The providence streetcar plan: A Tool for Economic development
A bright red streetcar passes through Washington Street alongside a flow of evening traffic. Making a turn past the Trinity Repertory Company, the streetcar comes to a gradual halt at a sheltered streetcar stop in the middle of the Downcity Arts District. The commuters that alight are, as seen in the image above, dressed in business-like attire. Both the sidewalks and crossings are filled with people – all of whom are dressed sharply as well. Not only does the image above show what the streetcar would look like in Providence, it shows what Providence would look like with a streetcar. The Downcity Arts District has become a bustling area, thriving with human - and economic - activity. By connecting Brown University and the Hospital District to the downtown area, the Providence streetcar injects life into the area it passes through. The very presence of the streetcar adds a modern touch to the City’s image. The streetcar is more than a mere mode of transportation -- it is a tool to spur economic activity.
From 2009 to early this year, the City of Providence was looking into developing a streetcar system. Providence is by no means new to a streetcar system. Even in 1889, the city was serviced by a network of electric trolley cars – a good 120 years before the recent streetcar plan.[1] As indicated by the pink routes in the upper left map, the streetcar was extensive, consisting of multiple lines, and reaching the far ends of Providence.[2] In contrast, the recent streetcar plan consists only of one line and is far shorter, as indicated by the blue line in the upper right map.[3] Beyond these surface-level differences, the two streetcar systems serve very different purposes. The historical streetcar, run by a private company called Union Railroad, had a simple objective: provide a transport service to people in Providence and profit from fares.[4] While the recent streetcar plan does aim to provide a transport service and earn money from fares, its main purpose is not to transport people, but to increase property values and develop the City’s economy. In fact, the streetcar stops short of serving poorer areas and excludes “less desirable” commuters from these areas. In seeking to increase property values, stakeholders aim to bring in more affluent commuters to areas serviced by the streetcar line – and there is a trade off between bringing in richer commuters versus poorer commuters. Yet it is precisely poorer commuters who need to rely on public transit, since many of them lack the option of driving to access economic opportunities and amenities.
In the Environmental Assessment of the Providence Streetcar, it was highlighted that: “[Providence] lacks seamless connections to residential and employment activity centers within reasonable walking distances”.[5] However, building upon previous GIS analysis I have done on the Providence Streetcar plan, I will show that the Providence Streetcar Plan falls short of addressing that problem. Using census tract data from the Rhode Island Geographic Information Systems website, I constructed a map of population density and poverty in Providence. As the shapefile for the streetcar line and its streetcar stops were not available online, I had to georeference those shapefiles. After which, I constructed a 0.25 mile walking distance buffer to show the areas that had access to a streetcar stop, which provides access to the streetcar line as a system.[6] The maps mentioned will provide a sense of the areas in which the streetcar line and its stops are located – for instance, which areas are poorer and richer. In addition, I will analyze statements in the streetcar proposal by the City.
The Streetcar’s Potential to Bridge Gaps
In theory, the streetcar serves to traverse distance to bridge the gap between richer and poorer people who are living in separate parts of a city. In any given city, there will be geographical inequalities – and people separated across space based on these inequalities. As Soja put it, “location in space will always have attached to it some degree of relative advantage or disadvantage”.[7] For example, the presence of certain amenities, the agglomeration of job opportunities, or even the pleasant environment of an area might be a geographical advantage. The market mechanism then serves to exclude people who are either unwilling or unable to pay for that geographic advantage. This results in concentrations of richer people and poorer people in different parts of the city. High house prices and rents prevent poorer people from living in the same area as richer people. The rich and poor are hence separated by distance. To traverse this distance would cost time and energy.[8] The streetcar reduces the time and energy required, and serves to bridge richer and poorer parts of the city. Through the use of the streetcar, the poor have better access to areas with more amenities or economic opportunities that may be found in richer areas. While the non-car-owning poor always had access to these areas in that they were not banned from travelling to these areas, the frictional effects of time and energy costs made it less likely for them to access these areas. A streetcar line with significant time savings and reduced waiting time would make those areas more accessible than before.
However, the proposed streetcar line does not cover a lot of the city, which makes the streetcar’s ability to traverse distance a lot more limited. The map below shows the population density in Providence and the streetcar line with a walking distance buffer around each stop. The darker areas of the map show areas with higher population density, while the lighter areas are of lower population density. Some of the most densely populated areas are to the North and Southwest of the streetcar line. If the Southern end of the streetcar line was extended further by 0.5 miles, it would be able to serve a census tract with one of the densest population.[9] Yet, the streetcar line stops short of that.
In the Environmental Assessment of the Providence Streetcar, it was highlighted that: “[Providence] lacks seamless connections to residential and employment activity centers within reasonable walking distances”.[5] However, building upon previous GIS analysis I have done on the Providence Streetcar plan, I will show that the Providence Streetcar Plan falls short of addressing that problem. Using census tract data from the Rhode Island Geographic Information Systems website, I constructed a map of population density and poverty in Providence. As the shapefile for the streetcar line and its streetcar stops were not available online, I had to georeference those shapefiles. After which, I constructed a 0.25 mile walking distance buffer to show the areas that had access to a streetcar stop, which provides access to the streetcar line as a system.[6] The maps mentioned will provide a sense of the areas in which the streetcar line and its stops are located – for instance, which areas are poorer and richer. In addition, I will analyze statements in the streetcar proposal by the City.
The Streetcar’s Potential to Bridge Gaps
In theory, the streetcar serves to traverse distance to bridge the gap between richer and poorer people who are living in separate parts of a city. In any given city, there will be geographical inequalities – and people separated across space based on these inequalities. As Soja put it, “location in space will always have attached to it some degree of relative advantage or disadvantage”.[7] For example, the presence of certain amenities, the agglomeration of job opportunities, or even the pleasant environment of an area might be a geographical advantage. The market mechanism then serves to exclude people who are either unwilling or unable to pay for that geographic advantage. This results in concentrations of richer people and poorer people in different parts of the city. High house prices and rents prevent poorer people from living in the same area as richer people. The rich and poor are hence separated by distance. To traverse this distance would cost time and energy.[8] The streetcar reduces the time and energy required, and serves to bridge richer and poorer parts of the city. Through the use of the streetcar, the poor have better access to areas with more amenities or economic opportunities that may be found in richer areas. While the non-car-owning poor always had access to these areas in that they were not banned from travelling to these areas, the frictional effects of time and energy costs made it less likely for them to access these areas. A streetcar line with significant time savings and reduced waiting time would make those areas more accessible than before.
However, the proposed streetcar line does not cover a lot of the city, which makes the streetcar’s ability to traverse distance a lot more limited. The map below shows the population density in Providence and the streetcar line with a walking distance buffer around each stop. The darker areas of the map show areas with higher population density, while the lighter areas are of lower population density. Some of the most densely populated areas are to the North and Southwest of the streetcar line. If the Southern end of the streetcar line was extended further by 0.5 miles, it would be able to serve a census tract with one of the densest population.[9] Yet, the streetcar line stops short of that.
Given that one of the objectives is to make it easier for customers to visit shops and employees to have more access to job opportunities, it is unusual at first glance for planners to not extend the line a bit more to reach a more densely populated area. Furthermore, as seen in the map above, there are a lot of overlaps in the walking distance buffers – which mean that the stops are not efficiently spaced out. There are 11 out of 16 stops that are within walking distance from the nearest streetcar stop, as seen in the table below. Of which, two of these stops are a mere 0.08 miles apart. If these stops were more evenly spaced out, their walking distance buffer would cover 3.136 square miles in total.[10] However, the current arrangement only covers less than half of that potential area. If the primary consideration was about extending accessibility, then the current arrangement is sub-optimal and could be further spaced out to reach more people. The streetcar’s potential to bridge gap would be largely unfulfilled.
Based on the findings above, there are clearly other overriding considerations at play – even though one would intuitively assume that the main purpose of a transportation project is to improve connectivity and transport as many people as possible. The image below is from a document by the City of Providence on the Providence Streetcar.[11] The document lists some of the motivations, or rather selling points, for the Streetcar – and there seems to be little attempt to hide that the primary purpose is related to the economy. The proposal states that “this transportation infrastructure investment is critically needed to advance the City’s economic recovery and position Providence for sustained growth and economic opportunity”.[12]
The potential for real estate developments seem to be a major factor in determining the allocation of the streetcar route. Studies by the City or its consultants highlight how more than half of the central business district development took place within a block of the streetcar in Portland.[14] In addition, the City studied the amount of vacant or underutilized land and projected that it would have 3 million square feet of additional development.[15] The image below of the streetcar line highlights in orange the areas of vacant or redevelopable land, and many of the streetcar stops are located next to these lots.[16] Given the high costs of investment, it is reasonable to expect the City to base their decision on a cost-benefit analysis.
It would be boring and predictable to merely point out that major projects are putting profits, or the increased property values, over people. That would be nothing new or unexpected. What I will attempt to do now is to argue why the pursuit for increased property values is harmful, specifically in the case of Providence and its streetcar plan.
In addition to stopping short of connecting an area of high population density, the streetcar line fails to reach poorer areas. The map below shows the poverty areas in Providence, based on percent below poverty.[17] The darker the area, the greater the percent of the census tract that is below the poverty level. I chose percent below poverty over mean income as a measure because it provides a better sense of the number of poor people while controlling for the total population of an area. Furthermore, mean income is not a sufficiently accurate measure of poverty as it could make the level of poverty seem better by just having a few extremely rich people pulling up the mean income. The zoomed-in image on the right shows that the walking distance buffer only covers a small area of the dark census tract with more than half of the population below the poverty level. Some of these areas of poverty coincide with areas of high population density – and these poorer residents are more likely to rely on public transit and use the streetcar to access economic opportunities.
In addition to stopping short of connecting an area of high population density, the streetcar line fails to reach poorer areas. The map below shows the poverty areas in Providence, based on percent below poverty.[17] The darker the area, the greater the percent of the census tract that is below the poverty level. I chose percent below poverty over mean income as a measure because it provides a better sense of the number of poor people while controlling for the total population of an area. Furthermore, mean income is not a sufficiently accurate measure of poverty as it could make the level of poverty seem better by just having a few extremely rich people pulling up the mean income. The zoomed-in image on the right shows that the walking distance buffer only covers a small area of the dark census tract with more than half of the population below the poverty level. Some of these areas of poverty coincide with areas of high population density – and these poorer residents are more likely to rely on public transit and use the streetcar to access economic opportunities.
The Streetcar as a Public Space
How does the drive to increase property values lead to the exclusion of poorer areas? At first glance, one might assume that increasing the flow of people to an area would increase its economic activity. However, it might be the case that the City does not just want increased volumes of all sorts of people. In fact, the streetcar line might need to exclude the “less desirable” types of people in order to capture the more desirable crowd. The streetcar is a confined space where social interactions take place. In addition to bridging richer and poorer areas of a city, the carriage of a streetcar bridges richer and poorer individuals by confining them to the same space for the duration of the ride.
While buses are able to serve that function as well, richer individuals are more able to avoid taking a bus than they would taking a streetcar. A bus will almost always be slower than a private automobile unless there are designated bus lanes, giving the individual who can afford it to choose a bus over driving or taking a taxi. But streetcars have tended to achieve additional time-savings. If the streetcar is fast and convenient enough, it could convince people who would otherwise drive to take the streetcar. The problem, to these richer people who would use the streetcar at least, is that the “less desirable” people who use buses could also easily access the streetcar. This is especially so if there is a streetcar stop in the middle of a poorer residential area, which will enable a poorer population to access the streetcar system easily. This is why exclusion on the interpersonal level within the space of the streetcar shapes exclusion at the route level. Those who are richer might feel uncomfortable needing to share a space with those who are poorer. As Marshall Berman puts it “the glory of modern public space” is that it “can compel and empower all these people to see each other, not through a glass darkly, but face to face”.[18] The streetcar is not just a mode of transportation, but a public space – and a confined one that puts everyone’s faces even closer. Once we view the streetcar to be more than a means of transportation and instead as a public space, it makes sense that residents have a stake in who they include and exclude in the space -- in the same way that they want to exclude certain characters from public parks or schools. Business owners are cognizant of the discomfort that their primary target group of customers, and hence prefer to not have the streetcar extend to poorer areas. Business owners and richer people have the time and resources to go through City councilmen or public consultative sessions to voice their concerns.
The need to target a more affluent crowd might be the reason for pursuing a streetcar project rather than an additional bus line. How is a streetcar different from a bus? One notable point would be the demographics of bus users versus fixed rail. In general, buses tend to service larger numbers of poorer people and people of color. As buses have a more extensive network, they are able to reach poorer areas of a city, which brings poorer commuters on-board. According to research by Brian Taylor, a UCLA urban planning professor, bus riders have been getting poorer in the past years, while users have been getting wealthier.[19] All of these contribute to a perception of a bus being for poor people – and this too applies to the RIPTA bus service. Changing such an image of bus users would be a challenge. A new streetcar line, on the other hand, would be perceived as a separate and superior mode that can attract more affluent commuters who the business community would prefer.
There is a second thing that is different about streetcars, which favors property developers over the long term transit needs of commuters. Unlike buses, streetcars follow a fixed route and involve putting in an investment with a high fixed cost. Once the streetcar infrastructure is laid down, modifying the route becomes practically impossible. Unlike bus routes which can change, a streetcar route is rigid and a visible sign that reassures developers that there will be a stream of commuters and customers to the area with a streetcar stop even in the long run. This helps increase property values for the City. As for commuters, their needs are likely better served by a dense and extensive network of buses rather than a single fixed line. In addition, transit needs are not static and tend to change over time. It is common for bus routes to change to match new transit needs, and a streetcar will not be able to adapt to new needs. Furthermore, poorer commuters that hold multiple jobs tend to need to move flexibly between various locations. A streetcar could help achieve that, but a dense network of buses better achieves that objective. The trade off becomes clearer if investing in the streetcar line comes at the expense of purchasing more buses – which is likely the case given how expensive the streetcar project would be.
While it is true that many affluent people drive instead of using public transit, the streetcar proposal seems to target precisely this group. Two things in the streetcar proposal point towards targeting the more affluent. First, the proposal states the objective of attracting “1,500 new city residents over next 20 years”.[21] It is likely that these new residents that the City has in mind are skilled labor that can contribute to the local economy. More convincingly, the proposal aims to decrease the total number of car trips and CO2 emissions.[22] This necessarily involves targeting people who are affluent enough to drive cars, and encouraging them to shift from the automobile to public transit.
One major assumption thus far is that richer commuters are indeed uncomfortable to share a transit space as poorer commuters. As Knox puts it a place is a “setting for social interaction that… provides an arena in which everyday common sense knowledge and experience is gathered”.[23] A streetcar carriage is such a place. It is not about the balance in the bank account, but an issue of class, as poorer commuters dress and behave differently with cultural norms and codes that differ from an upper-middle class commuter. The difference in appearance and behavior disturbs richer commuters and as argued above, their discomfort affects business interest and in turn, policy. While the assumption outlined above is very possible, it is difficult to prove. Few councilmen or planners would admit to something as politically unpalatable. Similarly, few commuters would be open about voicing their discomfort of sharing a space with the less privileged. In the absence of explicit statements, we can only speculate about the underlying motivations of planners. It is equally likely that the City’s official justification, that of connecting the two major employment hubs, Brown University and the Hospital, was in fact the actual motivation for not extending the streetcar line into an area of high population density and poverty.
How does the drive to increase property values lead to the exclusion of poorer areas? At first glance, one might assume that increasing the flow of people to an area would increase its economic activity. However, it might be the case that the City does not just want increased volumes of all sorts of people. In fact, the streetcar line might need to exclude the “less desirable” types of people in order to capture the more desirable crowd. The streetcar is a confined space where social interactions take place. In addition to bridging richer and poorer areas of a city, the carriage of a streetcar bridges richer and poorer individuals by confining them to the same space for the duration of the ride.
While buses are able to serve that function as well, richer individuals are more able to avoid taking a bus than they would taking a streetcar. A bus will almost always be slower than a private automobile unless there are designated bus lanes, giving the individual who can afford it to choose a bus over driving or taking a taxi. But streetcars have tended to achieve additional time-savings. If the streetcar is fast and convenient enough, it could convince people who would otherwise drive to take the streetcar. The problem, to these richer people who would use the streetcar at least, is that the “less desirable” people who use buses could also easily access the streetcar. This is especially so if there is a streetcar stop in the middle of a poorer residential area, which will enable a poorer population to access the streetcar system easily. This is why exclusion on the interpersonal level within the space of the streetcar shapes exclusion at the route level. Those who are richer might feel uncomfortable needing to share a space with those who are poorer. As Marshall Berman puts it “the glory of modern public space” is that it “can compel and empower all these people to see each other, not through a glass darkly, but face to face”.[18] The streetcar is not just a mode of transportation, but a public space – and a confined one that puts everyone’s faces even closer. Once we view the streetcar to be more than a means of transportation and instead as a public space, it makes sense that residents have a stake in who they include and exclude in the space -- in the same way that they want to exclude certain characters from public parks or schools. Business owners are cognizant of the discomfort that their primary target group of customers, and hence prefer to not have the streetcar extend to poorer areas. Business owners and richer people have the time and resources to go through City councilmen or public consultative sessions to voice their concerns.
The need to target a more affluent crowd might be the reason for pursuing a streetcar project rather than an additional bus line. How is a streetcar different from a bus? One notable point would be the demographics of bus users versus fixed rail. In general, buses tend to service larger numbers of poorer people and people of color. As buses have a more extensive network, they are able to reach poorer areas of a city, which brings poorer commuters on-board. According to research by Brian Taylor, a UCLA urban planning professor, bus riders have been getting poorer in the past years, while users have been getting wealthier.[19] All of these contribute to a perception of a bus being for poor people – and this too applies to the RIPTA bus service. Changing such an image of bus users would be a challenge. A new streetcar line, on the other hand, would be perceived as a separate and superior mode that can attract more affluent commuters who the business community would prefer.
There is a second thing that is different about streetcars, which favors property developers over the long term transit needs of commuters. Unlike buses, streetcars follow a fixed route and involve putting in an investment with a high fixed cost. Once the streetcar infrastructure is laid down, modifying the route becomes practically impossible. Unlike bus routes which can change, a streetcar route is rigid and a visible sign that reassures developers that there will be a stream of commuters and customers to the area with a streetcar stop even in the long run. This helps increase property values for the City. As for commuters, their needs are likely better served by a dense and extensive network of buses rather than a single fixed line. In addition, transit needs are not static and tend to change over time. It is common for bus routes to change to match new transit needs, and a streetcar will not be able to adapt to new needs. Furthermore, poorer commuters that hold multiple jobs tend to need to move flexibly between various locations. A streetcar could help achieve that, but a dense network of buses better achieves that objective. The trade off becomes clearer if investing in the streetcar line comes at the expense of purchasing more buses – which is likely the case given how expensive the streetcar project would be.
While it is true that many affluent people drive instead of using public transit, the streetcar proposal seems to target precisely this group. Two things in the streetcar proposal point towards targeting the more affluent. First, the proposal states the objective of attracting “1,500 new city residents over next 20 years”.[21] It is likely that these new residents that the City has in mind are skilled labor that can contribute to the local economy. More convincingly, the proposal aims to decrease the total number of car trips and CO2 emissions.[22] This necessarily involves targeting people who are affluent enough to drive cars, and encouraging them to shift from the automobile to public transit.
One major assumption thus far is that richer commuters are indeed uncomfortable to share a transit space as poorer commuters. As Knox puts it a place is a “setting for social interaction that… provides an arena in which everyday common sense knowledge and experience is gathered”.[23] A streetcar carriage is such a place. It is not about the balance in the bank account, but an issue of class, as poorer commuters dress and behave differently with cultural norms and codes that differ from an upper-middle class commuter. The difference in appearance and behavior disturbs richer commuters and as argued above, their discomfort affects business interest and in turn, policy. While the assumption outlined above is very possible, it is difficult to prove. Few councilmen or planners would admit to something as politically unpalatable. Similarly, few commuters would be open about voicing their discomfort of sharing a space with the less privileged. In the absence of explicit statements, we can only speculate about the underlying motivations of planners. It is equally likely that the City’s official justification, that of connecting the two major employment hubs, Brown University and the Hospital, was in fact the actual motivation for not extending the streetcar line into an area of high population density and poverty.
A kinder interpretation of the City’s motivations would be that the areas of high population density on the map are excluded because they do not contribute to economic activity in the same way that connecting the Hospital district would, and hence would not justify the investment for extending the streetcar line further. This interpretation seems shaky for two reasons. First, connecting an area of high population to downtown would generally stimulate economic activity. Second, even if the purpose was to spur development in areas with vacant or underdeveloped land, the map of redevelopable lots indicates that there are in fact vacant or redevelopable lots in the excluded area.[24] Taken together, these two potential benefits indicate that the City does not wish to extend the streetcar line to the excluded area because of a cost that outweighs the benefits. It is open to speculation what this cost is.
The Endless Trap of TIF
The Endless Trap of TIF
Regardless of the current intentions of the City in excluding the poorer areas, I will further argue that the system of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) for the streetcar project will only serve to perpetuate policies that favor business interests over public interests. 47% of the Providence streetcar capital cost is funded by TIF bonds.[25] Under TIF, the City borrows money for infrastructure improvements and then pays the money back using an earmarked amount of tax dollars from a designated area that gains from the infrastructural improvement.[26] In the case of Providence, the area around the streetcar stands to gain from the streetcar. This designated area is outlined in the map above.[27] As seen in the line graph below, the City would expect the increase in property values to be sufficient to cover paying back the loan.[28] In fact, the City expects the increase in property value to be significantly more than the projected baseline increase. Part of the tax revenue is allocated for typical public amenities. Everything above that amount is used for paying back the loan.
TIF effectively allows the City to divert taxpayer money that would have been used for public amenities, such as schools, parks, and hospitals. A portion of tax revenue is earmarked to repay loans for the streetcar project, which benefits primarily business owners and property developers. While some may argue that the streetcar would bring in tax revenue that otherwise would not have existed, this would only be the case if property values would not have increased in the absence of the streetcar. In the case of Chicago, once the trend of rising property values was taken into account, it was found that the city spent $1.3 billion for a net gain of $300 million of tax revenue – which is a small amount relative to the amount of revenue diverted from public amenities.[29]
More significantly, TIF ties the interest of the City even more tightly with the interests of private developers in the long run. As the City needs property values to increase in order to pay back the loans, it is no longer just desirable for property values to increase: Property values have to increase, or the City risks bankruptcy if it cannot make enough to repay the loan. Hence, TIF encourages the City to have policies that favor developers. The need to repay the loans will push the City away from the provision of public amenities and towards policies that increase the value of property. In other words, in addition to potentially diverting funds from schools and other public places, the City becomes even more inclined to convert public space into a source of revenue generation.
Conclusion
The primary motivation behind implementing the streetcar line was never about meeting transit needs, but about increasing property values and economic development. This was evident from statements in the streetcar proposals by the City and maps showing that the line stops short of reaching an area of high population density. The arrangement of the Providence streetcar line seems to prioritize the interests of business owners, property developers, and affluent commuters over the transit needs of poor commuters. As Bromley put it, “the state can engage in planning and provision of infrastructures all of which benefit real investors”.[30] A system of TIF exacerbates the problem by making the interests of the City even more dependent on the interests of developers, which might be at the expense of the provision of public amenities. Thinking back to the historical Providence streetcar, one cannot help but to wonder how different the streetcar line would be if it were run by a private company, like Union Railroads, that sought to maximize earnings from commuters rather than increase property values. Perhaps such a transport provider would not only be less powerful, but have interests that are more aligned with commuters instead of property developers.
More significantly, TIF ties the interest of the City even more tightly with the interests of private developers in the long run. As the City needs property values to increase in order to pay back the loans, it is no longer just desirable for property values to increase: Property values have to increase, or the City risks bankruptcy if it cannot make enough to repay the loan. Hence, TIF encourages the City to have policies that favor developers. The need to repay the loans will push the City away from the provision of public amenities and towards policies that increase the value of property. In other words, in addition to potentially diverting funds from schools and other public places, the City becomes even more inclined to convert public space into a source of revenue generation.
Conclusion
The primary motivation behind implementing the streetcar line was never about meeting transit needs, but about increasing property values and economic development. This was evident from statements in the streetcar proposals by the City and maps showing that the line stops short of reaching an area of high population density. The arrangement of the Providence streetcar line seems to prioritize the interests of business owners, property developers, and affluent commuters over the transit needs of poor commuters. As Bromley put it, “the state can engage in planning and provision of infrastructures all of which benefit real investors”.[30] A system of TIF exacerbates the problem by making the interests of the City even more dependent on the interests of developers, which might be at the expense of the provision of public amenities. Thinking back to the historical Providence streetcar, one cannot help but to wonder how different the streetcar line would be if it were run by a private company, like Union Railroads, that sought to maximize earnings from commuters rather than increase property values. Perhaps such a transport provider would not only be less powerful, but have interests that are more aligned with commuters instead of property developers.
References
[1] Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, “History of Transit Ridership in Rhode Island,” http://www.ripta.com/history-of-transit-ridership-in-rhode-island.
[2] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar,” http://www.providenceri.com/efile/5439.
[3] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[4] Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, “History of Transit Ridership in Rhode Island.”
[5] The City of Providence, Providence Streetcar Environmental Assessment (Providence: City of Providence, 2014).
[6] Lloyd Soh, “Limitations and Redundancies of the Providence Streetcar Line” (SOC 1340 Final Paper, Brown University, 2015).
[7] Edward Soja, Seeking Spatial Justice (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 73
[8] Edward Soja, Seeking Spatial Justice, 72.
[9] Lloyd Soh, “Limitations and Redundancies of the Providence Streetcar Line.”
[10] Lloyd Soh, “Limitations and Redundancies of the Providence Streetcar Line.”
[11] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[12] The City of Providence, Providence Streetcar Environmental Assessment.
[13] Lloyd Soh, Alexander Leggieri, Sophia Kunselman, “Providence Streetcar: Is it truly sustainable?,” (URBN 1220 Final Paper, Brown University, 2015).
[15] HDR Engineering, “Providence Metropolitan Transit Enhancement Study,” 18.
[16] HDR Engineering, “Providence Metropolitan Transit Enhancement Study,” 30.
[17] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[18] Nicholas Blomley, “Rights of Passage: Sidewalks and the Regulation of Public Flow,” Social & Legal Studies 19.3 (2010): 336.
[19] Mike Maciag, “Public Transportation’s Demographic Divide,” Governing, February 25, 2014, http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-public-transportation-riders-demographic-divide-for-cities.html.
[21] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[22] Ibid.
[23] Paul Knox, “Creating Ordinary Places: Slow Cities in a Fast World”, Journal of Urban Design, 10.1 (2005), 2.
[24] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[25] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[26] City of Providence, “Providence Streetcar Tax Increment Financing Project Plan,” (Providence: City of Providence, 2014).
[27] City of Providence, “Providence Streetcar Tax Increment Financing Project Plan.”
[28] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[29] Rob Kerth and Phineas Baxandall, “Tax-Increment Financing: The Need for Increased Transparency and Accountability in Local Economic Development Subsidies,” (Boston: U.S. PIRG Education Fund, 2011), 10.
[30] Nicholas Blomley, “Homelessness, rights, and the delusions of property,” Urban Geography, 30.6 (2009), 584.
[1] Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, “History of Transit Ridership in Rhode Island,” http://www.ripta.com/history-of-transit-ridership-in-rhode-island.
[2] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar,” http://www.providenceri.com/efile/5439.
[3] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[4] Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, “History of Transit Ridership in Rhode Island.”
[5] The City of Providence, Providence Streetcar Environmental Assessment (Providence: City of Providence, 2014).
[6] Lloyd Soh, “Limitations and Redundancies of the Providence Streetcar Line” (SOC 1340 Final Paper, Brown University, 2015).
[7] Edward Soja, Seeking Spatial Justice (Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 73
[8] Edward Soja, Seeking Spatial Justice, 72.
[9] Lloyd Soh, “Limitations and Redundancies of the Providence Streetcar Line.”
[10] Lloyd Soh, “Limitations and Redundancies of the Providence Streetcar Line.”
[11] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[12] The City of Providence, Providence Streetcar Environmental Assessment.
[13] Lloyd Soh, Alexander Leggieri, Sophia Kunselman, “Providence Streetcar: Is it truly sustainable?,” (URBN 1220 Final Paper, Brown University, 2015).
[15] HDR Engineering, “Providence Metropolitan Transit Enhancement Study,” 18.
[16] HDR Engineering, “Providence Metropolitan Transit Enhancement Study,” 30.
[17] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[18] Nicholas Blomley, “Rights of Passage: Sidewalks and the Regulation of Public Flow,” Social & Legal Studies 19.3 (2010): 336.
[19] Mike Maciag, “Public Transportation’s Demographic Divide,” Governing, February 25, 2014, http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/gov-public-transportation-riders-demographic-divide-for-cities.html.
[21] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[22] Ibid.
[23] Paul Knox, “Creating Ordinary Places: Slow Cities in a Fast World”, Journal of Urban Design, 10.1 (2005), 2.
[24] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[25] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[26] City of Providence, “Providence Streetcar Tax Increment Financing Project Plan,” (Providence: City of Providence, 2014).
[27] City of Providence, “Providence Streetcar Tax Increment Financing Project Plan.”
[28] The City of Providence, “The Providence Streetcar.”
[29] Rob Kerth and Phineas Baxandall, “Tax-Increment Financing: The Need for Increased Transparency and Accountability in Local Economic Development Subsidies,” (Boston: U.S. PIRG Education Fund, 2011), 10.
[30] Nicholas Blomley, “Homelessness, rights, and the delusions of property,” Urban Geography, 30.6 (2009), 584.