Do Plans Matter - City of Hamilton

City of Hamilton Rapid Transit Office

Community Impact & Economic Analysis of Light Rail Transit Peter Topalovic Danielle Tobey Leslea Lotimer December 2008 Final Release Strategic Planning Public Works City of Hamilton

Economic Development Potential of LRT

July 21, 2008

Table of Contents Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 3 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 9 Background...........................................................................................................................................9 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................................9

Urban Development and LRT ............................................................................................... 10 Complementary Policies and Forces Required for Light Rail Transit Implementation ........................11

Land Values and Light Rail Transit ...................................................................................... 13 Effects of Light Rail on Pre-construction Land Values........................................................................13 Effects of Light Rail on Land Values near Rail Corridors....................................................................14 Negative Impacts of Light Rail on Land Values ..................................................................................15 LRT and Property Taxes.....................................................................................................................17

Light Rail and its effect on Health and Environment.......................................................... 18 LRT and Obesity .................................................................................................................................18 LRT and Air Pollution ..........................................................................................................................19 LRT, Environment and Climate Change .............................................................................................22

Municipal Benefits of Light Rail Transit .............................................................................. 23 Vision 2020: ........................................................................................................................................23 Corporate Energy Policy (PW070127)................................................................................................23 Corporate Air Quality and Climate Change Strategic Plan (PED06336a) ..........................................24 Public Works Strategic Plan................................................................................................................25 Policy Tool Kit .....................................................................................................................................25 Urban Sprawl ......................................................................................................................................25 Ridership and Congestion...................................................................................................................26 Employment and Lifestyle...................................................................................................................28

Conclusion and Recommendations..................................................................................... 31 Appendix A: Estimated Vehicle Air Pollution Costs........................................................... 32 Appendix B: Transit Impact Summary................................................................................. 33 Appendix C: Policy Tool Kit.................................................................................................. 34 Municipal Policies ...............................................................................................................................34 Provincial Policies ...............................................................................................................................34 Policy at All Levels ..............................................................................................................................35 Rapid Transit Feasibility Study Policy Recommendations..................................................................35

Appendix D: LRT’s Economic, Social and Environmental Effects .................................... 36 References ............................................................................................................................. 37

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

2 | 40


July 21, 2008

Executive Summary Hamilton’s historical roots as an electric, industrial and transportation-oriented city make a region well suited for rapid transit, especially when coupled with its growing population, developing economy, redeveloping downtown core and progressive sustainable vision. This paper explores the economic, social and environmental potential of light rail, a component of the city’s rapid transit initiative, and performs a comparative analysis with other major North American cities who have successfully implemented the technology. The analysis concentrates on five main areas: urban development, land value effects, health, environment and municipal benefits. Urban Development and Light Rail Transit The implementation of light rail transit (LRT) has great potential to influence urban growth and revitalize a city’s central area. It can strengthen existing neighbourhoods, rejuvenate declining areas and attract new clusters of development around station sites; however its strongest development potential is in a city’s downtown area, revitalizing downtown cores. Development investments affected by the implementation of a LRT system can include the creation of new housing, offices and shops. Furthermore the development of LRT systems can have an immediate influence in directing where, how and what kind of growth can take place. The implementation of LRT can also assist with increasing population and employment densities adjacent to the line and specifically in the vicinity of LRT stations. Yet in order to reap these economic development benefits, appropriate land use and political policies must be in place to optimize the return on investment. The implementation of a LRT system is not just about a new transit system, but rather creating a synergy between all City departments including Planning and Economic Development and Public Works. Land Values and Light Rail Transit The effect of light rail transit (LRT) on land values is something that can begin to develop as soon as the decision to move forward with the implementation of a system is announced and typically continues through the actual planning of the system and after the system is in place. Many studies indicate that land values increase at LRT station nodes one year before station construction begins or approximately three years after station plans are announced. It was also found that plans for LRT improve the coordination of public and private investments which can improve social welfare with increased investment and direct spending into dedicated transportation infrastructure. As land proximity to stations increases, so does the land value. These higher land values discourage low density development in favour of high density residential and commercial development. In addition, local government can benefit from light rail’s additional value such as increased property taxes, benefits assessment programs and joint development initiatives. The economic value of light rail should further take into account the resultant revenue streams which occur due to increased access, increased land values and public-private partnerships in developments along transit nodes. Indirect benefits such as increased property taxes and direct benefits such as public-private Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

3 | 40


July 21, 2008

partnerships or betterment taxes translate into revenues for the municipal sector. When this is coupled with provincial and federal investment in capital, light rail is a feasible and desirable transit option. Evidence is provided in table E-1. Table E1: Summary of LRT and Land Value Effects

Rail System

Result – Effect on Land Value

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) (Dallas, Texas)

• Value of properties rose 39% more than those located farther from rail service (Lyons & Hernandez, 2003) • Property values increased by 32% near stations while properties further from the station only increased by 20% (Weinstein & Clower, 2002). • Office space values less than 1.4 miles from a station increased by 10% & retail property increased by 30% (Weinstein & Clower, 1999)

Eastside MAX (Portland, Oregon)

• Average house values increase at a faster rate closer to stations with an average of $2, 300 more for homes within 200 ft. (Dueker & Bianco, 1999). • 10.6% premium for homes within 500 meters of a station (Al-Mosaind, 1998) • Starting at 100 m, property values decreased by $32.00 per meter further from the station (Chen et al., 1998). • Property value increased $76.00/sq. ft. for every 100 feet closer to stations (Lewis-Workman & Brod, 1997).

Westside Max (Portland, Oregon)

• Value of land located nearer to stations rise with decreasing distance; however, land values increase with distance from tracks in between stations (Knaap et al., 1996).

Metro (Washington, DC)

• Every thousand feet further from a station, the price per square foot of a commercial property decreases $2.30 (FTA, 2000) • Rents decreased 2.5% every 150 m further from the station (Benjamin & Sirmins, 1996).

MetroLink (St. Louis, Missouri)

• Property values increased 32% ($140 every 10 feet closer to the station beginning at 1500 feet) (Garret, 2004).

San Diego Trolley (San Diego, California)

• 10% - 17% increase in value for multi-family homes and a 72% premium in land parcels near stations in the Mission Valley (Cervero & Duncan, 2002). • Property value increased $272 every 100 m closer to the station (Landis et al, 1995).

Santa Clara County LRT (Santa Clara, California)

• Properties less than 0.5 Km from a station experienced a 23% premium (Cevero & Duncan, 2001) • Within 0.5 Km from a station office space sold for 2 to 5 cents more per square foot than other areas. Rent for units increased 4 – 12% (Weinberger, 2001) • Office space sold within 0.5 Km of a station was $5.00 more per square foot in revenue than other areas (Weinberger, 2000; Cambridge Systematics, 1999).

Sky Train (Vancouver, BC)

• Proximity to stations resulted in a $4.90 premium per sq. foot (Ferguson A., 1998)

TTC (Toronto, Ontario)

• A $2, 237 average premium was observed for homes along the transit corridor (Bajic, 1983)

(Hess & Almeida, 2006)


4 | 40


July 21, 2008

In terms of return on investment, the following table (E2) shows that a variety of regions have experienced a substantial economic return for light rail transit projects. Table E2: Summary of LRT and Land Value Effects (in millions of dollars)

Initial Track Kilometers

Capital Cost/km

Total Capital Cost

Development Investment

ROI

3.2

$1.86

$6

$150

2,400%

4

$4.87

$19

$200

920%

Tampa

3.7

$15.12

$56

$1000

1686%

Portland (Smith, 2006)

7.7

$7.07

$55

$2300

4112%

Kenosha Little Rock

Light Rail Transit and its Effect on Health and Environment Implementing a light rail transit (LRT) system can help achieve goals set forth by transportation demand management policies, including reduction of car travel trips and increased transit ridership. There is a direct correlation between urban sprawl and increased negative health consequences for those living further from the urban centre and those who are dependent on car travel. LRT promotes intensification and pedestrian friendly streetscape design therefore curbing sprawl. It also plays an important part in decreasing health care costs related to these health issues caused by poor proximity to transit and reliance on the car. Light rail transit also has a major role to play in reducing the costs of air pollution due to transportation sources. Its ability to carry large numbers of passengers and cargo, reduce congestion and increase accessibility makes it a lucrative tool for reducing pollution. However, the largest benefit of LRT over other forms of transit such as rapid buses is that LRT is an integral component of transit oriented development, mixed-use land development policies and walkable cityscape designs. Implementing LRT can help curb the effects of climate change and the negative effects a car centric culture has on the environment. Auto emissions have a large effect on air, water and soil quality. Light rail transit emits less greenhouse gasses, requires less pavement (or no pavement if tracks are placed on semi-permeable surfaces) and lessens a household’s dependence on automobiles, especially in sprawl areas. This helps to mitigate the costs and negative externalities that are imposed on the surrounding ecosystem. Furthermore, it can help households reduce the percentage of their income that goes to transportation costs associated with automobile dependence. The environmental, social and economic benefits are highly evident. While health and environmental effects are hard to quantify, a variety of research has been conducted indicating that the costs of health and environmental effects attributed to the transportation sector are valued in the billions. Table E3 highlights some of this research as it relates to health and air pollution.


5 | 40


July 21, 2008

Table E3: The Health and Environmental Costs of Transportation Use (in dollars per year) (adapted from VPTI, 2007; OMA, 2000).

Health Effects from Automobile Use (North America)

Cost (dollars per year)

Health Effects from Transportation (Ontario)

Cost (dollars per year)

Direct costs of obesity (heart disease, premature death, etc.)

$75 billion (USD)

Premature Deaths

$5 829

Indirect Costs of Obesity (chronic illness, loss of work time, etc)

$1 Trillion (USD)

Hospital Admissions

$16 807

Air Pollution Costs

$2.2 Billion (CDN)

Emergency Room Visits

$59 696

Minor Illnesses

$29 292 100

Municipal Benefits of Light Rail Transit Implementing light rail transit can have numerous positive effects on the local economy. The external costs of automobile use, such as air pollution and congestion, are proven to negatively impact the economy. A market value which fails to account for externalities does not provide the market with the proper information to base decisions on; which can severely impact natural resources and the economy. If the total costs of car travel were charged to the vehicle owner, the costs of travel would outweigh the benefits, considerably reducing the motorist’s willingness to pay. Currently, a significant portion of automobile economic externalities are charged to municipalities and tax payers. The use of light rail transit helps to eliminate these externalities by decreasing the need and benefit of auto use, in favour of accessible transit. Furthermore, servicing populations in the outlying areas of the city with efficient transportation systems such as light rail transit will help lessen dependence on the automobile. Hamilton, like most North American cities, occupies a large area comprised of outlying communities which are disconnected from the downtown core and have limited bus service. This type of urban development increases dependence on the automobile and has negative impacts on the City’s downtown core. Controlling the growth in car use, through transit oriented development and light rail networks, can therefore improve the municipal economy by bringing people to the core and revitalizing areas around transit nodes, along rail corridors and in related residential and commercial developments that are near walkable, bikeable, transit connected networks. Research presented in this analysis indicates that light rail and transit oriented development increase access to municipal, commercial and employment areas. A well planned and convenient transit system has the ability to attract new ridership by improving accessibility. This expanded source of income can help fund the day to day operation of the system and sustain future upgrades and maintenance. LRT also has a great effect on employment and lifestyle which is part of a larger movement towards smart growth and transit oriented development in city planning and streetscape development. Light rail transit can help satisfy the needs of employers who require access to a large pool of employees and employees who want to live in urban areas that are close to their places of employment. This new and developing trend has made some companies re-evaluate their strategy to Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

6 | 40


July 21, 2008

build campus-style workplaces on the outskirts of city centres and begin to consider urban offices located within the central business district of a larger municipal centre. The economic success of the City of Hamilton in the coming years will depend less on its manufacturing base and more on its academic and technical industry, such as the McMaster Innovation Park and biotech industry. The strategies to attract a cultural and creative workforce, which will become a key component to building this new economy, depend on the ability of the City to attract and retain workers and employers. Downtown core renewal, heritage building preservation, smart growth, inner urban area investment, space conversion, park and trail design, efficient rapid transit and growth in the entertainment and tourism sectors are amongst the list of strategies necessary to attract and retain a creative workforce. Hamilton’s rapid transit strategy, coupled with development planning will help move the economy into an era of prosperity and civic-oriented lifestyles. Results of the Analysis Hamilton’s population is projected to grow by 32% by 2031 which, according to the transportation master plan, will result in 180 000 additional car trips per day. If improvements to public transit do not occur, the road network will have to accommodate this increase which will lead to increased congestion. This could result in up to 1.2 million additional kilometers traveled each day, and an increase in consumption of fuel by an additional 40 million litres per year. An increase in congestion leads to a decrease in accessibility, especially in terms of connections between the suburbs and the urban core. This decline in access can negatively affect land values, while continuing to harm human and ecosystem health. If the proposed public transit improvements in Hamilton occur, the region could experience a 10%–20% enhancement of real estate values overall (Campbell & Reuter, 2008). The research on light rail transit and its possible benefits indicates overwhelming support for the economic, environmental and social benefit of LRT, especially when compared to bus rapid transit. This report recommends that LRT be considered as: • A viable and desirable transit option; • A catalyst for transit oriented, high density, mixed use development; • An economically sound investment opportunity, providing a return on investment to property owners, businesses and the municipality; and • A catalyst for social change, improving the health, environment and connectivity of the community. Light rail systems have consistently proven, through research, that they are a powerful influence in terms of attracting new economic development to transit corridors and central business districts. A city that has dedicated itself to permanent public transit infrastructure is viewed as one that takes development seriously, and this is what attracts new riders, developers, employers and tourists to the light rail corridors. Not only are light rail vehicles economically sound, they are also environmentally sustainable and lead to less noise pollution and lower green house gas emissions. These advantages make light rail transit systems a feasible solution for transportation corridors that are designed with transit oriented development guiding principles. LRT could be the catalyst required to move Hamilton forward in its economic development strategy.


7 | 40


July 21, 2008

Figure E1 – LRT’s Effect on Development, Health, Environment and the Municipality

Light Rail Transit Developed within the appropriate policy frameworks and land use planning strategies

Increased Accessibility LRT increases public access to employment areas, residential properties, commercial districts and municipal services, increasing the connectivity and vibrancy of urban areas.

Smart Growth Light rail development can help achieve smart growth principles by reducing urban sprawl, promoting intensification and influencing development that better serves the economic, environmental and social needs of communities.

Increased Land Values

Transit Oriented Development

Greater access can make station areas lucrative and valuable places to do business; stimulating economic development. Proximity to local and inter-regional transit is also an important factor in attracting residents to areas along the corridor.

LRT is a key component to stimulate mixed-use, higher density communities within walking distance of a transit stop making it convenient to travel to a multitude of destinations by foot, bike or by public transit instead of by car.

Increased Property Taxes

Health and Environment

High value, high density, mixed use land parcels can produce higher property taxes which help to pay for the capital and operating costs of the system.

LRT paired with complementary land use policies can decrease auto use, reduce congestion, contribute to clean air and encourage healthier lifestyles, while decreasing noise pollution.


8 | 40


July 21, 2008

Introduction Background The first street car lines in North America were established in New York City during the 1830s. These inter-city rail networks enjoyed great success for many years until the popularity of the automobile began to compete with rail. By the 1950s, most street car networks were dismantled in favour of more flexible buses that were thought to alleviate congestion and decrease the cost of infrastructure associated with the streetcar (Taplin, 1998). The Hamilton Street Railway was dismantled in 1951, in favour of trolley buses powered by overhead wires which, in the 1980s were eventually replaced by a bus-only transit network (Wyatt, 2007). While most traditional streetcars ran within the flow of traffic and operated in stand-alone fashion, the modern light rail car generally runs in a dedicated lane alongside auto lanes and bike lanes. Light rail vehicle networks also incorporate transit priority traffic signals and a connection of more than one light rail vehicle, to quickly and efficiently transport people across the city. The first modern streetcar network in North America was built in Edmonton in 1978. Since then cities across North America have adopted this new technology with much fanfare and financial success. The most notable systems include those in Portland Oregon, Calgary Alberta, San Francisco California, Houston Texas, Minneapolis and St. Paul Minnesota and Charlotte North Carolina. Hamilton’s historical roots as an electric, industrial and transportation-oriented city make it a region well suited for rapid transit, especially when coupled with its growing population, developing economy, redeveloping downtown core and progressive sustainable vision. This paper explores the economic, social and environmental potential of light rail, a component of the city’s rapid transit initiative, and performs a comparative analysis with other major North American cities who have successfully implemented the technology. The analysis concentrates on five main areas: urban development, land value effects, health, environment and municipal benefits.

Purpose of the Study In June 2007, the Province of Ontario released their MoveOntario 2020 plan; a $17.5 billion plan for Rapid Transit projects in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA). This plan included the identification of two City of Hamilton corridors which allowed the city to begin to seriously consider implementing a light rail transit (LRT) system and furthermore to accelerate the rapid transit planning process. These announcements lead to the initiation of the City of Hamilton’s Rapid Transit Feasibility Study which began in November 2007. The study originally identified that either light rail transit or bus rapid transit (BRT) could be implemented along the two identified corridors however after presenting the original public opinion results (70% in favour of LRT) to Council on June 16th, 2008, they approved a staff recommendation to focus on LRT. The following economic analysis was undertaken in order to provide evidence to The City of Hamilton’s Public Works Committee and City Council that implementing a light rail transit system in Hamilton could potentially spur great economic spin-offs as well as extensive health, environmental and municipal benefits.


9 | 40


July 21, 2008

Urban Development and LRT Effects of Light Rail Transit on Urban Growth, Land-Use, Intensification and Revitalization The implementation of light rail transit (LRT) has the potential to influence urban growth and revitalize a city’s core. As a relatively permanent investment along a fixed corridor, LRT can encourage urban development in the city centre and declining areas, change the pattern of urban development, affect land uses, and increase nearby property values. It can also help strengthen development in existing neighbourhoods, rejuvenate declining areas and also attract new clusters of development around station sites (Cervero, 1984). However, LRT has the strongest development potential in a city’s downtown area (Handy, 2005). Nonetheless, research shows that the implementation of light rail transit alone cannot stimulate the desired urban development, investments and land use changes (Cervero, 1984). The complementary policies and forces recommended to be in place during implementation, in order to optimize the return on investment, will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs. Development investments influenced by the implementation of a LRT system can include the creation of new housing, offices and shops. Cities who have successfully implemented LRT systems have reported an increase in shopping commerce generated adjacent to the line, development of new residential and commercial areas and increased employment. In the case of San Diego, for example, new restaurant and office developments were seen around the San-Ysidro station, a new commercial zone was developed close to the Chula-Vista-Palomar station and office buildings were built next to the National City-24th Street station employing approximately 600 workers (Crampton, 2003). Although urban development has been reported around many implemented LRT lines, a 1995 report from the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) concluded that rail transit may not actually create new growth but simply redistribute growth that would have otherwise taken place elsewhere without the transit investment (Handy, 2005). However LRT systems consistently influence and direct where and what kind of growth will take place (Cervero, 1984). Another possible benefit of investing in LRT is the increase in densities of population and employment adjacent to the line and specifically in the vicinity of the LRT stations (reflective of the nodes and corridors land use planning concepts developed through GRIDS). Higher densities can generate higher tax revenues and expand employment opportunities to those who are transit dependent (Bollinger et. al, 1997). It also favours a shift in land use towards more mixed-use developments and concentrated growth; widely accepted principles of Smart Growth and Transit Oriented Development (Handy, 2005). Studies have furthermore concluded that higher land values are associated with high density development. This indicates a potential for increased land values along the corridor and surrounding station areas (Handy, 2005). A more detailed look at the effect LRT implementation has on property values will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs. Investment in LRT also has the potential to revitalize declining downtown cores (HDR, 2005). For example, Portland’s Central Business District was a typical declining downtown with office vacancy rates rising and retail centres fading. However, when their light rail system, MAX, was implemented they saw office vacancy rates lower beneath those of suburban office parks, an increase in rents and the development of an attractive retail hub in the downtown. In fact, Portland has seen over $2 billion of development surrounding the downtown station areas (HDR, 2005). Dallas and Denver experienced


10 | 40


July 21, 2008

similar success stories (Geller, 2003). When the DART light rail line in Dallas was implemented investors were encouraged to look at the proximity to the DART line as a competitive advantage for their properties. As a result, Dallas has seen over $1.3 billion in development completed (Geller, 2003). Furthermore, Denver’s Lower Downtown (LoDo) has been recognized as one of the United States’ most successful new urban neighbourhoods with the implementation of LRT.

Complementary Policies and Forces Required for Light Rail Transit Implementation The evidence provided indicates that the implementation of light rail transit alone cannot stimulate the desired urban development, private investments and land use changes (Cervero, 1984). Complementary policies and forces influence the ability of rapid transit to generate urban development and land use changes and include: existing regional development trends and forces, federal/regional/local government land use policies, the availability of land and the physical characteristics of the area (Handy, 2005). Many of these policies are also conducive to, or will stem from, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Smart Growth principles. Simply put, the development and land use potential of light rail is recognized to be moderately high but only where there are prodevelopment policy environments and other complementary forces in place before the rail line is constructed (Cervero, 1984). One factor influencing development potential is the need for an existing demand for new development. The demand is determined by social and economic forces on a local, regional and national scale (U.S. DoT, 1977). For example, the presence of a strong and effective demand for new office and retail space would be required if this type of development were to take place along the light rail line. If the business centre is currently stagnating there is little reason to anticipate that the light rail transit service will generate development. If the area is in a period of slow or no economic growth then little impact should be expected (U.S. DoT, 1977). In the case of Hamilton, the recent Economic Summit looks at “early wins” and a long-term vision to boast the City’s image and continue to foster interest in Hamilton, with growing momentum in the community at large. This fits in well with the idea of LRT helping to encourage this growth as there is existing interest in development in Hamilton. Local land use policies are also instrumental in assisting the land use and development impacts of light rail transit. At the same time, however, the transit improvement may itself provide the rationale necessary for changes in land use policy (U.S. DoT, 1977). Essentially, improvements and changes in transit and land use policy play off of each other. The method in which land use policies are implemented is exceptionally important; particularly if the primary motivations of rapid transit are to shape the city’s development. For example, the coordination of light rail transit should not be seen as an isolated, one-time rapid transit development effort. If rapid transit is to be used as an effective policy instrument then its implementation should be based on urban development objectives which are compatible with rapid transit and are themselves accepted policy (U.S. DoT, 1977). These objectives often include a focus on development and higher densities near transit stations and along the transit corridor; as was discussed previously (Handy, 2005). It is also important to note that the ability to develop the land and the physical suitability of the land around the stations also influence positive land use changes. This should be taken into consideration when alignments and corridors are chosen. Issues have arisen when corridors were chosen to minimize construction costs instead of maximizing the potential for development (Handy, 2005). Furthermore, during corridor selection, although there may be industrial areas or open land in


11 | 40


July 21, 2008

need of redevelopment there must be adequate economic drive to do so. Many new light rail systems have been designed to service existing development and may consequently limit the net gain of development (Handy, 2005). Therefore the impact of light rail transit on accessibility must be taken into consideration. The effect of accessibility can either help increase ridership, therefore serving as a catalyst for redevelopment in selected areas, or it may simply mean a redistribution of development rather than a net economic gain for the city. Finally, a light rail transit system will likely only influence changes in land use if it adds significantly to the accessibility, both geographically and economically, that is already provided by the roadway system (Handy, 2005). Another common recommendation is that Federal policy should support or put in order a clearer definition of the local land use policy objectives before implementing rapid transit. This can generally be done by adopting comprehensive land use plans at the regional level (U.S. DoT, 1977). Furthermore, not only at the Federal level but at all levels of government, policy objectives should be in place before implementing rapid transit. This is something that – given the Province’s MoveOntario 2020 funding and the development of the Regional Transportation Plan and Places to Grow, and the Building Canada funding announcements made recently by the Federal Government – all levels of government appear to be working together in terms of building sustainable infrastructure and development policies. However, local policies and greater specificity is also required. The importance of specificity is seen in cases of rapid transit implementation where the rapid transit stations were built in neighbourhoods that were reluctant to allow the complementary intensification and development policies. This resulted in the underutilization of the station and station access problems. Therefore it is recommended that during the studies for rapid transit implementation, consideration should also be given to the feasibility of land use intensification in the specific areas proposed (U.S. DoT, 1977). Generally, zoning and infrastructure provision in the majority of rapid transit station areas should permit the intensification of development and further efforts to liberalize zoning in other areas along the corridor which are currently not supportive of growth and development focused objectives (U.S. DoT, 1977). It was stated earlier that the strongest development potential of light rail is in the downtown. This is especially true when paired with the use of increased density/development incentives and policies restricting parking supply; all as a redevelopment effort (Handy, 2005). An example of this is the success of Calgary’s C-Train. Calgary’s C-Train investment has proven to be worthwhile. Their project was implemented as a tool to encourage intensification of densities and land use development along their chosen corridors. Their LRT system has contributed significant benefits to the city’s urban form, especially in the downtown. Their success is partly due to their commitment to the consolidation of land use, roadway and transit planning (Charles, 2006). Calgary saw the need for policies which would reduce the demand for roads. Their adopted policy limited not only the amount but the location of downtown parking. Furthermore, development has taken place on most of their former surface parking lots in the downtown. They combined limited roadway capacity and high priced, long stay parking rates in order to encourage travel via transit (Charles, 2006). Calgary’s successful light rail system is due partly to their vision of an integrated policy solution and existing economic complementary forces (Hubbell, 2006). Not only did they develop TOD, integrated land use, road, parking and transit policies, but during this time Calgary was experiencing a period of significant growth (Charles, 2006). The impacts light rail transit has on land use and development are not accidental (Handy, 2005). Significant impacts and stimulated economic benefits only occur when a system is planned with policies and complementary forces in mind (Cervero, 1984). It has been deduced that the development impacts Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

12 | 40


July 21, 2008

of light rail transit systems are restricted to regions that are rapidly growing and have a healthy underlying demand for high density, mixed-use development (Handy, 2005). Additionally, the system must add considerably to the accessibility of the locations it will serve (Handy, 2005). Next, the station locations should be in areas where the existing surrounding land uses and physical characteristics or land use policies are conducive to high density development (Handy, 2005). Lastly, public sector involvement must be present in the form of supportive land use policies and capital investments (Handy, 2005). In summary, appropriate land use and political policies are required to optimize the return on investment for development and a LRT system. The above research enhances the premise that the implementation of a LRT system is not just about a new transit system, but rather creating a synergy with the City as a whole. The Planning and Economic Development department and Public Works should work together towards common goals with support from City Council and its dedication to supporting these initiatives in the long term, once the basis for them has been developed and endorsed. LRT is not the development “silver-bullet” but it is an important tool in assisting and encouraging growth. Without fulfilling the above conditions development, revitalization, intensification and investments are unlikely. However, even with these conditions fulfilled the desired development and densities are not guaranteed (Handy, 2005).

Land Values and Light Rail Transit The evidence shows that there is a strong connection between light rail transit and land values, even in the pre-construction phase of the transit system. Proximity to transit nodes, smart growth, transit oriented development and property tax levels all effect the benefits that light rail can provide.

Effects of Light Rail on Pre-construction Land Values Data from land value sales in Washington County Oregon indicate that high-density transit oriented development (TOD) is favoured at planned future LRT station sites over low density housing. This gives proof to the fact that planning can be used to influence land development and thereby influence land values before any tracks are actually laid. While those against high-density developments site issues such as increased pedestrian traffic and crime, the positive benefits such as increased accessibility and decreased congestion, outweigh the negatives (Knapp et. al, 2001). Further evidence shows that plans for LRT can increase land values and discourage low-density development that does not make effective use of the station nodes. Many studies indicate that land values increase at LRT station nodes as early as one year before station construction begins or approximately three years after station plans are announced. It was also found that plans for LRT improve the coordination of public and private investments which can improve social welfare with increased investment and direct spending into dedicated transportation infrastructure (Knapp et. al, 2001). Not only does LRT planning organize the type and nature of development along corridors, it also intensifies development at nodes to promote smart growth rather than sprawl. This would reduce the need for infrastructure at the far reaches of the urban boundary and make more effective use of infrastructure in the core of the city. According to Knapp et. al (2001) land values in Washington County, Oregon increased by 15 to 70% for land parcels within 1.5 km from the station, over the three year LRT planning stage. As Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

13 | 40


July 21, 2008

proximity to the station increased, so did the land value. Other land value increases in the areas outside of LRT stations occurred at an average rate and did not experience the anomalous increase experienced in the station areas. These higher land values discourage low density development in favour of high density residential and commercial development (Knapp et. al, 2001).

Effects of Light Rail on Land Values near Rail Corridors A study of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) system in 1999 found that the value added premium for retail spaces near stations is 30% over spaces located farther away from station nodes. Another study of a light rail system linking Silicon Valley in Santa Clara County, California, found that development around transit nodes was higher than in other areas which included housing developments, office building complexes and 9 million feet of commercial floor space. This transit oriented development was accompanied by incentives such as tax-exemptions, public assistance with land assembly and rezoning permits for higher than normal densities (Cervero & Duncan, 2002). Improved accessibility and infill development were among the many benefits for the surrounding community. The Santa Clara study yielded positive results for commercial properties located within 0.5 km from station nodes. Properties were worth $4/ft2 ($43/m2) more than adjacent properties, which represent a 23% increase. In the downtown core of San Jose, commercial properties in proximity to LRT stations were worth $19/ft2 ($203/m2) more than other properties. The study also found that proximity to a rail corridor without nearby access to a station may have little benefit (Cervero & Duncan, 2002). Furthermore, if the system is not reliable, frequent and does not service the proper markets, there will be little benefit to property values (Brinckerhoff, 2001). In addition to commercial benefits, local government can benefit from value added effects from light rail such as increased property taxes, benefits assessment programs and joint development initiatives. Tax subsidies in areas adjacent to LRT stations could also have an impact on property values, making it more lucrative for developers to build and invest. A number of studies have been conducted over the years which gauge the effects of rail transit on property values using commercial and residential data. The majority of these studies conducted across the United States provide evidence of positive effects in most regions, including those in the East. Table 1 provides a summary of these results. Table 1: Summary of LRT and Land Value Effects

Rail System

Result – Effect on Land Value

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) (Dallas, Texas)

• Value of properties rose 39% more than those located farther from rail service (Lyons & Hernandez, 2003) • Property values increased by 32% near stations while properties further from the station only increased by 20% (Weinstein & Clower, 2002). • Office space values less than 1.4 miles from a station increased by 10% & retail property increased by 30% (Weinstein & Clower, 1999)

Eastside MAX (Portland, Oregon)

• Average house values increase at a faster rate closer to stations with an average of $2, 300 more for homes within 200 ft. (Dueker & Bianco, 1999). • 10.6% premium for homes within 500 meters of a station (Al-Mosaind, 1998) • Starting at 100 m, property values decreased by $32.00 per meter further from the station


14 | 40


July 21, 2008

(Chen et al., 1998). • Property value increased $76.00/sq. ft. for every 100 feet closer to stations (Lewis-Workman & Brod, 1997). Westside Max (Portland, Oregon)

• Value of land located nearer to stations rise with decreasing distance; however, land values increase with distance from tracks in between stations (Knaap et al., 1996).

Metro (Washington, DC)

• Every thousand feet further from a station, the price per square foot of a commercial property decreases $2.30 (FTA, 2000) • Rents decreased 2.5% every 150 m further from the station (Benjamin & Sirmins, 1996).

MetroLink (St. Louis, Missouri)

• Property values increased 32% ($140 every 10 feet closer to the station beginning at 1500 feet) (Garret, 2004).

San Diego Trolley (San Diego, California)

• 10% - 17% increase in value for multi-family homes and a 72% premium in land parcels near stations in the Mission Valley (Cervero & Duncan, 2002). • Property value increased $272 every 100 m closer to the station (Landis et al, 1995).

Santa Clara County LRT (Santa Clara, California)

• Properties less than 0.5 Km from a station experienced a 23% premium (Cevero & Duncan, 2001) • Within 0.5 Km from a station office space sold for 2 to 5 cents more per square foot than other areas. Rent for units increased 4 – 12% (Weinberger, 2001) • Office space sold within 0.5 Km of a station was $5.00 more per square foot in revenue than other areas (Weinberger, 2000; Cambridge Systematics, 1999).

Sky Train (Vancouver, BC)

• Proximity to stations resulted in a $4.90 premium per sq. foot (Ferguson A., 1998)

TTC (Toronto, Ontario)

• A $2, 237 average premium was observed for homes along the transit corridor (Bajic, 1983)

(Hess & Almeida, 2006). In terms of return on investment, the following table (E2) shows that a variety of regions have experienced a substantial economic return for light rail transit projects. Table E2: Summary of LRT and Land Value Effects (in millions of dollars)

Initial Track Kilometers

Capital Cost/km

Total Capital Cost

Development Investment

ROI

3.2

$1.86

$6

$150

2,400%

4

$4.87

$19

$200

920%

Tampa

3.7

$15.12

$56

$1000

1686%

Portland (Smith, 2006)

7.7

$7.07

$55

$2300

4112%

Kenosha Little Rock

Negative Impacts of Light Rail on Land Values Some researchers and citizen groups have theorized that proximity to a light rail line will negatively impact property values because of nuisance effects such as noise and vibrations. However, studies conducted in Portland, Oregon and San Francisco, California indicate that these effects did not Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

15 | 40


July 21, 2008

impact land values for modern light rail cars. Older commuter trains, such as the GO train heavy rail, do have some nuisance effects because of their larger size and long range travel capabilities (Brinckerhoff, 2001). Simply installing a light rail line will not be enough to spur development on its own. A toolkit of policies and incentives are available to complement the development of rapid transit to promote transit oriented development (TOD). In addition, the economic state of the region, accessibility to other major regions and the land market also affect light rail’s feasibility. Regional tools such as intensification policies (Ontario’s Green Belt Legislation and Places to Grow Act), the proximity of the line to major attractions in the City and an overall transit vision that regards transit as more important than the automobile, are important factors in the growth of a light rail system. Land use planning and routing will be key factors in supporting this development (Brinchkerhoff, 2001). While many of the case studies discussed in this paper involve West Coast cities another interesting case is the city of Buffalo, New York. Buffalo has experienced decreasing ridership on its light rail line, installed in the 1980s, making it one of the few North American cities to adopt LRT and experience a decline. While Buffalo and Hamilton share commonalities, they differ in some key aspects. Buffalo has experienced a worsening economic situation and dwindling population which has heavily impacted their light rail system. Some aspects of the toolkit referred to above, do not exist in Buffalo, which impacted development potential. Hamilton on the other hand, is projected to have a steadily increasing population along with a steady stream of downtown core developments, development of airport lands and increasing property values, which set it apart from Buffalo (Hess & Almeida, 2006). Transit ridership in Buffalo has suffered due to financial, municipal and regional issues that are specific to declining manufacturing centers in North America; however, according to Hess and Almeida (2006) the positive land value results of the West Coast studies do occur in Buffalo but in a more modest way. On average, it was found that a home located 0.5 Km from a station is worth $1300 to $3000 more than homes located farther away from the stations (2 – 5 % of the city’s median home value). These results are reassuring because they indicate that the link between rail and land values is strong even in cities suffering an economic downturn. However, in its negative economic climate, the Buffalo LRT cannot be expected to be the driving force behind revitalization. Hamilton can learn a great deal from this case study. Buffalo’s transit line has been negatively impacted by planning and coordination issues since its inception in the 1970’s. The small 10 km track was meant to be the kernel for a much more integrated system; however, this never materialized. The rail system lacks a level of service that provides convenience for riders using the system, especially in terms of regional accessibility. Hamilton can learn from this by ensuring that the light rail links to major civic centers as well as GO Transit. For property values to increase and ridership to remain steady, access to a station must provide advantages for residents such as access to commercial, entertainment, scholastic and higher order transit nodes. Hamilton’s partnership with Metrolinx, its strengthening economy, proper planning and strong leadership should help Hamilton avoid the issues experienced in Buffalo and enjoy the success of systems such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit system where landowners enjoy a 32% premium on lands located near transit stations (Garrett, 2004),


16 | 40


July 21, 2008

LRT and Property Taxes Light rail and its promise of transit oriented development, aids in municipal and regional efforts at transportation demand management, including reduction of car travel trips and increased transit ridership. Governments benefit from reduced health care costs, decreased green house gas emissions and increased development and tax base. Business and commercial interests benefit from increased access to employees and customers due to accessible transit nodes. These high people-traffic nodes have the potential for larger revenues than areas that are not transit connected. Private developers and landowners may also see transit developments as potential for investment profits (Cervero & Duncan, 2001). Evidence for the benefits of light rail development can be seen in the trend for transit authorities to aggressively purchase areas around potential transit nodes. In 1999 the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)’s long-term lease arrangements near transit nodes, 24 joint development projects, generated 6 million dollars in annual income. According to Cervero and Duncan (2002), these value-added benefits can be captured by the municipality in property taxes. It is fairly evident that all the stakeholders in a transit project stand to benefit financially, socially, environmentally and in terms of connectivity. These benefits are tied to accessibility which comes from station access and travel-time savings. Fixed track systems such as light rail have the largest benefit, especially over bus rapid transit, because they typically do not travel in traffic and operate similar to heavy rail at road crossings (Cervero & Duncan, 2002). Hong Kong’s transit system does not receive any subsidy from government, instead, revenues from land development rents fund the entire system’s operation. While there is some belief that transit systems should pay for themselves from increased tax revenue on more valuable land and through fares; the positive revenue situation experienced in Hong Kong cannot be relied upon in every LRT system across the world. In addition to increased revenues on more valuable lands, the decrease in congestion and pollution from light rail can also generate revenues and save the municipality money. These additional savings, which could come from carbon taxes, can be used to fund transit. Furthermore, the transit authority can enter into public-private partnerships with developers who wish to capitalize on the lands located near transit stations that may be owned by the authority. In some cases developers can fund the construction of the tracks near their developments through profit from their commercial interests, which are bolstered by light rail accessibility (Smith, 2001). While the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Subway system is not an example of pure light rail, transit revenues along the Younge Street subway line are illustrative of the importance in taking into account property taxes for transit development. Mezyad Alterkawi (1991) found that the installation of the subway line increased property taxes by $5 million annually while the maintenance of the line is $4 million annually. The economic value of light rail should take into account the resultant revenue streams which occur due to increased access, increased land values and public-private partnerships in developments along transit nodes. The question of who will pay for new transit systems is a reoccurring concern amongst civic leaders, businesses and the public. In the City of Hamilton, the 1.1 billion dollar price tag (City of Hamilton, 2008) of two proposed LRT lines could be considered a barrier. However, provincial funding through Metrolinx (Greater Toronto Transit Authority) and federal funding will help subsidise these costs. While this funding is important for LRT development, the evidence shows that the system itself can generate profits. Commercial and residential transit oriented development that occurs in the


17 | 40


July 21, 2008

vicinity of transit nodes will benefit the city by increasing land value. The increased access provided by LRT will make nodes a lucrative and valuable place to do business and it will also attract residents to areas along the transportation corridor, including the downtown core. These high value land parcels in turn, will produce additional property taxes for the municipality helping to pay for the capital and operating costs of the system (Cervero & Duncan, 2002). The greater the accessibility of the system and the greater number of residents it services, the higher property values and business rents will be. Rail lines also offer transportation to more affordable housing away from the core of the city which can help recruit and retain workers. It also helps residents avoid issues with automobile congestion along major city roadways such as the Lincoln Alexander Parkway in Hamilton (Cervero & Duncan, 2002). Transit research and development taxes are another way to help fund the construction costs of a light rail transit system. In Portland, during the development of its light rail system, a Local Improvement District was established and in a by-election, local businesses agreed to pay a tax, which has generated $1.5 million over 20 years of the $5.5 million total amount for LRT improvements in the area. The fee was levied per square foot (Smith, 2001). Indirect benefits such as increased property taxes and direct benefits such as public-private partnerships or betterment taxes translate into revenues for the municipal sector. When this is coupled with provincial and federal investment in capital, light rail is a feasible transit option. These increased municipal revenues can be directed into funding for transit maintenance and can also be used to increase value and development. The local government can encourage development by improving landscaping, streetscapes and urban design, as well as improving sidewalks and infrastructure. These improvements have been found to support transit oriented development and improve accessibility to the transit nodes (Cervero & Duncan, 2002). It is important to note that over the years a number of studies have concluded that LRT has had little or no effect on land values and property taxes. While these studies are in the minority, it is important to ensure that Hamilton takes the proper steps necessary to ensure the success of its light rail transit system.

Light Rail and its effect on Health and Environment LRT and Obesity Recently, studies linking obesity with health care costs have established a direct link between these two measures. Obesity is considered an epidemic in North America and is responsible for increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, cancer and premature death (Gilbert & O’Brien, 2007). The cost of direct health expenses as a result of obesity in the United States is estimated to be $75 billion dollars (Finklestein et al., 2003). When taking into account indirect expenses such as treatment of chronic diseases and loss of work time, the number raises to $1 trillion (Adams & Corrigan, 2003). Modifications to the built environment are predicted to be an important enabler in decreasing dependence on the automobile and increasing physical activity. The availability of integrated public transportation systems is a key component in reducing automobile dependence and providing more opportunity for physical exercise, such as walking or biking to work (Stokes, et al., 2007). These trends are commonplace in some European cities where a dense, transit-oriented city design encourages active transportation including walking, biking and transit use; resulting in lower obesity rates and health issues compared to North American cities. Recently in some North American centres such as Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

18 | 40


July 21, 2008

Charlotte, North Carolina and Calgary, Alberta, a move to mixed-use residential and commercial development is becoming commonplace. Light rail transit is not just a component of this new urbanism approach to planning, it has the ability to support this development by promoting intensification and pedestrian friendly streetscape design, which has been covered in previous sections of this paper (Stokes et al., 2007). According to research estimating the effect of LRT on health care costs (Stokes et al., 2007), LRT plays a part in decreasing these costs. The study measured the increase in activity rates that will occur near transit oriented developments. When people choose LRT over the use of single occupancy vehicles, they walk an average of 30 min more a day than those who drive their car. Therefore, through modelling it was determined that the increased activity level amongst transit users would save $12.6 million in the first 9 years of the city of Charlotte, North Carolina’s operation of its LRT system (Stokes et al., 2007). Research conducted by Schwartz et al. (2004), found a correlation between urban sprawl and occurrence of illness related to sedentary lifestyle for those living further from the urban centre, dependent on car travel. Craig et al (2002) found that urban design elements which encourage walkable neighbourhoods have an effect on whether people walk to work. Frank et al (2004) compared obesity rates to car travel hours and found that for each additional hour spent in a car per day correlated to a 6% increase in the probability of being obese. Alternatively, each additional kilometre walked each day was found to reduce the odds of being obese by almost 5%. These numbers help explain why 53% of Hamilton residents are obese or overweight when examining BMI self reports (Hamilton Public Health, 2008). This is above the provincial average of 48.5%. Streetscapes and integrated, fixed transit will play a role in lowering these numbers and encouraging more healthy lifestyles for Hamilton residents. Mixed land use, transit oriented development and urban designs encouraging walk-ability are believed to be key tools in decreasing obesity and increasing transit use. When comparing light rail systems to bus rapid transit, it was found that the best complement to new urbanist designs and land use mix was light rail. This can be attributed to a slightly larger distance between stops, which encourages more walking and the connectivity of the system which encourages more drivers to leave their cars at home in favour of transit (Stokes et al, 2007).

LRT and Air Pollution Air pollution has become a growing concern for municipalities across North America. Hamilton has responded to this concern with the establishment of Clean Air Hamilton, a group which investigates air quality issues and develops policy to mitigate the effects of air pollution and reduce the production of air toxins. Other municipalities such as the City of Toronto and the Ontario Medical Association have conducted numerous studies which link modes of transportation to air pollution and health effects. According to the McMaster Institute of Environment and Health (Sahsuvaroglu & Jerett, 2003), Hamilton’s air quality is one of the poorest in Canada. Many sources contribute to poor air quality in the municipality including those from the industrial, residential and commercial sectors. Transportation sources of air pollution are responsible for 35% of the overall toxins emitted. These toxins are partially to blame for increased cases of cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses which have social and economic costs for the region. Other diseases such as certain cancers and asthma are also believed to be affected by air pollution (McKeown, 2007).


19 | 40


July 21, 2008

In Hamilton, transportation sources account for 53% of NOx releases, 23% of all volatile organic compounds emitted and 17% of all CO2 emissions released (RDWI, 2004). In Toronto, cars contribute to 17% of all PM10 emissions and 70% of CO emissions. These numbers and their associated health effects are amplified by a much larger presence of air toxins within the vehicle as opposed to outside of it. It would follow that the greater amount of time spent in the car, the greater the exposure to toxins at higher than normal concentrations (McKeown, 2007). Mobile air monitoring data supports this conclusion and indicates that particulate matter and other toxins are in their highest concentrations along roadways and intersections than anywhere else in Hamilton, including the industrial core. This indicates that transportation traffic in the city contributes as much or more significantly to air pollution than surrounding industry does. Furthermore, these emissions are directly related to acute and chronic heart disease (Clean Air Hamilton, 2008). A variety of government agencies, health organizations, NGOs and municipalities have attempted to asses the cost of air pollution in terms of health and economics. Traffic pollution alone has been a significant contributing factor in 1200 acute bronchitis cases, 68 000 asthma symptom day cases, 67 000 acute respiratory symptom cases, and 200 000 restricted activity days in Toronto alone. These cases are estimated to cost Toronto area taxpayers $2.2 billion in mortality-related issues. A 30% to 50% reduction in car traffic can help lower emission rates and save 200 lives and $900 million per year (McKeown, 2007). According to the Ontario Medical Association (2000), the health care, lost productivity and mortality costs of air pollution, assuming current emission levels, will total $1 billion in the province by 2026. The annual economic costs are broken down in Table 2 and are projected to grow in the future if air pollution is not reduced in the province. The total costs of air pollution from transportation sources, which include health costs, are broken down in Table 3. Appendix A further breaks down these values showing that the total cost from these toxins is $90 billion. The US Federal Highway Allocation Study (FHWA, 2000) investigated transportation air pollution related health care costs and found that for major US cities, the costs ranged from 100 million to 1 billion dollars per year. These external costs are not covered by the motorist directly; instead, the province, municipality and sick population bear the burden of transportation’s health and financial externalities (Filliger et al, 1999). Table 2: The Illness Costs of Air Pollution in Ontario (in dollars per year)

2005

2015

2026

Premature Deaths

5 829

7 436

10 061

Hospital Admissions

16 807

20 067

24 587

Emergency Room Visits

59 696

71 548

87 963

29 292 100

31 962 200

38 549 300

Minor Illnesses (OMA, 2000; CMA, 2008)


20 | 40


July 21, 2008

Table 3: Air Pollution Costs from Automobiles in dollars per tonne, per year

Urban

Rural

Carbon Monoxide (CO)

435

0

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

15 419

8 789

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)

14 419

11 823

Particulate Matter (PM)

5 346

2 620

18.13

18.13

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (VPTI, 2007)

Light rail transit has a major role to play in reducing the costs of air pollution due to transportation sources. Its ability to carry large numbers of passengers, reduce congestion and increase accessibility makes it a lucrative tool for reducing pollution. However, the largest benefit of LRT over other forms of transit, such as BRT, is that it is an integral component of transit oriented development, mixed-use land development policies and walkable cityscape designs. When considered as an independent variable, transit can reduce total vehicle use by 2 to 12 %. However, since LRT is a component of transportation planning, commute trip reduction, smart growth policies and parking management (since it can reduce the need for parking lots), it has the ability to reduce total vehicle use by 18% to 58% (Litman, 2007). According to Cervero & Duncan (2002), buses cannot achieve these same results because of the lack of fixed infrastructure, timely operation and appeal as a viable transportation option. Table 4 describes the variety of policy options and their ability to reduce vehicle use and thereby decrease the costs of health care and improve the health of citizens in the municipality. Table 4: Strategies to Reduce Vehicle Use and Minimize Health Impact

Reduction in Total Vehicle Use (%)

Policy Option

Description

Transportation Planning

Adoption of options that consider all direct and indirect costs and benefits

Mobility Management Programs

Local Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs that support and encourage use of alternative modes

4–8

Commuter Trip Reduction

Programs by employers to promote alternative commuting options

1–3

Fuel Taxes – Tax Shifting

Increases fuel taxes and other vehicle taxes

5 - 15


10 - 20

21 | 40


July 21, 2008

Parking Management

More efficient use of parking facilities

2–8

Parking Pricing

Direct charges for using parking facilities, with rates that may vary by location

3 - 10

Transit and Rideshare Improvements

Enhances public transit and car-sharing services

2 - 12

Smart Growth Policies

More accessible, multi-modal land use development patterns

3 - 15

(VTPI, 2007)

LRT, Environment and Climate Change Auto emissions have a significant effect on air, water and soil quality. In 2001 the transportation industry emitted 720 million tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses. This accounts for 20% of the total greenhouse gas emissions produced worldwide; which is a significant amount given that the cost of gasoline-based externalities, in terms of climate change, is $3.37 to $30 billion world wide (VTPI, 2007). A LRT system would help Hamilton reach its goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its operations starting with a 10% reduction of 2005 levels by 2012, followed by a 20% reduction by 2020 (Montgomery, 2008). Transit vehicles in Canada account for only 0.3% of total green house gas emissions. LRT would also reduce the amount of noise pollution in the City since rail amounts to only 1% of the total noise pollution, whereas road traffic accounts for 66% (VTPI, 2007). Ecosystems and storm water management are another major consideration in the analysis of climate change impacts and transportation. Urban sprawl, which includes car-dependent residential developments, impacts storm water management systems and ecosystems. Auto dependent communities require 20 to 50 times more space than transit based communities. This requires 66% to 80% of the land be devoted to roads and parking facilities (VTPI, 2007). Pavement deflects water to storm sewers during storm surges which puts a large burden on the system and results in excess runoff. Runoff water needs to be treated or stored prior to going back into the water system incurring high operating costs. Storm water sewers, management ponds and other infrastructure need consistent maintenance which directly draws from the property tax base (City of Hamilton, 2007) As climate change effects become more pronounced, the need for increased storage and management facilities will continue to rise. Natural, unpaved areas can help meet these needs and do not result in the associated costs of pavement. If the effects of pavement and stormwater are not mitigated, this could have a severe impact on the surrounding ecosystem, especially when coupled with air and land emissions from transportation. Runoff can carry large amounts of pollutants to the surrounding natural areas which can harm plant and animal life. Furthermore, transportation pollutants such as ozone, a major component of smog, can reduce agricultural yields at high concentrations and cause negative health effects for humans and animals. It is estimated that increased ozone concentrations cost European farmers $7.5 billion in reduced yields (Chaon, 2006). Ecological resources act as a natural filter providing clean air and water to the surrounding area. The estimated economic value of the Great Lakes ecosystem is 80 billion dollars (Krantzberg & DeBoer, 2007). Hamilton occupies a significant portion of this ecosystem and benefits greatly from its services. The City, as a steward of the surrounding area, has a responsibility to ensure the social, environmental and economic stability of this system. An important part of this stewardship initiative centers around land use and transit planning.


22 | 40


July 21, 2008

Light rail transit emits less greenhouse gasses, requires less pavement (or no pavement if tracks are placed on semi-permeable surfaces) and lessens a household’s dependence on automobiles, especially in sprawl areas. This helps to mitigate the costs and negative externalities that are imposed on the surrounding ecosystem. Furthermore, it can help households reduce the 17% to 22% of their income that goes to transportation costs associated with automobile dependence (VPTI, 2008). The environmental, social and economic benefits of LRT are highly evident.

Municipal Benefits of Light Rail Transit The external costs of automobile use negatively impact the economy. A market value which fails to account for externalities does not provide the market with the proper information to base decisions on; which can severely impact natural resources and the economy. If the total costs of car travel were charged to the vehicle owner, the costs of travel would outweigh the benefits, severely reducing the motorist’s willingness to pay. Currently, a significant portion of automobile economic externalities are charged to municipalities and tax payers. The use of light rail transit helps to eliminate these externalities by decreasing the need and benefit of auto use, in favour of accessible transit; therefore helping to meet the goals of several City wide initiatives:

Vision 2020: LRT helps to satisfy many of the goals of Vision 2020 which are community based, fiscally minded and sustainable. These include: • Local Economy: light rail can help to create jobs, attract business and development, and improve accessibility to major city area and services. • Consuming Less Energy • Improving Air Quality • Changing Our Mode of Transportation • Land Use in the Urban Area • Personal Health and Well Being • Community Well Being and Capacity Building Satisfying Vision 2020 goals will be important for the health and sustainability of the City of Hamilton.

Corporate Energy Policy (PW070127): LRT will help satisfy the Corporate Energy Policy’s city wide energy reduction targets, one of which is to reduce energy use by 20% by 2020. Rail uses electricity efficiently and does not depend on inefficient and depleting fuel sources such as diesel or natural gas. When the Nanticoke coal burning power plant is shut down in 2012, rail will become more sustainable as a greater percentage of its power will come from renewable sources such as water, nuclear, wind, and solar. Furthermore, LRT helps eliminate dependence on oil. World wide oil reserves have decreased to the point where much of the easily extracted “peak oil” is no longer available. As reserves continue to be used at unsustainably high rates, the price to extract the crude will increase, while access to the crude source will become more difficult and unaffordable (Deffeyes, 2004). Therefore, there is a possibility that this crisis could drive the City’s energy budget to


23 | 40


July 21, 2008

unsustainable levels and jeopardize its ability to provide services, programs and infrastructure maintenance. Light rail is energy efficient and displaces automobiles from City roads, thereby providing a two factor strategy to reduce energy dependence. LRT reduces the impact of fueling public vehicles, since most areas of the City would be rail or rapid transit accessible. Employees would then be encouraged to use transit rather than use corporate vehicles, eliminating a significant portion of the fleet. According to Shapiro, Hassett and Arnold (2002), travel on various modes of transit compared to automobiles, uses half the energy and produces 5% as much CO, 8% as much VOCs and half the CO2 per passenger-mile. When light rail is isolated, the amount of CO2 emitted is nearly zero, especially if the electricity to power the vehicles comes from renewable sources. Furthermore, rail can help lower the amount of congestion on City streets, thereby helping to conserve energy and reduce emissions (VTPI, 2007).

Corporate Air Quality and Climate Change Strategic Plan (PED06336a): Light rail transit has demonstrated benefits in improving air quality, decreasing energy requirements, improving stormwater management and thereby helping to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Light rail transit helps satisfy the recommendations outlined in Phase II of the plan which seeks immediate action on projects currently underway to mitigate the effects of climate change. The report refers to transportation, the greening of the built environment and adaptive planning to prepare for climate change. Light rail and the transit oriented development it fosters can satisfy all these requirements and is therefore a key strategy for implementing the AQ&CC plan. The effects of climate change that will directly impact Hamilton, the surrounding ecosystem and financial prosperity of the City include: • Creation of conditions that are favorable for the success of invasive species. These species can cause massive amounts of damage to the local ecosystem and cost millions of dollars in repair and restoration efforts. Hamilton area residents, businesses and industry bear a significant portion of these costs which are expected to rise as the effects of climate change become more evident and more non-native species make the Great Lakes region home (Rothlisberger et. al, 2008).

• • • • •

Increased pollen output from trees, grasses and plants, resulting in increased allergy attacks in individuals; Increased temperatures which contribute to greater heat stress in the elderly and ill; Decreasing average water levels and increasing water temperatures in the Great Lakes resulting in detrimental impacts on water supply, quality and biota; Changes in precipitation and temperature patterns that will affect water levels in waterways and wetlands, affecting flood control, water cleansing, habitats and recreational uses; Changes in temperatures resulting in increased maintenance costs for transportation, with variable freeze-thaw cycles, increased pavement buckling due to longer periods of intense heat and shifts from less snow to more freezing rain;


24 | 40


July 21, 2008

•

Vulnerability of infrastructure to several types of extreme weather events, including droughts, intense precipitation, extreme temperature episodes, high winds, and severe storms for which they are currently unprepared; • Increased demand for building cooling resulting in increased use of air conditioning and higher energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Public Works Strategic Plan: Light rail transit satisfies many of the strategic plan’s vision drivers. First and foremost, it addresses the priority for Public Works to be a leader in the greening and stewardship of the city. In terms of processes, this project may help further information sharing on various technologies since LRT requires expertise in a variety of disciplines and will require people to have multi-faceted knowledge. Transportation projects benefit from expertise in construction, building codes, energy efficiency, green infrastructure, storm water management and environmental economics. Light rail development will require collaboration across a variety of divisions which will enable responsibility sharing throughout the corporation. Finally, budgeting for light rail will be based on sustainable lifecycle funding which will provide a stream of benefits to the City of Hamilton after the initial capital costs are recovered.

Policy Toolkit: The above research has alluded to the fact that simply installing a light rail line will not be enough to spur development on its own and that a toolkit of policies and incentives are available and necessary to complement the possible development around a light rail transit system. Therefore, a review of existing policies in the City of Hamilton’s policy toolkit is a crucial measure that should be considered consistently throughout the light rail transit study processes. The City of Hamilton’s existing policy toolkit includes: the Public Works Strategic Plan, Hamilton’s Growth Related Integrated Development Strategy (GRIDS), Ontario’s Greenbelt Legislatio, Places to Grow Act, MoveOntario 2020, the development of the Regional Transportation Master Plan and Building Canada. These policies are either used as frameworks for guiding the form of development which may follow the implementation of LRT, or conversely the implementation of LRT may help fulfill some of the goals set forth by the existing policies. It is clear that when implementing LRT planners must look at the big picture and review or develop policies accordingly. Appendix C contains an overview of this toolkit.

Urban Sprawl Hamilton, like most North American cities, occupies a large area comprised of outlying communities which are disconnected from the downtown core and have limited bus service. This type of urban development increases dependence on the automobile and has negative impacts on the City’s downtown core. According to a 1997 World Bank Report (Ecopolitics, 2004), the per capita wealth in developed cities decreases with increased car use. Therefore, controlling the escalation of car use through transit oriented development and light rail networks can improve the municipal economy. There is also clear complementary evidence that those living a further distance from the city centre are more likely to depend on their vehicle. Servicing populations in the outlying areas of the city with efficient transportation systems will also help lessen this dependence. Hamilton is an exceptional case study for urban sprawl issues compared to neighboring communities because it has a much higher proportion of auto users versus transit riders than do other municipalities. According to Heisz & LaRocehlle-Cote (2001), while all other census metropolitan areas had a combined commuter transit ridership of 14.8%, Hamilton’s is only 8%. Auto commuters Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

25 | 40


July 21, 2008

accounted for 78.2% of the total, which is 8% more than the national average. These numbers are indicative of Hamilton’s strong urban sprawl base, which is environmentally and financially detrimental to the community. Light rail transit along with transit oriented development and transportation demand management initiatives can combat these issues and encourage greater use of transit for travel to work and entertainment. TOD and transit initiatives are important to the City of Hamilton because nearly 70% of Hamilton commuters travel 0-15 Km to their place of work, which is a high number when compared to neighboring GTA communities. This data is reassuring because studies show that shorter commuting distances encourage the use of transit over single occupancy vehicles (Centre for Community Study, 2008). Therefore, Hamilton has a strong base of citizens who could be encouraged to use transit rather than their automobiles. Table 5: Modes of Travel to Work (in percent) Driver Passenger Transit 78.2 7.1 Hamilton 6.6 All CMAs 70.8 (Heisz & LaRochelle-Cote, 2001, p. 48)

8.0 14.8

Walk

Bicycle

Other

5.1 5.7

0.9 1.3

0.7 0.8

Ridership and Congestion Research presented in this analysis indicates that light rail and transit oriented development increase access to municipal, commercial and employment areas. A well planned and convenient transit system has the ability to attract new ridership because it improves accessibility. This expanded source of income can help fund the day to day operation of the system and sustain future upgrades and maintenance. The Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority (SCVTA) increased ridership by 136% between 1980 and 2000 during a high period of growth in their transit system and in response to a large amount of congestion along major roadways in the region (Cervero & Duncan, 2002). In Minnesota, ridership on the Hiawatha light rail line operates at double the expected ridership and 40% of those riders are new to public transit, which exemplifies the popularity and accessibility associated with the technology (Delancy et al, 2005). According to Litman (2005), transportation systems with higher levels of transit ridership have lower operating costs, higher cost recovery rates and contribute to a municipality’s lower transportation infrastructure costs, as compared to automobile dependent communities. Many transit operating costs are generally fixed; therefore an increase in ridership can help fund system expansion, increase service frequency, and expand system coverage and integration (VTPI, 2007). In the next ten years Hamilton’s population is projected to grow and congestion along major roadways will continue to develop if transit improvements do not evolve to accommodate new ridership. While traditional bus transit could help to accommodate a larger population, the City of Minnesota’s modeling and planning indicated that the additional busses required to accommodate improved service would contribute to congestion issues and not solve the problem (City of Minnesota Staff, personal communication, July 30, 2008). According to the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (2007), reducing congested roadway traffic volumes by small percentages can significantly reduce delays (i.e. a 5% reduction in traffic congestion translates to 10-30% in reduced delays). Related research shows that increasing road widths or adding roads does not solve issues with congestion because there usually exists a latent demand for roadway space (VTPI, 2007). Alternatively, adding light rail or rapid Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

26 | 40


July 21, 2008

transit can help deal with congestion by removing cars from the road, rather than building more roads to accommodate projected increases. It is possible to attribute costs and revenues to traffic flows and congestion areas by assigning a dollar value to reduced automobile traffic ($0.10 to $0.30 per vehicle-mile). Alternatively, one could monitor travel time, calculate the cost savings associated with decreased operating costs or determine the cost of increasing roadway capacity to decrease congestion by a certain rate (VTPI, 2007). According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Delancy et al, 2005), travel time savings, decreased vehicle operating costs, pollution reduction and other factors can be measured in order to determine the costs savings of operating a light rail line. The Minnesota research quantified this to be $300 million, which is a substantial savings. The breakdown can be found in Table 6. While this data is positive, a more in-depth analysis of the system in practice showed that some of the benefits were over-valued, especially in the case of time travel savings. Light rail users benefit from transit priority; however, drivers no longer get the benefits of a synchronized street light system, thereby adding time to their commute. In the best case, the system delivers $0.42 for every dollar spent; in the worst case, it returns $0.15 for every dollar spent (Delancy et al, 2005). In Hamilton’s case, the return will depend on the design of the system and the alternative roads to re-route traffic. However, the Minnesota report concludes that the indirect benefits of LRT experienced by the region, such as smart growth/livable communities, denser region-wide land use, economic development, increased business productivity and the region’s status as a world class city greatly outweigh the costs of the system. Table 6: Quantitative Benefits of Light Rail (Hiawatha LRT, estimated) Measure Savings (millions) Travel Time Savings (from reduced congestion and transit priority) Avoided Auto Operating costs (reduced gas costs and mileage)

$123.0 $66.3

Crash Cost Reduction (less time on the road means less probability of crashes) Pollution Reduction

$26.3 $25.5

Avoided Public Infrastructure Avoided Auto Ownership

$32.3 $18.0

Parking Ramps not Built Total (Delancy et al, 2005)

$11.1 $302.5

Residents who make use of light rail can also benefit from reduced automobile use, just as a city or business auto fleet can benefit from employees making a larger percentage of trips on transit. The reduction of oil and fuel use, lower insurance rates, increase in vehicle resale value, decrease in wear and tear of the vehicle, extension of vehicle life and a decreased risk of accidents are amongst the many benefits of integrating efficient, rapid transit into one’s lifestyle. If the transit system is well connected and has a high ridership, residents and fleet owners can reduce the amount of cars they own. This could amount to a decrease in $3000.00 per year for each displaced vehicle (VTPI, 2007). Furthermore, research conducted by McCann (2000) and Litman (2004), indicated that households in Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

27 | 40


July 21, 2008

communities with well established transit systems can reduce transportation costs by $1000 to $3000 per year. In addition to these benefits, fewer cars on the road translate to a decreased need for road improvements and new roadway projects. Table 7 summarizes this data. Table 7: Potential Vehicle Cost Savings Category Description

Typical Values

Vehicle Operating Costs

Fuel, oil and tire wear.

10-15¢ per vehicle-mile. Higher under congested conditions.

Long-Term MileageRelated Costs

Mileage-related depreciation, mileage lease fees, user costs from crashes and tickets.

10¢ per vehicle-mile.

Special Costs

Tolls, parking fees, parking cash out, insurance.

Varies.

Vehicle Ownership

Reductions in fixed vehicle costs.

$3,000 per vehicle-year.

Residential Parking

Reductions in residential parking costs due to reduced vehicle ownership.

$100-1,200 per vehicle-year.

(VPTI, 2007)

Employment and Lifestyle LRT’s effect on employment and lifestyle is part of a larger movement towards smart growth and transit oriented development in city planning and streetscape development. Light rail transit can help satisfy the needs of employers who require access to a large pool of employees and employees who want to live in urban areas that are close to their places of employment. This new and developing trend has made some companies re-evaluate their strategy of developing campus-style workplaces on the outskirts of city centres and give consideration to the development of urban offices located within the central business district of a larger municipal centre. New Urbanite Companies Given that Hamilton is a much older and more established city than its neighboring GTA communities, it does not have as much developable green space. This means that Hamilton has a limited ability to compete with GTA neighbors for green space developments and companies wishing to pay fewer taxes. Since Hamilton has much more brownfield space than greenfield space, it may be necessary to re-orientate its strategy. One type of company to focus on is the new urbanite. These, “companies are attracted to urban cores with access to employee housing, good public transportation systems … the presence of urban amenities such as restaurants, shops and health clubs were also cited as attractions” (O'Mara, 1999 p. 380). O’Mara’s research indicates that business relocation is based more heavily on workforce quality and education potential, than financial incentives. Therefore, it is important for Hamilton to work on retaining its university and college educated workforce after graduation, especially for those in technical industries. According to Cervero and Duncan (2002), many employers favour rapid transit systems such as light rail because they provide efficient access to affordable housing and accessible municipal services which help to recruit and retain workers. According to the research, employees favor working near their


28 | 40


July 21, 2008

place of residence and avoiding congestion on roadways. Cincinnati, Ohio’s City Manager summarizes this argument well: "Today, young, educated workers move to cities with a sense of place and if businesses see us laying rail down on a street, they'll know that it is a permanent route that will have people passing by seven days a week … Cincinnati has to compete with other cities for investment … talent and for a place of national prominence." (Driehaus, 2008). Quality of Life and the Creative Class One challenge that deserves attention is Hamilton’s creative brain drain and its relation to quality of life and the creative class. Hamilton’s economic development policy identifies the downtown core and cultural clusters as areas to focus new development. This is important because they are emerging clusters which differ from the traditional manufacturing base that Hamilton has relied upon in the past (Hamilton Economic Development, 2005). Hamilton’s well established clusters are important areas of development, but they generally require serviced land and infrastructure which is scarce and expensive. The strategies to attract a cultural and creative workforce differ greatly. Downtown core renewal, heritage building preservation, smart growth, inner urban area investment, space conversion, park and trail design, efficient rapid transit and growth in the entertainment sector are amongst the list of strategies necessary to attract and retain a creative workforce (Florida, 2005). Florida’s research indicates that attracting talented and creative people can create economic growth through innovation, technology based industries and the creation of a Bohemian atmosphere, which is associated with artists, entertainers and other traditional creative occupations. According to the centre for community study (Centre for Community Study [CCS], 2004, p. 2), To attract these individuals, cities are shifting their perspective on economic development. “Quality of life” as a holistic concept is regarded as more important than simply the availability of serviced land or competitive tax rates. Thus, issues of environmental sustainability, cultural vibrancy, and downtown renewal are not viewed as privileges of economic success, but as essential ingredients to long term economic prosperity.

Most of the general themes found in this paper resonate with the above statement. Sustainable development is no longer a “nice to have,” it is a business decision motivated by financial interests and the need for community well being. Light rail transit is a key enabler of downtown renewal and sustainable urban planning. Attracting the creative class also addresses the competition Hamilton faces with other GTA municipalities that have more serviced, undeveloped land and fewer taxes. In order to monitor its economic performance, Hamilton should compliment the standard measures of transportation infrastructure and amount of developable lands with new indices that measure indirect elements of development (CCS, 2004). These indices include the Bohemian index which measures the amount of creative and artistic employment, as well as indices that measure the amount of university educated citizens, the amount of immigrants and the amount of employment in the high tech industry (Florida, 2005). In the past, Hamilton has fared poorly on all these indices, especially when compared to GTA neighbors (CCS, 2004). The McMaster Innovation Park, downtown renewal plans, Environmental Remediation and Site Enhancement (ERASE) plan, bay front redevelopment, air quality, energy conservation and light rail transit form the beginnings of a sustainable urban planning strategy. The city also aims to re-develop and preserve its heritage buildings such as the Lister Block, in order to bring historical and cultural character to the city. Hamilton’s centuries of history are an advantage over neighboring municipalities. A good example of this type of urban renewal is the Imperial Cotton Centre for the Arts. It is a Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office Public Works, City of Hamilton

29 | 40


July 21, 2008

brownfield redevelopment of a former industrial space dedicated to developing the talent of new artists and showcasing their work. Hamilton should similarly continue redevelopment efforts along Sherman Avenue to establish a creative arts cluster there (Frieburger, 2007). Promotion of local tourism and civic pride are important to attracting the creative class. More emphasis must be placed on Hamilton’s natural features, biking and hiking trails, efficient transit, escarpment lands and park lands. In the future, Hamilton must embrace concepts of sustainability, creativity and quality of life if it is to attract sustainable companies to the city. Employment and Consumer Benefits The construction of a transit system is a large undertaking that can spur economic development and the establishment of related industries. According to the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (2007), transit investment creates 20% more jobs than similar developments in road and bridge infrastructure. These construction projects can be coupled with other developments which make efficient use of redeveloped lands, while increasing density and accessibility simultaneously. Overall, these developments lower the transportation costs that those living in the region have to pay, allowing them to invest their money in other areas of the municipality. In cities with efficient transit systems, a resident’s transportation expenditure is 12%. In cities with less developed transit systems, the percentage of household income that goes to transportation is 15% (VTPI, 2008). In terms of community benefit, auto use depends on resources that are not produced locally and therefore have no local benefits. A study in San Antonio, Texas found that each 1% of travel from auto to transit increases regional income by $2.9 million (VTPI, 2008). Transit Systems are Not Created Equal Appendix B outlines the benefits and costs that should be considered when evaluating a transit system. When these benefits are being considered, it is important to keep in mind that transit systems are not created equal. Hess and Almeida (2006) found that property values near bus routes do not increase as they do with proximity to rail stations. Bus routes lack the permanent infrastructure and the appeal of light rail. Furthermore roads tend not in increase land values because they can be found everywhere and provide no additional benefit or service (Cervero & Duncan, 2002).


30 | 40


July 21, 2008

Conclusion and Recommendations Hamilton’s population is projected to grow by 32% by 2031 which, according to the Transportation Master Plan, will result in 180 000 additional car trips per day. If improvements to public transit do not occur, the road network will have to accommodate this increase which will lead to increased congestion. This could result in up to 1.2 million additional kilometers traveled each day, and an increase in consumption of fuel by an additional 40 million litres per year. An increase in congestion leads to a decrease in accessibility, especially in terms of connections between the suburbs and the urban core. This decline in access can negatively affect land values, while continuing to harm human and ecosystem health. If the proposed public transit improvements in Hamilton occur, the region could experience a 10%–20% enhancement of real estate values overall (Campbell & Reuter, 2008). The research on light rail transit and its possible benefits indicates overwhelming support for the economic, environmental and social benefit of LRT, especially when compared to bus rapid transit. This report recommends that LRT be considered as: • • • •

A viable and desirable transit option; A catalyst for transit oriented, high density, mixed use development; An economically sound investment opportunity, providing a return on investment to property owners, businesses and the municipality; and A catalyst for social change, improving the health, environment and connectivity of the community.

A graphical summary of this research can help the reader visualize the interconnection between these major research areas in which LRT has the greatest impact. See Appendix D for a diagrammatic view. Light rail systems have consistently proven, through research, that they are a powerful influence in terms of attracting new economic development to transit corridors and central business districts. A city that has dedicated itself to permanent public transit infrastructure is viewed as one that takes development seriously, and this is what attracts new riders, developers, employers and tourists to the light rail corridors. Not only are light rail vehicles economically sound, they are also environmentally sustainable and lead to less noise pollution and lower green house gas emissions. These advantages make light rail transit systems a feasible solution for transportation corridors that are designed with transit oriented development guiding principles. LRT could be the catalyst required to move Hamilton forward in its economic development strategy.


31 | 40


July 21, 2008

Appendix A: Estimated Vehicle Air Pollution Costs

(VTPI, 2008)


32 | 40


July 21, 2008

Appendix B: Transit Impact Summary This data was taken from the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute’s TDM encyclopedia (2008) and summarizes the categories of benefits and costs to consider in a comprehensive transit evaluation framework. These are impacts to consider when evaluating a particular transit policy or project.

Transit Service Costs Fares Subsidies Existing User Impacts Mobility Benefits Direct User Benefits Public Services Productivity Equity Option Value Efficiency Benefits Vehicle Costs Chauffeuring Vehicle Delays Pedestrian Delays Parking Costs Safety, Security and Health Roadway Costs Energy and Emissions Travel Time Impacts Land Use Impacts Transportation Land Land Use Objectives Economic Development Direct Shifted Expenditures Agglomeration Economies Transportation Efficiencies Land Value Impacts

Description Financial costs of providing transit services Direct payments by transit users. Government expenses to provide transit services. Incremental benefits and costs to existing transit users (changes in travel speed, comfort, safety, etc. to existing transit users). Benefits from increased travel that would not otherwise occur. Direct benefits to users from increased mobility. Support for public services and cost savings for government agencies. Increased productivity from improved access to education and jobs. Improved mobility that makes people who are also economically, socially or physically disadvantaged relatively better off. Benefits of having mobility options available, in case they are ever needed. Benefits from reduced motor vehicle traffic. Changes in vehicle ownership, operating and residential parking costs. Reduced chauffeuring responsibilities by drivers for non-drivers. Reduced motor vehicle traffic congestion. Reduced traffic delay to pedestrians. Reduced parking problems and non-residential parking facility costs. Changes in crash costs, personal security and improved health and fitness due to increased walking and cycling. Changes in roadway construction, maintenance and traffic service costs. Changes in energy consumption, air, noise and water pollution. Changes in transit users’ travel time costs. Benefits from changes in land use patterns. Changes in the amount of land needed for roads and parking facilities. Supports land use objectives such as infill, efficient public services, clustering, accessibility, land use mix, and preservation of ecological and social resources. Benefits from increased economic productivity and employment. Jobs and business activity created by transit expenditures. Increased regional economic activity due to shifts in consumer expenditures to goods with greater regional employment multipliers. Productivity gains due to more clustered, accessible land use patterns. More efficient transport system due to economies of scale in transit service, more accessible land use patterns, and reduced automobile dependency. Higher property values in areas served by public transit.

(VTPI, 2007)


33 | 40


July 21, 2008

Appendix C: Policy Tool Kit Municipal Policies The Public Works Strategic Plan, developed by the Public Works Department for City of Hamilton, is “a compass for Public Works to 2017 which addresses issues and opportunities identified in a department-wide Employee Survey and outlines specific activities that will direct Public Works in achieving their vision: To be recognized as the centre of environmental and innovative excellence in Canada” (Hamilton Public Works, 2007). The Public Works Strategic Plan requires city staff to approach their studies by evaluating the “Triple Bottom Line”, which looks at community, environment, and economic implications (Public Works Department, 2008). With the implementation of LRT it is possible to influence compact, mixed-used development which minimizes land consumption and servicing costs. It is also possible for LRT corridors to initiate higher levels of economic development. The economic implications of implementing LRT are positive and therefore comply with the goals set forth by the policy. Another municipal policy in place is the Growth Related Integrated Development Strategy (GRIDS). GRIDS is “a planning process to identify a broad land use structure, associated infrastructure, economic development strategy and financial implications for the growth options to serve Hamilton for the next 30 years” (City of Hamilton, 2006). It was stated earlier that one of the benefits of investing in LRT is the possible increase in densities of population and employment along the corridors and in the vicinity of the station areas. This is very reflective of the nodes and corridors land use planning concepts developed through GRIDS (City of Hamilton, 2006). Other important policies include the Hamilton Roundtable on Poverty Reduction’s Best Place to Raise a Child program which aims to solve root problems affecting child poverty in the City. Zoning by-laws, the Transportation Master Plan, which aims to reduce car travel by 20% in 2020 and the Official Plan are all integral policies which will support the policies encouraged by GRIDS and poverty reduction strategies.

Provincial Policies Provincial and regional policies are also set in place, such as the implementation of Ontario’s Greenbelt Plan and Places to Grow; both of which are intensification supportive policies. Ontario’s Greenbelt Plan, which was released in February 2005, identifies an area around the Greater Golden Horseshoe where urban development shouldn’t take place. Areas found in the Greenbelt Plan are deemed unsuitable for future urbanization. This plan is considered to be the foundation on which the growth strategy, Places to Grow, was built (City of Hamilton, 2006). Places to Grow is an initiative set forth by the Ontario government to control growth and development in Ontario in such a way that “supports economic prosperity, protects the environment and helps communities achieve a high quality of life” (Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, 2007). The policy helps develop regional growth plans which are used to guide government investments. It is important to note that Places to Grow has designated Hamilton as an Urban Growth Centre (City of Hamilton, 2006). Therefore, if Hamilton were to implement a LRT system they would be demonstrating further commitment to their existing intensification goals by implementing a system could help generate higher densities and mixed uses which in turn curbs sprawl.


34 | 40


July 21, 2008

Policy at All Levels An earlier recommendation was that policy at all levels of government should support or put in order a clearer definition of the local land use policy objectives before implementing LRT. This is something that all levels of government appear to be striving for in terms of sustainable infrastructure and development policies for Hamilton and is evidenced by the Province’s MoveOntario 2020 announcement, the development of the Regional Transportation Plan and Places to Grow, and the Building Canada funding announcements made recently by the Federal Government (Public Works Department, 2008). These policies and funding are solid frameworks upon which intensification and economic development around possible LRT routes can take place.

Rapid Transit Feasibility Study Policy Recommendations According to Hamilton’s Rapid Transit Feasibility study “The success of a transit system depends not just on the provision of high-quality transit service but on the policies that support it to ensure that appropriate development occurs in areas with good accessibility to transit and to discourage development in areas that cannot be cost-effectively served by transit” (City of Hamilton, 2008). This statement is concurrent with the research provided above which illustrates that Hamilton is beginning to take the necessary steps to ensure possible opportunities for economic development. The transit supportive development policies outlined by the Rapid Transit Feasibility Study focus on four policy areas: Land Use; System Integration; Quality of Service; and Demand Management. The study suggests that land use policies should support high density development surrounding station areas and mixed use development. It also suggests that all development be located no further than a 5 minute walk, or 400 metres, from the Light Rail line (City of Hamilton, 2008). Next, the study implies that system integration is also important for transit supportive development. It states that the City should provide sufficient park and ride lots on the fringe of the LRT system and ensure that convenient transfer facilities be provided to bus feeder routes, biking facilities, pedestrian friendly networks and taxi pick up and drop off areas (City of Hamilton, 2008). Subsequently, although it was stated that the success of a LRT system does not only depend on the provision of high-quality transit service, the quality of the service is still an important factor. The feasibility study suggests that in order for the system to spur or support the desired forms of development the system must be desirable. This can be achieved through faster service, transit priority over general traffic and passenger comfort (City of Hamilton, 2008). Lastly, demand management is perhaps one of the most important policy frameworks to set in place before the implementation of LRT. The feasibility study recommends an emphasis on reduced car travel demand instead of increased road capacity, that a parking strategy consistent with transit oriented development objectives be developed and that innovative transit fares, education and marketing be extensive. Clearly, as illustrated by the four policy areas outlined by Hamilton’s Rapid Transit Feasibility Study, the city is looking beyond simply providing a high quality system and looking at the bigger picture which includes; land use, system integration and demand management. In short, policy areas which will support Hamilton’s desired economic development and transit oriented development (City of Hamilton, 2008).


35 | 40


July 21, 2008

Appendix D: LRT’s Economic, Social and Environmental Effects Light Rail Transit Developed within the appropriate policy frameworks and land use planning strategies

Increased Accessibility LRT increases public access to employment areas, residential properties, commercial districts and municipal services, increasing the connectivity and vibrancy of urban areas.

Smart Growth Light rail development can help achieve smart growth principles by reducing urban sprawl, promoting intensification and influencing development that better serves the economic, environmental and social needs of communities.

Increased Land Values

Transit Oriented Development

Greater access can make station areas lucrative and valuable places to do business; stimulating economic development. Proximity to local and inter-regional transit is also an important factor in attracting residents to areas along the corridor.

LRT is a key component to stimulate mixed-use, higher density communities within walking distance of a transit stop making it convenient to travel to a multitude of destinations by foot, bike or by public transit instead of by car.

Increased Property Taxes

Health and Environment

High value, high density, mixed use land parcels can produce higher property taxes which help to pay for the capital and operating costs of the system.

LRT paired with complementary land use policies can decrease auto use, reduce congestion, contribute to clean air and encourage healthier lifestyles, while decreasing noise pollution.


36 | 40


July 21, 2008

References Adams, K. & Corrigan, J.M. (2003). Priority Areas for National Action: Transforming Health Care Quality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Alterkawi, Mezayad (1991). Land Economic Impact of Fixed Guideway Rapid Transit Systems on Urban Development in Selected Metropolitan Areas: The Issue of PriceDistance Gradients. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Bollinger, C.R. & Ihlanfeldt (1997). The Impact of Rapid Rail Transit on Economic Development: The Case of Atlanta’s MARTA. Journal of Urban Economics, 42, 179-204. Brinkerchoff, P. (2001). The Effect of Rail Transit on Property Values: A Summary of Studies (NEORail II Research Project 21439S, Task 7). Cleveland, Ohio. Campbell, D.R. & Reuter, M. (2008). The Hamilton & KWC Ontario Transportation Effect: The impact of transportation improvements on housing values in Hamilton, Kitchener, Waterloo & Cambridge Regions. Calgary: Real Estate Investment Network. Canadian Medical Association [CMA]. (2008). No Breathing Room: National Illness Costs of Air Pollution. Ottawa: CMA. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.cma.ca/multimedia/cma/content_Images/Inside_cma/Office_Public_Health/ICAP/CMA_ICAP_su m_e.pdf Center for Community Study (CSD), (2004). Hamilton and the Creative Class. Hamilton: Centre for Community Study. Centre for Community Study [CCS] (2005). How Hamilton Works: Commuting, Transit, and Employment Trends. Hamilton: CCS. Retrieved July 20, 2008, from http://www.communitystudy.ca/pdfs/E&C%20Bulletin.pdf Cervero, Robert & Duncan, Michael (2002). Transit’s Value-Added Effects. Transportation Research Record, 1805, 8-15. Cervero, Robert (1984). Light Rail Transit and Urban Development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50:2, 133-147. Chanon, A. (2006, July 17). Farmers' Foe: Smog Damage to Crops Costs Billions. Agence France Presse. Retreived July 31, 2008 from: http://www.sehn.org/tccairpollutioncosttocrops.html. Charles, B., Hubbell, J., McKendrick N. & Colquhoun, D. (2006). Calgary’s CTrain – Effective Capital Utilization. Calgary, ON: Calgary Transit. City of Hamilton. (2006). Growth Related Integrated Development Strategy. Hamilton: Dillon Consulting and the City of Hamilton. City of Hamilton. (2008). Rapid Transit Feasibility Study. Mississauga: McCormick Rankin Corporation. City of Hamilton. (2007). Storm Water Master Plan. Mississauga: McCormick Rankin Corporation. Clean Air Hamilton (2008). Hamilton Air Quality, from Clean Air Hamilton, website: http://www.cleanair.hamilton.ca/smog/hamilton-air-quality.asp Craig, C., Brownson, C., Cragg, S., Dunn, A. (2002). Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: A study examining walking to work. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 36-43.


37 | 40


July 21, 2008

Crampton, G. R. (2003). Economic Development Impacts of Urban Rail Transport. Jyvaskyla, Finland: European Regional Science Conference. Deffeyes, K.S. (2004). Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage. American Journal of Physics, 72(1), 126-127. Delancey, E., d’Hoste, A., Fisher, M. & Joshua, M. (2005). Hiawatha Light Rail Transit: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Area. Driehaus, B. (2008, August 14). Downtowns across the US see streetcars in their future. International Herald Tribune. Retreived August 14, 2008. Filliger, P. & Schneider, J. (1999). Health Costs due to Road Traffic-related Air Pollution: An impact assessment project of Austria, France & Switzerland. Bern, Switzerland: Federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications, Bureau for Transport Studies. FHWA (2000). Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study Final Report Addendum. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, USDOT. Retrieved July 22, 2008 from www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/hcas/final, Table 12. Frank, L., Andresen, M., Schmid, T. (2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27(2), 87-89. Finkelstein, E.A., Fiebelkorn, I.C., Wang, G. (2003). National medical spending attributable to overweight and obesity: How much, and who’s paying? Health Affairs, W3, 219-226. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. Oxford: Routledge. Frieburger, J. (2007). The Imperial Cotton Center for the Arts. Retrieved March/05, 2007, from http://www.imperialcottoncentre.com/history1.html. Garrett, T.A. (2004). Light Rail Transit in America: Policy issues and prospects for economic development. The Regional Economist, July. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, website: http://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/2004/c/pages/light_rail.html. Gary, L. & Fraser, A. (2006). The Cost of the Car on Society. Toronto: Air Pollution Coalition, from Ecopolitics, website: http://www.ecopolitics.ca/transport/pt/infrastructure_economics.php. Geller, A. (2003). Smart Growth: A Prescription for Livable Cities. American Journal of Public Health, 93:9, 14101415. Gilbert, R. & O’Brien, C. (2007). Child and Youth-Friendly Land-use and Transport Planning Guidelines for Ontario. Toronto: Government of Ontario. Hamilton Economic Development (2005). Invest in Hamilton: Economic Development Review. Hamilton: City of Hamilton Economic Development. Hamilton Public Health (2007). Community Health Status Report – Overweight & Obesity. Hamilton: City of Hamilton Public Health. Hamilton Public Works (2007). Innovate Now. Retrieved from http://www.myhamilton.ca/myhamilton/CityandGovernment/CityDepartments/PublicWorks/Strategic+Plan. htm Handy, Susan. (2005). Smart Growth and the Transportation – Land Use Connection: What does Research Tell Us? International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 146-167.


38 | 40


July 21, 2008

HDR. (2005). Streetcars and Economic Development. Omaha, Nebraska: Henningson, Durham & Richardson (HDR). Heisz, A. & LaRochelle-Cote, S. (2005). Work and Commuting in Census Metropolitan Areas. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Hess, D.B., & Almeida, T.M. (2007). Impact of Proximity to Light Rail Rapid Transit on Station-area Property Values in Buffalo, New York. Urban Studies, 44(5/6), 1041-1068. Hubbell, J. & Colquhoun, D. (2006). Light Rail Transit in Calgary: The First 25 Years. Calgary, ON: Calgary Transit. Kelly-Schwartz, A.C., Stockard, J., Doyle, S. & Schlossberg, M. (2004). Is Sprawl Unhealthy? A Multilevel Analysis of the Relationship of Metropolitan Sprawl to the Health of Individuals. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(2), 184-196. Krantzberg G. & de Boer, C. (2008). A Valuation of Ecological Services in the Laurentian Great Lakes Basin with an Emphasis on Canada. American Water Work Association Journal, 100(6), 100 – 111. Litman, T. (2004). Rail Transit In America: Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, website: www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf. Litman, T. (2005). Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs. Retrieved July 10, 2008, from the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, website: www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf. Litman, T (2007). Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism. Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transportation Policy Institute . Retrieved July 22, 2008, from VTPI, Web site: http://vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf. Montgomery, B. (2008). Corporate Air Quality and Climate Change Strategic Plan (PED06336a). Hamilton: City of Hamilton. Public Works Department. (2008). Rapid Transit Feasibility Study – Update (PW080403b). Hamilton, Ontario: City of Hamilton Capital Planning & Implementation Division. McCann, B. (2000). Driven to Spend; The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses. Washington, DC: Surface Transportation Policy Partnership. McKeown, D. (2007). Air Pollution Burden of Illness from Traffic in Toronto: Problems and Solutions. Toronto: Public Health Office. Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure. (2007). Places to Grow. Retrieved from http://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php OMA (2000). The Illness Costs of Air Pollution – Findings Report. Toronto: Ontario Medical Association. O'Mara, M. A. (1999). Strategic drivers of location decisions for information-age companies. Journal of Real Estate Research, 17(3), 365-386. Knapp, Gerrit J., Ding, Chengri & Hopkins, Lewis D. (2001). Do Plans Matter? The Effects of Light Rail Plans on Land Values in Station Areas. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 32-39 RDWI (2004). Transportation Master Plan: Air Quality Policy Paper. Hamilton: Rowan Williams Davies & Irwin Inc. (RWDI), from Clean Air Hamilton, Website: http://www.cleanair.hamilton.ca/smog/hamilton-airquality.asp Rothlisberger, J.D, Lodge, D.M., Finnoff, D.C., & Cooke, R.M. (2008, May 19 - 23). Ship-borne NIS Diminish Ecosystem Services of the Great Lakes: A Structured Expert Judgment Study. Paper presented at the


39 | 40


July 21, 2008

International Association for Great Lakes Research Our Lakes, Our Community Conference. Peterborough, Ontario (Trent University). Sahsuvaroglu, T. & Jerett, M. (2003). A Public Health Assesment of Mortality and Hospital Admissions Attributable to Air Pollution in Hamilton. Hamilton: McMaster Institute of Environment & Health. Shapiro, R.J., Hassett, K.A. & Arnold, F.S. (2002). Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transportation. Retreived July 20, 2008 from the American Public Transportation Association, website: http://apta.com/research/info/online/documents/shapiro.pdf Smith, J.J. (2001). Does Public Transit Raise Site Values Around its Stops enough to pay for itself (were the value captured)? Portland, OR: Geonomy Society. Smith, S. (2006, May 26). The Economic Development Benefits of Streetcar. Retrieved August 10, 2006 from Portland Transport, website: http://portlandtransport.com/archives/2006/05/the_economic_de_1.html. Stokes, R.J. MacDonald, J. & Ridgeway, G. (2008). Estimating the Effects of Light Rail Transit on Health Care Costs. Health and Place, 14, 45-58. Taplin, M. (1998). The History of Tramways and Evolution of Light Rail. Retreived July 20, 2008 from the Light Rail Transit Association, website: http://www.lrta.org/mrthistory.html U.S. DoT. (1977). Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Plans and International Affairs. VTPI (2007). Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, website: http://www.vtpi.org/tca VTPI (2008). TDM Encyclopedia: Transit Evaluation – Determining the Value of Public Transit Service. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, website: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm62.htm Wyatt, D. (2007). All Time List of Canadian Transit Systems. Retrieved July 22, 2008, from the University of Manitoba, website: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/alltime/hamilton-on.html


40 | 40