ABQ Streetcar Proposal

REFERENCES + WORKS CITED

By Les Christie, CNNMoney.com staff writer (2007-06-28). "The fastest growing U.S. cities” -Jun.28,2007Money.cnn.com. http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/27/real_estate/fastest_growing_cities/. Retrieved 2009-05-09.

History of Albuquerque and Urban trends information gathered from Wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque

GIS information gathered from City of Albuquerque Website:www.CABQ.com

District Character information gathered from “It’s a Trip”, Albuquerque Convention and Visi-tor Bureau: http://www.itsatrip.org/activities/neighborhood-guide/default.aspx

FAQ’s gathered from Protransit.com:http://www.protransit.com/FAQs/Default.asp

APPENDIX: CASE STUDIES

Introduction

Death by CarCurrently, automobiles and light trucks in the United States are responsible for one-half of all greenhouse gases emit-ted by vehicles globally, and the U.S. only possesses 30% of the 700 million vehicles in the world. Carbon dioxide from personal vehicles in the United States emitted 314 million metric tons in 2004. That much carbon could fill a coal train 55,000 miles long, which is long enough to circle the earth twice. The U.S. accounts for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions because vehicles are driven farther, have lower fuel economy standards, and burn fuel with higher levels of carbon than many of the cars in other countries. U.S. automobiles had an average fuel economy of 19.6 miles per gallon in 2004, for an average annual consumption of just over 600 gallons of gasoline. United States gasoline contains 5.3 pounds of carbon per gallon. This carbon ends up in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, resulting in more than 1.5 tons of carbon emissions produced by U.S. automobiles yearly.

Public Transportation as a SolutionThe most energy efficient households in America that produce the least amount of carbon are located within close proximity of a bus or rail line. The people in these households drive an average of 4,400 fewer miles annually as compared to persons in similar households with no access to public transit, according to a new study released by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). Cities that choose to invest in public transportation reduce the nation’s carbon emissions by 37 million metric tons annually, which is equivalent to the electricity used by 4.9 million households. To achieve a similar reduction in carbon emissions, every household in New York City, Wash-ington, D.C., Atlanta, Denver, and Los Angeles combined would have to completely stop using electricity. “Invest-ing in public transportation is one of the more effective ways to combat global climate change and conserve energy,” said William W. Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association. “Public transit encourages more compact development and greater personal choice in how people travel. People have closer access to jobs and shopping and more trips can be made on foot, by bike, or just a short car ride.” It seems that most state’s government approach to problems like public transportation are too passive. They take the stance that they will provide public transportation (bike lanes, added bus stops, light rail etc...) when there is a need or a demand for it, instead of taking a more active approach and providing for it now, knowing that if the infrastructure is there people will use it. “Em-bracing public transportation at the local level is an important first step toward energy independence and protecting the environment,” said Millar. “We are working with Congress because increased investment in, and use of, public transportation are among the more powerful energy independence solutions.”

The Evolution of the Street Car

Present day public transit has not always functioned and operated with the style and ease that it does today. Its abil-ity to move large volumes of people is the result of a long line of evolution and courageousness brought about by progressive U.S. and European cities over the last 150 years. There has always been a significant need for public transportation, and its current planning practices have the ability to move not only people, but economies.

The first utilization of public transportation in America can be traced back to New York City in 1827. The Omnibus was similar to many horse drawn carriages of its day however, it had a designated route that allowed it to provide its services for a very reasonable fair. Early improvements to the omnibus were the addition of a dedicated rail that ran directly in the middle of the street. These streetcars were still drawn by horse, but had a distinctive right of way. These cars were far more comfortable than omnibuses and required fewer horses to pull them. The first street car began its services in 1832 and ran down Bowery Street in New York City.

The second city to begin utilizing the streetcar was New Orleans in 1835. Here the operations were perfected. Two crewmembers were responsible for the safe boarding of passengers and controlling of the vehicle. It was not until 1873 that the streetcar would get its next significant upgrade. The conception of the cable car would allow for these transports to move independently of horses. The “Cable Car” gets its name from the means in which it is propelled. This conversion from horse to cable required an extensive amount of infrastructure to be taken into consideration. A continuous loop of cable, along with several pulleys, are placed in a channel that runs between the track and below the street. A very large steam power station kept this cable moving and was placed adjacent to the line. These cars are equipped with a device capable of clamping on or off of the cable as needed for making stops.

The first operable cable cars got their start in San Francisco. The largest and busiest fleets of cable cars were in Chi-cago. Most large American cities had one or more cable car lines by the 1890’s. After the 1890’s, many cities turned to alternative electric-powered streetcars. An overhead wire was installed over city streets, and a streetcar would create contact with this electric wire with a long pole attached to its roof. Back at the powerhouse, big steam engines turned huge generators that would produce the electricity needed to operate these streetcars. A new name was given to this type of streetcar powered by electricity; they were called trolley cars.

By the 1950’s the use for streetcars immensely plummeted with the automobile industry’s ability to supply vehicles at an affordable price. Many cities including Minneapolis, known for having one of the largest streetcar systems, removed their vast network of rails to make room for the car. Today, many cities are taking action to re-employ their old streetcar alignments and some are adding them for the first time. High gas prices and the foresight of oil scarcity in our very near future, has brought about a need for reliable alternatives to the automobile.

Portland Streetcar

The City of Portland was developed around its historic streetcar network, which began in 1872 with a horse drawn line on 1st Avenue. The early streetcar lines served both as a mode of transportation and as an organizing tool for new development. They were constructed with the intent of drawing people to live in new, outlying neighborhoods. Before any new development began, developers would first extend a streetcar line into the area. Street railway com-panies would then add these new streetcar lines to their systems. Between 1890 and 1925, streetcar lines opened up at least 14 of Portland’s historic neighborhoods for development. Over time, streetcar commercial districts evolved as the activity centers and main streets that still exist in Portland’s close-in neighborhoods. For example, the Wood-lawn neighborhood in North Portland was platted for streetcar accessibility, with grid-shifted streets radiating away from the streetcar station. These early transit investments allowed people to commute greater distances; from new residential developments to the industrial and employment areas in Central Portland.

The idea of reintroducing modern streetcar service in Portland first emerged as part of the 1988 Central City Plan. From its initiation, the modern Streetcar strategy drew on the same land-use transportation nexus that led to the historic system; among the key goals for streetcar was “encouraging infill…and serving as a catalyst for housing development.” The initial 2.4 mile streetcar alignment was selected to connect major rider-ship generators and employment centers: Legacy Good Samaritan Hospital and Portland State University. The line was strategically routed through the heart of the up-and-coming Pearl District. Constructed at a cost of $55 million, services began in 2001. In 2007, the line was extended through the South Waterfront District. As a development stimulus, the streetcar has been a resounding success. By 2008, private developers had invested $3.5 billion within two blocks of the alignment, including over 10,000 new housing units and 5.4 million square feet of office, institutional, retail and hotel construction. This represents approximately two-thirds of all development in Central Portland during that time. Notably, these developments are utilizing more of the allowed floor area ratio than developments not as near to the streetcar. Developments adjacent to the streetcar have utilized over 90% of its potential FAR, compared to just over 40% for developments not near the streetcar.

Building the Portland Streetcar was one of the most important transportation decisions made by the City of Port-land in recent years. It has enhanced business growth, livability and housing options. Streetcar corridors are expected to play a key role in helping the city absorb some of the one million new residents Metro expects in the region by 2035. The streetcar is a key element in the city’s plan for more sustainable future growth.

Funding Strategies

Portland spent $103.2 million on a 4-mile line opened in 2001. It was funded in part by a hike in the city parking garage fee and new property taxes created by surrounding development. Additional money came from city and state government as well as public land sales. Portland plans to begin work this summer on a 3.3-mile, $147 mil-lion extension, with federal money accounting for half the cost.

Capital Budget - $103.15 million Sources: City General Fund $ 1.80 million City Parking Bonds 28.60 City Parking Fund 2.00 City Transportation Fund 1.70 Connect Oregon 2.10 Federal Transportation Funds 5.00 (Reallocated with TriMet for local funds) Gibbs Extension Savings 0.66 Local Improvement District 19.40 Regional Transportation Funds 10.00 Tax Increment (North Macadam URA) 12.20 Tax Increment (South Park Blocks URA) 7.50 Tax Increment Funds 1.80 Tram Transfer 0.15 Transportation Fund 0.60 Transportation Land Sale 3.10 Transportation Systems Development 2.50 U.S. HUD Grant 1.95 Misc. 2.09 Operations Budget - $4.9 million / Fiscal Year 2008 Sources: TriMet $ 3.00 million City of Portland, Office of Transportation 1.60 Fares/sponsorship/promotions 0.30

Other Cities Utilizing Streetcars

More than a dozen North American cities have streetcar systems that have either expanded or started operations in the past 15 years. On top of that, at least twice as many other cities have new systems or new lines under ac-tive planning. The primary attractions of streetcars are the ability to add a visible rail system at a minimum capital investment, and the ability to create a people mover that connects into a high-capacity network without requiring additional extension or expansion of a more expensive high-capacity mode. Streetcars are also popular because, as they once did, they can still fit into densely developed, pedestrian oriented, urban neighborhoods.

Modern Models SeattleRestoration of rail service on Westlake Avenue was originally envisioned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen to help improve the South Lake Union neighborhood, in which his venture capital company, Vulcan Inc., is heavily invested. Allen’s main supporter from the beginning was Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, but was not universally sup-ported by the Seattle City Council, which was concerned about the lack of public support for the line and ques-tioned if it should be moved ahead of Seattle’s many other transportation needs.

Streetcar transit is a transportation solution that makes sense for Seattle. The South Lake Union line increases transportation options for people living and working in South Lake Union, Denny Triangle, and downtown Seattle.

Streetcars easily share the road with other ground transportation options, such as bicycles, buses, and cars, instead of requiring an isolated corridor of their own. This increases public transit capacity without impacting other op-tions.

The South Lake Union line of the Seattle Streetcar connects with Seattle’s other public transit systems including Metro buses; Sound Transit buses, trains and light rail; the Monorail; and Washington State Ferries.

Seattle Mayor, Greg Nickels, proposed the South Lake Union Streetcar in 2003. The Seattle City Council ap-proved the project in 2005. Just two years later, the South Lake Union Streetcar was transporting its first passen-gers.

TacomaAt one time, Tacoma had one of the most extensive streetcar systems in the country. Viewed as old-fashioned, the system was scrapped in 1938. Now, over 100 years after the first streetcars ran in Tacoma, the need for a user-friendly mass transit system is upon them.

In the mid-1990s, the Puget Sound region was dealing with increasing traffic, driven mainly by the dot-com boom and Microsoft. Voters approved Sound Move, a three-county transportation package that formed Sound Transit. One of the major projects for the Pierce County/Tacoma area was the Tacoma Link.

The Tacoma Link is a 1.6-mile (2.6 km) light rail line located in Tacoma, Washington. The line was completed in 2003 and serves the downtown area, and primarily functions to transport commuters between a combined parking garage/transit hub and the downtown core. Its services are free of charge to passengers. Toronto

The Toronto streetcar system comprises eleven streetcar (tram) routes in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, operated by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), the municipal public transit operator. The network is concentrated downtown and in proximity to the city’s waterfront. Much of the streetcar’s network dates back to the 19th century. Unlike newer light rail transit (LRT) systems, most of Toronto’s streetcar routes operate in the classic style on street track-age shared with car traffic; streetcars stop on demand at frequent stops like buses. Some routes do operate wholly or partly within their own rights-of-way, but they still stop on demand at frequent stops.

Despite the use of techniques long removed in the streetcar networks of other North American cities, Toronto’s streetcars are not heritage streetcars run for tourism or nostalgic purposes; they provide most of the downtown core’s surface transit service, and four of the TTC’s five most heavily used surface routes are streetcar routes. In 2006, ridership on the streetcar system totaled more than 52 million.

VancouverThe City of Vancouver will host a transportation showcase project during the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. It will reintroduce the streetcar to Vancouver streets. The Olympic Line is free for all riders and it provides reliable and sustainable transportation for athletes, visitors, and residents alike. After the 2010 Winter Games are over, the streetcar system could be made permanent or expanded, depending on studies during the dem-onstration and the funding partnership needed to complete the work.

This transportation showcase project will be an important first step in realizing an overall “Downtown Streetcar” line. It also signals a commitment to return the streetcar to Vancouver, which once had an extensive network. Actual rider-ship and success of the Olympic Line project will help determine the feasibility and future timing of building additional rail infrastructure to complete the Downtown Streetcar. This demonstration line already has a dedicated right-of-way, with 1.8 kilometers of track used for a restored heritage streetcar that presently runs on weekends during tourist season. This track is being replaced prior to the demonstration, so that both heritage and modern streetcars would be able to use it after March 2010.

Historic Models (San Francisco, Louisiana, Memphis, Et. Al.)

Heritage Streetcars or Trams are a development of the Heritage Railways that are becoming popular across the world. As with modern streetcar systems, the vehicles are referred to as trams or tramcars and other places as streetcars or trolleys, as in North America. There are several different kinds of heritage streetcar lines. They can use original vintage vehicles or replicas of historic vehicles. They can be either newly-installed lines, created in modern times, 1970s or later, or can be surviving older streetcar lines/tramways which have retained use of histor-ic streetcars/trams for all or most of their scheduled service. Several new heritage streetcar lines have been opened since the 1970s, particularly in the United States, and some are stand-alone lines while others make use of a sec-tion of a modern light rail system. Some use all-new construction while others make use of an existing, usually disused, freight railway by installing overhead wires and passenger stops. However, in all cases they are actual rail lines and not simply buses made to resemble a streetcar, although the latter are often referred to—inaccurately—as “trolleys” in the towns where they operate. Additionally, many heritage streetcar lines turn out to be more eco-nomical than their modern counterparts, often with installations that can be built at a fraction of the cost of newer lines. Nevertheless, there are trade-offs. Such systems often lack handicapped accessibility, for example. Most are modified to comply with these needs. These lines typically run at much slower speeds than a modern streetcar.

Proposed Alignments (Charlotte, Cincinnati, Tempe, Atlanta, Minneapolis…)

The positive response from existing and recently developed Light Rail systems has several U.S. cities seriously considering LRT. Charlotte has already completed the design for their new alignment and is currently working on funding strategies. Federal funding requires a two-year study and Tempe is in the middle of conducting an alterna-tives analysis that will weigh the benefits of streetcars to other modes of public transit.

When and where does the Streetcar/Light Rail Transit work?

Streetcars in these cities clearly have an attraction for riders greater to that of other surface transit systems.

Why does a streetcar service have such a superior attraction to riders?First, the existing alignments mentioned have the following in common:• High acceleration electric propulsion• Higher than average transit speeds• Larger vehicles than motor buses• Protection from the weather• Train signals on exclusive right-of-ways• Outlying parking for passengers (LRT)• Bus transfer privileges• Overhead power supply• Petroleum conservation and no on-line emissions

Second, these streetcar systems have been proven efficient. Passenger-mile data in Cleveland and Newark provide the following specifics: each light rail line needs only 2.1/2.2 employees per vehicle to support the total operation, including power systems and routine track maintenance. Each vehicle produced 1900 passenger miles per week-day for a total employee productivity rate of 900 passenger miles per employee. Comparable figures for a city bus are 550 passenger miles for express service and 530 passenger miles for general service.

Third, other reasons for passengers preferring the streetcar are the following amenities:• No on board engine noise• No air pollution along the route• No unexpected swerving or sudden stops• More interior space per passenger• Passengers can read while commuting• Fixed and self proclaiming route• Smooth ride• Double doors to speed up loading and unloading• Multi-car operation possible to handle large volumes• Different from routine transit travel• Urban development adjacent to fixed right-of-ways

Lastly, there can also be problems associated with light rail, but although real and sometimes inconvenient, their effects are small and more than outweighed by their advantages. Some of these problems include:• Lack of flexibility• Dependence on a single power source• Nonstandard transit operation• Difficult spare parts supply (Getting better with ability to manufacture streetcars in the U.S.)• Objections of motorist, police, and traffic engineers more interested in moving vehicles than people.

How? There are five ways to implement light rail/streetcar operations: These methods can be combined along different segments of the same alignment, thus giving the rail greater flexibility than competing modes of transport. • Using long, exclusive right-of-way from suburbia to central business districts.• Creating a short, densely used exclusive right-of-way in the central business district or other major traffic center.• Routing to avoid constricting traffic congestion.• Allowing priority street space for high-volume lines.• Providing fast feeder to a heavier rail mode.

A Volume Market

Streetcars cannot be economical to low-volume markets. The fixed costs of its unique infrastructure requires volume travel to pay back the investment over many trips. Yet, there is no specific break-even point because of the wide investments range for different light rail applications. Shorter lines with less speed opportunity need more volume to justify this investment. Toronto has the most successful transit system of North America. Streetcars preempt the center street lanes and speed movement nearly 10% faster than that of curb-loading buses. As travel volumes decline it is not possible to reduce light rail infrastructure employees in proportion. At lower volumes, bus operations will become more economical than light rail alignments, but greater passenger attraction will still give the streetcar an advantage at the break-even point. Where trade-offs become necessary, as with high volumes in the city center and low volumes in the suburbs, it may be more efficient to utilize a tree like approach; using LRT as a trunk and streetcars as its branches.

Right of WaysThere are six types of right-of-ways, and circumstances such as cost, availability, and conditions that will dictate which type or combination should be applied to a given corridor or route. • Center street operations, with as much transit priority as feasible• Park strip, median or boulevard right-of-way (similar to above but exclusive and with crossing safety fea-tures)• Joint use of light density railroad trackage• Power line or abandoned railroad right-of-way• Aerial structures at highway crossings, with private right-of-way between crossings• Subway, or below grade, right-of-way

Transit System Integration

A high density, urban streetcar must have free or highly reduced price interchanges (transfers) with alternate public transit systems. As many as two-thirds of all high-density riders transfer at points where highest ridership is ob-tained. Transfers are an essential element of high ridership, not because they are favorable, but because individual bus routes cannot connect enough nodes and individual destination points. Long, fast suburban light rail lines have less need for transfer privileges if they serve the central business district adequately, such as in cities like Cleve-land and Pittsburgh.

Operational AspectsFor a streetcar system to be justifiable, it must be faster, or the most efficient alternative for specific patrons. A speed of 8-8 mph can be justified in heavy central business district traffic if the alternative means of transit are slower. Streetcar speeds of 15 mph are possible on exclusive right-of-way with closely spaced stations and grade crossing. An increase to 20 mph is possible if stations are spaced a third of a mile or more apart. Speed may be less important in terms of mile of line than it is in terms of runtime per passenger. Lightly loaded vehicles should be delayed to allow for passengers to accumulate at upcoming stops especially at points not conve-nient to widely spaced stops.

CostsThe capital investment of a streetcar or light rail cannot be significantly compared with the cost of a fleet of buses or with an exclusive bus road that fails to penetrate the central business district. Total traffic capacity and speed of movement must be considered. For example, a light rail line that costs $250 million and serves 40,000 weekday riders comfortable will provide peak hour capacity equivalent to 32 lanes of arterial street, or 8 lanes of freeway. Less statistically and more realistically, half of a new light rail line’s patronage will come from local transit riders enjoying the new and improved services. The other half may be a former automobile commuter, therefore remov-ing the need for 16 more arterial lanes or 4 more freeway lanes. Also, this means 8000 fewer costly downtown parking spaces will be required.

While costs vary widely based upon specific planning situations, a conservative estimate is that a new highway lane, in a high volume area, cannot be built for less that $10 million. 4 lanes extending over 4 miles would in turn cost $160 million and an additional $40 million would be needed for parking spaces to accommodate the highway users. Thus, light rail could easily be the low cost alternative for the needed capacity even without con-sidering such increases in community values as are now taking place in the cities mentioned above.

Design Considerations Associated with Light Rail Transit

VehiclesStreetcar vehicles, manufactured by Skoda-Inekon in Plzen of the Czech Republic, are 2.46 meters (about 8 feet) wide and 20 meters long (about 66 feet); about 10 inches narrower and 1/3 the length of a MAX (TriMet’s light rail system) double car train.Maneuverability of the shorter and narrower Skoda vehicles has allowed the 8-foot wide track slab to be fitted to existing grades, limiting the scope of street and sidewalk reconstruction. Streetcar vehicles can carry a crunch load of up to 140 passengers, are air-conditioned, and have a low-floor center section (like the MAX vehicles) with full handicapped accessibility. This low-floor design removes the need for a wheelchair lift and only requires a platform that is 4-6 higher than a typical curb height.

Right of WaysLight Rail Transit operating conditions range from on street, mixed traffic to grade separated situations. On street operations can be improved through a range of traffic engineering treatments. Some include exclusive transit lanes as in Toronto and San Francisco, where painting strips, special pavement textures, and small curbs on each side of the transit way clearly warning to keep automobile traffic out. Mix traffic is the least desirable condition due to its automobile traffic interference that causes delays, impairs reliability, and increases safety hazards. How-ever, exclusive and separated right-of-ways are not always possible, especially where street widths are narrow and resources are scarce.

Station FacilitiesThe simplest stations are basically a small raised platform, and are usually outfitted with some sort of weather protection. These shelters are easy and inexpensive to maintain. In most cases, security is heightened to increase visibility. Small simple stations are not suitable for large volumes of passenger loading. In some cases, as in San Diego, platforms are designed for 4-car trains and are generally about 340-360 ft long, even though the shelters themselves are only 60 ft long. Major facilities can be developed to enhance transferring between bus and light rail. Toronto is particularly recognized for its devotion to mode transfers, and rigorously coordinates these time sensitive transfers. Light rail stations can become over complicated for systems that use barriers with fare-collecting facilities before boarding the cars. These types of stations should be avoided due to their expensive upkeep and space require-ments.

Track WorkThere are numerous variations to track work construction and the execution of the design depends on the specifics of the local conditions and the alignment. Climate, availability, cost of T-rail versus girder rail, traffic conditions are factors that will become fodder for the best design. The alignment and its interaction with traffic will also be-come a factor. No street traffic is allowed on San Diego’s light rail path, while Calgary’s path accommodates bus and automobile traffic.

Electrification FacilitiesElectrification facilities, overhead wires, and substations can have a significant impact on our visual environment, but they do not have to be negative. Design of these facilities will benefit from urban design assistance. Organi-zation of power poles in the center or the edge of a roadway can lessen the visual impact. In more sensitive areas, like downtowns, all wires other than contact wires can simply be placed below grade in conduits.

Conclusion

Streetcars are a proven catalyst noted for rejuvenating urban neighborhoods, and providing quick, accessible trans-port to the resources and amenities that attract people to those districts.

Streetcars easily share the road with other ground transportation options, such as bicycles, buses, and cars, instead of requiring an isolated corridor of their own. This increases public transit capacity without impacting other op-tions.

Our non-renewable energy supply is scarcely plummeting. The cost of oil is certain to rise even further. Transpor-tation in any form is energy dependent and even costly. It has resulted in severe and undesirably urban congestion and air pollution. It has decimated large areas of our cities. Better solutions for urban/suburban transportation problems are necessary. New developments in technology, like light rail transit, are not the best or only answer, but can prove assistive where applicable.

Bibliography:

Demoro, Harre W., and John N. Harder. Light Rail Transit on the West Coast. New York: Quadrant, 1989. Print.

Edner, Sheldon M., and G. B. Arrington. Urban Decision Making for Transportation Investments: Portland’s Light Rail Tran-sit Line. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation, 1985. Print.

“Global Warming and Auto Manufacturers - Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide Emissions.” Hybrid Vehicles - Alternative Fuels - Alternative Fuel and Hybrid Vehicles. Web. 17 Jan. 2010. <http://alternativefuels.about.com/od/lifestylecleangreen/a/globwarmautoman.htm>.http://www.publictransportation.org/reports/land_use.asp

http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ © 2003 American Public Transportation Association 1666 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20006

http://www.apta.com/research/stats/factbook/documents08/2008_fact_book_final_part_1pd

Light Rail Transit Systems. Paris: European Conference on Ministers of Transport, 1994. Print.

Light Rail Transit: Planning, Design, and Implementation: Papers Presented at the Conference on Light Rail Transit, San Diego, Calif. 1982. Washington, D.C., 1982.

Portland Streetcar. Web. 18 Jan. 2010. <http://www.portlandstreetcar.org/index.php>.http://www.seattlestreetcar.com/about/

“Streetcar Plan Hitting the Fast Track - Charlotte Business Journal:.” Charlotte News - Charlotte Business Journal. Web. 13 Mar. 2010. <http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2009/01/12/story3.html>.

“Streetcars.” Portland History. Web. 18 Jan. 2010. <http://www.pdxhistory.com/html/streetcars.html>.http://www.lrta.info/articles/art0110.html

“Tempe Considers Streetcars to Rejuvenate Downtown.” Arizona Local News - Phoenix Arizona News - Breaking News - Azcentral.com. Web. 12 Feb. 2010. <http://www.azcentral.com/community/tempe/articles/2008/12/11/20081211tr-southcor-ridormeet1212.html>.

“2010 Host City - Olympic Line.” 2010 Host City - Welcome. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. <http://olympichostcity.vancouver.ca/get-tingaround/publictransit/olympic-line/Default.htm>.http://www.tacomastreetcar.or

UITP - International Association of Public Transport. Web. 22 Feb. 2010. <http://www.uitp.org/Public-Transport/design/in-dex.cfm>.http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blstreetcars.htm