SCRIPT - St Clair Right-of-way Initiative for Public Transit

According to the Cincinnati Business Courier, properties within a half-mile of light-rail stations tend to increase in value. Light rail brings a steady flow of people and reduces the need for parking lots. That encourages higher-density development, which translates into higher values for commercial properties.[1] Recent studies compared the impact of twelve rail projects throughout North America. In general, proximity to rail was shown to have positive impacts on property values.[2] Another report found that the average value of a commercial property increased as proximity to transit increases.[3] Specific examples include:

In Dallas median values of residential properties increased 32.1 percent and office buildings increased in value by 24.7 percent near the Dallas rail stations.[4]
For properties in commercial business districts within a quarter mile of a CalTrain commuter rail stop, land values increased by over $25 per square foot.[5]
In Chicago, apartment properties located closer to train stations tend to realize higher rents and occupancy levels than comparable apartments less conveniently-located to train stations.[6]
In Washington DC and Atlanta, property values rose and office vacancy rates were lowered as ridership of area rail transit rose.[7]

2. Transit Brings Positive Impacts to Neighbourhoods

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Center for Economic Development (UWMCED) studied the potential economic consequences of light rail transit (LRT) systems in North American cities and concluded that light rail can have a positive impact on neighbourhood development and land use.[8] One investigation in Calgary showed the value of residential proximity to employment and shops, and housing within walking distance of light rail transit is worth a C$217 per month premium.[9]

3. Transit Investments are Cost Effective

Light rail means fewer cars on the road, which means fewer accidents, lower automobile maintenance costs, a reduction in costs associated with air pollution and less time spent in traffic, which impacts employee productivity. One study suggested commuters would save about $360 a year in auto-operating costs due to a reduction in congestion, and reduced accidents would save over $100 million in outlays on emergency services, health care expenditures and compensation for the grief and pain associated with death and serious injury.[10]

In Dallas, transit officials cited $800 million in commercial development along its Light Rail line. The Light Rail line itself cost $860 million to build in 1994, so these officials saw the Light Rail line as an excellent investment.[11]

Transit systems (LRT and buses) in LRT cities are 41% more energy efficient than in bus-only cities. Total per capita transportation energy consumption is 22% lower in LRT cities. The operating cost of transit per passenger-km in LRT cities is 31% lower than bus-only operations, and the money spent on roads in the former is 1.67 times higher in bus-only cities, because of their higher auto-orientation.[12]

4. Light Rail is the Way of the Future

A recent article in Mass Transit indicated that LRT is presently running in 24 of the 30 North American metro areas served by one or more rail modes. The flexibility in LRT technologies and operating practices offer a great variety of solutions for cities and regions seeking to add a rail component to their transit systems but that cannot afford and do not need the capacity of heavy rail system. Combination of locational flexibility, affordability and ability to attract more riders continues to fuel interest in LRT.[13] Their low infrastructure cost and reliability have gained public acceptance in major cities throughout North America and are expanding their lines every year.

Some of the reasons identified for a preference of LRT include: speed and regularity; schedule reliability; comfort, accessibility and ease of use; safety; environment friendly; adaptability, and contribution to a positive city image. Finally, electric systems have simply been shown to generate more appeal, and therefore greater ridership, than diesel systems.[14]

5. Dedicating Lanes to Transit Does Not Cause Traffic Infiltration into Surrounding Neighbourhoods

The literature suggests that mechanisms to decrease road capacity by measures such as traffic calming and building light rail lines on roads by reclaiming traffic lanes do not increase congestion and chaos on surrounding streets. Evidence from cities where this strategy has been adopted suggests traffic tends to disappear or contract in the same way that it expands with increased road capacity. One British study, released in March 1998, found that reducing road capacity actually cuts driving trips from between 25-60%.[15]

In fact, recent experience has shown light rail “to be a revitalizing force in city-centre viability and liveability.” This is especially so when light rail at street level is kept separate from mixed street traffic or is given priority over road traffic.[16]

Notes

[1] Light rail's value outweighs cost [Cincinnati] http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2001/02/26/daily10.html?t=printable

[2] Rail Transit and Property Values, Briefing Number 1 - February 2003. Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values. APTA (American Public Transportation Association) http://www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/briefing_1.cfm

[3] Transit Benefits 2000 Working Papers: A Public Choice Policy Analysis, Federal Transportation Authority (“FTA”) Policy Paper, Commercial Property Benefits of Transit, 2000.

[4] An assessment of the DART LRT on taxable property valuations and transit oriented development. Bernard L. Weinstein & Terry L. Clower, September 2002. Source: Center for Economic Development and Research, University of North Texas. http://www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/documents/dart2002.pdf

[5] Transit's value-added: effects of light and commuter rail services on commercial land values. Robert Cervero & Michael Duncan, November 2001. Transportation Research Board, 81st Annual Meeting presentation January, 2002. http://www.apta.com/research/info/briefings/documents/cervero_duncan.pdf

[6] The effect of CTA and Metra stations on residential property values. A report to the Regional Transporation Authority. June 1997, Gruen Gruen + Associates, San Francisco, CA http://www.ggassoc.com/

[7] Rail transit and joint development: Land market impacts in Washington, DC and Atlanta. Robert Cervero, 1994 Journal of the American Planning Association V60n1 (Winter, 1994) pages 83-94.

[8] Light Rail in Milwaukee: An Analysis of the Potential Impact on Economic Development, May, 1992, by Marc V. Levine http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/CED/publications/lightrail.html

[9] Stated Preference Investigation of Influences on Attractiveness of Residential Location. Hunt, J.D.; J.D.P. McMillan; J.E. Abraham. Transportation Research Record#1466, 1995.

[10] Study: Light rail's value outweighs cost [Cincinnati]
http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2001/02/26/daily10.html?t=printable

[11] MASS TRANSIT SHOWS PROMISE Page 31 GAO-01-984 Bus Rapid Transit, 09/00/, 59p, GAO-01-984.

[12] The Role of Light Rail in Urban Transport Systems: Winning |Back Cities from the Automobile, Jeff Kenworthy and Felix Laube, Murdoch University, Perth Australia, Presented to the 5th Light Rail Conference, UITP, Melbourne, October 8 - 11, 2000.

[13] LIGHT RAIL UPDATE 2003, Schumann, J, MASS TRANSIT Volume: 29 Issue: 8, 01/00/2004, pp 26-30 http://www.masstransitmag.com/script/search.asp?SearchSiteURL=\articles\2003\mt_12-03\mt_12

[14] The Role of Light Rail in Urban Transport Systems: Winning |Back Cities from the Automobile, Jeff Kenworthy and Felix Laube, Murdoch University, Perth Australia, Presented to the 5th Light Rail Conference, UITP, Melbourne, October 8 - 11, 2000.

[15] Remove It And They Will Disappear: New Evidence Why Building New Roads Isn't Always the Answer, by Jill Kruse of the Surface Transportation Policy Project in Washington D.C., in Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Transportation Planning for Small and Medium-Sized Communities, 1999.

[16] Can Rail Pay? Light Rail Transit and Urban Development with Value Capture Funding and Joint Development Mechanisms. Jan Scheurer, Peter Newman, Jeff Kenworthy, Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy (ISTP), June 2000.