe Streetcar • Opened 2022 ► Serving Tempe, a large suburban city adjacent to Phoenix’s east side, this 3.4-mi/5.7-km modern streetcar line running in streets with mixed traffic connects the Arizona State University campus with downtown Tempe and neighborhoods to the south. It intersects several stations of the city’s rapid Valley Metro LRT system. Power for the streetcars varies between OCS and onboard batteries.

► Orange County, California: OC Streetcar • Opening planned 2023 ► This 4.2 mi/6.7 km modern streetcar (LRT) line is currently under construction in Orange County, California, running through the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove, routed partly in mixed traffic and in dedicated right-of-way. New infrastructure includes constructing a new double-track rail bridge and an overpass over a busy arterial.

► Washington DC (Maryland suburbs): Purple Line LRT • Opening planned 2026 ► This 16.2-mile (26.1 km) rapid LRT line is intended to link several Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C.: Bethesda, Silver Spring, College Park, and New Carrollton. The line will also enable riders to transfer between the Maryland branches of the Red, Green, Yellow, and Orange lines of the Washington Metro without riding into central Washington, and between all three lines of the MARC regional (commuter) rail system. Power, likely to be delivered by OCS in a catenary suspension, will be energized at 1,500 volts (placing the Purple Line in a small category of new higher-power North American LRT systems that also includes Seattle’s Link and Ottawa’s Confederation Line).

► Austin: MetroRail LRT • Opening planned 2029 ► Public transit agency Project Connect is planning two light rail lines, designed to operate free from traffic to link key destinations throughout Austin. The Orange Line, serving Austin’s crucial central north-south local travel corridor, is planned to stretch approximately 21 miles (34 km) to link North and South Austin. From Tech Ridge in the north, the line would follow North Lamar Blvd. and Guadalupe St., connecting the University of Texas campus, dense West Campus neighborhood, the Capitol Complex (state government offices), and downtown before crossing the Colorado River and heading south along South Congress Ave. to Slaughter Ln. in the far south of the city. The Blue Line would provide service over a 15-mile (24-km) route starting at U.S. 183 in North Austin, sharing the Orange Line alignment into downtown, then crossing the river and proceeding southeast to Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. Included in the original plan is 1.6-miles (2.6 km) of LRT tunnel as alignments through downtown for both Orange and Blue lines as well as a future eastside Gold LRT line.

 

 

LRT new starts: Canada

► Waterloo Region (Ontario): ION Light Rail • Opened 2019 ► The Waterloo Region is a cluster of urban villages about 55 miles southwest of Toronto. The 11.8-mi/19.0 km first stage of the planned larger ION LRT system, basically an interurban LRT service, connects Conestoga Station in Waterloo to Fairway Station in Kitchener, including 19 stations, some of them designed to serve trains in each direction on a single track. A particularly interesting technical feature is track-sharing with heavy freight railroads and the used of interlaced (“gauntlet”) track to facilitate operation through switches and clearances at stations.

Waterloo-Kitchener ION LRT train entering station in private right-of-way alignment, June 2019. Photo: Jason, Wikipedia.

► Ottawa: Confederation Line LRT • Opened 2019 ► The Confederation Line (Line 1) represents Ottawa’s first deployment of actual LRT technology, and replaces a section of the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Transitway that previously served the city center. (See photo at beginning of article.) This new line, completely grade-separated, runs both underground and on the surface 7.8 mi/12.5 km east–west from Blair to Tunney’s Pasture, connecting to the Transitway at each end and with the Trillium rail service at Bayview. It includes a tunnel through downtown with three subway stations. Electrification is relatively high at 1,500 VDC, delivered to trains by catenary-type OCS (similar to the power system used by Seattle’s Link LRT). It must be noted that the diesel-powered Trillium line, described locally as “light rail”, is technologically equivalent to other light-capacity regional diesel-multiple-unit (DMU) services (lately called “hybrid rail” by the U.S. Federal Transit Administration) such as those in New Jersey (River Line), Southern California (Sprinter), and Austin (MetroRail Red Line).

► Peel Region (Ontario): Hurontario LRT • Opening planned 2024 ► The Peel Region is a regional municipality of the Greater Toronto Area, just to the west and northwest of the city of Toronto, encompassing the suburban cities of Mississauga and Brampton, among other smaller communities. The Hurontario LRT, currently under construction, is a 10.9 mi/17.6-km light rail line planned to run on the surface along Hurontario Street from the Port Credit GO Station in Mississauga to Steeles Avenue in Brampton.

► Quebec City: Quebec City Tramway • Opening planned 2026 ► This light rail transit line in Quebec City is planned to open in 2026. The initial 14-mi/23-km route will link Charlesbourg to Cap Rouge, passing through Quebec Parliament Hill. While the line will include a 2.2-mi/3.5-km underground segment, most of it will be constructed on the surface.   

► Hamilton: Hamilton LRT  • Opening date TBD ► Hamilton is a large industrial and port city about  28 miles/45 kilometers southwest of Toronto in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.  The Hamilton LRT (also known as the B-Line) is planned to operate along Main Street, King Street, and Queenston Road, extending 8.7 miles (14 kilometers), with 17 station-stops, from McMaster University to Eastgate Square via downtown Hamilton.

It should be noted that a 26-km (16-mi) starter line for a major LRT system has also been proposed for the city of Gatineau, Quebec, located on the northern bank of the Ottawa River, immediately across from Ottawa, Ontario within Canada’s National Capital Region. However, funding has not yet been finalized.

 

Considerations for other cities

This vigorous bustle of totally new light rail starts in nearly two dozen cities across North America is breathtaking – 21 new LRT installation projects (both rapid LRT and streetcar) in eight years. That’s not counting all the new extension projects of existing systems in cities like Seattle, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Charlotte, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Edmonton, Calgary, and more.

The explosive growth of new LRT starts suggests that community members and civic leaders across the continent are increasingly recognizing the unique advantages of LRT for their cities – its exceptional attractiveness as public transport, and its powerful ability to catalyze and attract adjacent real estate development. This has simultaneously improved urban mobility, improved environmental quality, helped guide land use with techniques such as transit-oriented development (TOD), and boosted local taxbase with significant returns on investment (ROI).

Across North America, cities of various sizes remain that have no urban rail. San Antonio, Las Vegas, Indianapolis, Louisville, Omaha, Des Moines, Boise, Spokane, Knoxville, Raleigh, Richmond, Providence, Victoria, and Winnipeg are just a handful of the dozens of communities that would likely benefit from considering some form and application of light rail. The new starts that this article has summarized certainly provide some models to examine. ■

Simulation of Quebec City Tramway in street alignment. Graphic:  YouTube screenshot by LRN.

 

 

Reference sources

Light rail in the United States, Wikipedia, updated 7 November 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail_in_the_United_States

List of North American light rail systems by ridership, Wikipedia, 22 November 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_light_rail_systems_by_ridership

Urban rail transit in Canada, Wikipedia, updated 11 November 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_rail_transit_in_Canada

Dallas Streetcar, Wikipedia, updated 7 October 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Streetcar

CityLYNX Gold Line Streetcar, City of Charlotte website, accessed 29 November 2022.

https://charlottenc.gov/cats/rail/cityLYNX/Pages/default.aspx

CityLynx Gold Line, Wikipedia, updated 29 October 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CityLynx_Gold_Line

DC Streetcar, Wikipedia, updated 24 October 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC_Streetcar

Editorial, A new streetcar in Arizona: Tempe! Urban Transport Magazine webpage, 20 May 2022.

https://www.urban-transport-magazine.com/en/a-new-streetcar-in-arizona-tempe/

Tempe Streetcar, Wikipedia, updated 27 October 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempe_Streetcar

Tempe Streetcar, Valley Metro website, accessed 2022-11-28.

https://www.valleymetro.org/project/tempe-streetcar

Tempe Streetcar, Stacy and Witbeck website, accessed 2022-11-28.

https://www.stacywitbeck.com/projects/tempe-streetcar/

El Paso Streetcar, Wikipedia, updated 19 August 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paso_Streetcar

The Hop (streetcar), Wikipedia, updated 25 November 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hop_(streetcar)

KC Streetcar, Wikipedia, updated 26 November 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KC_Streetcar

QLine, Wikipedia, updated 28 November 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QLine

About the Oklahoma City Streetcar, Oklahoma City Streetcar website, accessed 30 November 2022

Oklahoma City Streetcar, Wikipedia, updated 19 August 2022

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_Streetcar

OC Streetcar, Wikipedia, updated 2 November 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OC_Streetcar

Light Rail Overview, Purple Line website, Maryland Transit Commission, accessed 29 November 2022.

https://www.purplelinemd.com/about-the-project/overview

Purple Line (Maryland), Wikipedia, updated 29 November 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Maryland)

Project Connect Transit Plan, HDR website, accessed 29 November 2022.

https://www.hdrinc.com/portfolio/project-connect-transit-plan

Project Connect, Wikipedia,  updated 4 September 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Connect

Stage 2 ION light-rail project receives provincial clearance, Mass Transit online, June 22, 2021

https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/article/21227649/stage-2-ion-lightrail-project-receives-provincial-clearance

Confederation Line, Wikipedia, 27 November 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_Line

Quebec City Tramway, Wikipedia, updated 3 October 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_Tramway

Quebec City tramway finally gets green light as province gives unconditional approval, CBC News, 6 April 2022.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/tramway-quebec-city-approved-1.6410943

Regional Municipality of Peel, Wikipedia, 30 September 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_Municipality_of_Peel

Desmond Brown, Procurement process for LRT to start later this year, construction in 2024, [Hamilton] CBC News, 18 July 2022.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/hamilton-lrt-project-1.6524030

Hamilton LRT, Wikipedia, updated  28 September 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_LRT

New streetcar startups bringing rail transit to more U.S. cities

xxxxxxxxxxx

Tucson’s new Sun Link streetcar passes sidewalk cafe during opening day festivities in July 2014. Photo: Ed Havens.

Light rail transit (LRT) continues to sprout across the USA, driven especially by the lower cost and easier implementation of streetcar-type LRT technology. Listed below are several U.S. cities where new streetcar systems either have recently opened, or projects are under way, bringing the first rail transit in the modern era to these metro areas. Links to helpful articles providing further information are provided, as available.

Tucson

This medium-sized Arizona city’s 3.9-mile streetcar line, branded Sun Link, opened this past July, at an investment cost of $198.8 million. The starter line route links up the University of Arizona campus with important activity points like Main Gate Square, the Fourth Avenue business district, and downtown Tucson, continuing westward to the Mercado area west of Interstate 10. Ridership (averaging over 4,700 on weekdays) has already surpassed projections. See: Tucson Sun Link streetcar opens, meets ridership goal.

Cincinnati

This midwestern city’s streetcar project, now in the advanced stages of construction, will install a 3.6-mile loop (1.8 miles of route from one end to the other) in the CBD. The $133 million starter line will stretch from The Banks to Findlay Market, and is projected to open for service in the fall of 2016. See: CincyStreetcar Blog.

Kansas City

This 2.2-mile starter streetcar line will operate mostly along Main Street through the CBD, connecting River Market with Union Station. Budgeted at $102 million in 2012, the project is well under way. Construction began in May 2014, and the line is expected to open for passenger service in late 2015. See: Kansas City — Another new downtown streetcar project starts to take shape.

Oklahoma City

A 4.6-mile streetcar starter line, now in advanced planning, will bring rail transit to this major city. The project, currently estimated to cost $128.8 million, will circulate through the CBD, and will feature wireless operation beneath the BNSF Railway overpass linking the city’s MidTown area with the historic and adjoining Bricktown district. Opening is projected for late 2017 or early 2018. See: Oklahoma City Rail Transit and Public Transport Developments.

Milwaukee

The City has a 2.1-mile streetcar starter line project under way with a budgeted investment cost of $64.6 million. Extending from Ogden & Prospect on the northeast of the CBD to 4th & Wisconsin, completion has been targeted for 2016. However, the City may have to find an additional $20 million to cover the cost of utilities relocation, under a recent ruling by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission. See: Milwaukee aiming to start streetcar line construction in 2014.

Detroit

In September, tracklaying finally began for this 3.3-mile, $136 million streetcar starter line, financed from both public and private sources. Designated M-1, the line will operate on busy Woodward Avenue, from Grand to Congress. See: Detroit’s M-1 modern streetcar project gets under way. Opening is projected for 2016. See: Detroit’s M-1 modern streetcar project gets under way. ■

Cases where voters okayed rail transit after first rejecting

Rail transit ballot measures are critical events. But if one is rejected, is it a "catastrophic" for the community? Graphic: RochesterSubway.com.

Rail transit ballot measures are critical events. But if one is rejected, is it a “catastrophic” setback for the community? Graphic: RochesterSubway.com.

Voter rejection of a rail transit project is almost always unfortunate.

But is it catastrophic? Does it signal that the majority in a community will persistently and permanently reject any rail project, or does it represent a more temporary setback, with remaining hope that a better plan, a better presentation to voters, at a better time, could have a chance to win approval?

This issue often arises not only in communities where a rail transit project has unified support from transit advocates, but even in cases where an official plan has faced strong opposition from rail transit supporters. In an effort to mobilize support, proponents of the given project may argue that it may be the community’s “only chance for rail”, that, no matter its deficiencies, a given plan cannot be allowed to fail, because it would be a “disaster”, setting back rail development for decades, perhaps forever.

To evaluate the validity of this argument, and assess the actual delay between the failure of rail ballot measures and the ultimate passage of support for a subsequent rail transit ballot initiative, the LRN Project team examined available cases since 2000 where an initial rejection of rail was followed by a successful later vote. LRN’s approach has examined this issue strictly from the standpoint of attracting voter support — in other words, if the issue of rail transit is re-voted, how long does it take to win approval?

It should be noted that this study has examined the sequence of events only in cities where, after the failure of an initial measure, a new measure for rail transit (often with a somewhat different plan) was offered to voters. In other cases, poorly prepared or presented rail plans were rejected by voters, but rail planning was subsequently dropped (e.g., Spokane, Columbus) or has proceeded without needing a public vote (e.g., San Antonio).

Thus this study has sought to address the question: If rail has previously been rejected by voters, but a new rail measure is subsequently presented for a vote, how long does it take to achieve successful voter approval for rail?

Since 2000, there have been six cases where such re-votes have occurred:

Austin — A plan for a light rail transit (LRT) system was very narrowly defeated in 2000; rail transit was subsequently repackaged as a light railway using diesel-multiple-unit (DMU) rolling stock, and passed in 2004 (now branded as MetroRail). Delay between votes: 4 years.

Kansas City — An officially sponsored LRT plan was defeated in 2001; a different LRT plan initiated by a citizens’ referendum was subsequently approved in 2006. (However, the successful vote was annulled by the city council; implementation of an officially sponsored streetcar project is now underway without a public vote.) Delay between votes: 5 years.

Cincinnati — An LRT plan was rejected in 2002. Rail transit was subsequently repackaged as a streetcar plan that was forced to a public vote, and ultimately was approved in 2009. (A re-vote, forced by opponents’ referendum, was held in 2012, and the streetcar project again passed.) Delay between votes: 7 years.

Tucson — An LRT plan was rejected in 2002; rail transit was subsequently repackaged as a streetcar plan, then submitted for a public vote and approved in 2006. (The new system, branded as Sun Link, is due to open later this year.) Delay between votes: 4 years.

Seattle — A multi-modal transportation proposal, Roads and Transit, including LRT expansion, was defeated in 2007 (with opposition from environmental organizations and other traditional pro-transit groups, dissatisfied with the plan’s heavy highway element). A new package, Sound Transit 2, was prepared, with much heavier transit emphasis, and presented and approved by voters in 2008. Delay between votes: 1 year.

St. Louis — Proposition M, including funding for the region’s MetroLink LRT system, was defeated by voters in 2008. A new package, Prop. A, aided by an improved campaign, and including funding to improve and expand LRT, was subsequently approved in 2010. Delay between votes: 2 years.

From these experiences, it’s plausible to conclude the recent re-votes on rail transit have taken from one to seven years to succeed. This would not seem to suggest that initial loss of a vote results in a “catastrophic” delay of “decades” before a rail transit project can muster approval.

On the contrary, the average delay, on the basis of these cases, is 3.8 years. However, the data seems to suggest a pattern, whereby the delay before a successful rail transit re-vote is less in cities already operating some form of rail transit (Seattle, St. Louis), in contrast to cities where rail would be a totally new addition to the transit mix (Austin, Tucson, Kansas City, Cincinnati). This differential in average delay is illustrated graphically in the chart below:

Left bar: Average years of delay in cities already operating rail transit. Right bar: Average delay in cities with no current rail transit.

Left bar: Average years of delay in cities already operating rail transit. Right bar: Average delay in cities with no current rail transit.

Other than to infer that the loss of a vote does not inevitably represent a “catastrophic” setback for rail transit in a given city, this study with its very small data set does not offer a basis for strong conclusions. However, there is opportunity for plausible speculation:

• Conditions for a more speedy re-vote and approval of a rail transit ballot measure may be more propitious in communities that already have experience with successful rail transit systems.

• The process of re-submitting a rail transit measure to a vote may depend not so much on public attitudes but on the determination of sponsoring officials, their responsiveness to public input, and their willingness to re-craft specific project details to more closely conform to public needs and desires.