Community Impact Economic Analysis of Light Rail T

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/242597308
Community Impact & Economic Analysis of Light Rail Transit
Article · January 2008
CITATIONS READS
4 5,679
3 authors, including:
Peter Topalovic
McMaster University
9 PUBLICATIONS 67 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Topalovic on 20 November 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

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 2 | 40

Public Works, City of Hamilton
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

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 • Value of properties rose 39% more than those located farther from rail service (Lyons &
Rapid Transit Hernandez, 2003)
(DART) • Property values increased by 32% near stations while properties further from the station only
(Dallas, Texas) 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 • Average house values increase at a faster rate closer to stations with an average of $2, 300
(Portland, Oregon) 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 • Value of land located nearer to stations rise with decreasing distance; however, land values
(Portland, Oregon) increase with distance from tracks in between stations (Knaap et al., 1996).
Metro • Every thousand feet further from a station, the price per square foot of a commercial property
(Washington, DC) decreases $2.30 (FTA, 2000)
• Rents decreased 2.5% every 150 m further from the station (Benjamin & Sirmins, 1996).
MetroLink • Property values increased 32% ($140 every 10 feet closer to the station beginning at 1500
(St. Louis, feet) (Garret, 2004).
Missouri)
San Diego • 10% - 17% increase in value for multi-family homes and a 72% premium in land parcels near
Trolley stations in the Mission Valley (Cervero & Duncan, 2002).
(San Diego, • Property value increased $272 every 100 m closer to the station (Landis et al, 1995).
California)
Santa Clara • Properties less than 0.5 Km from a station experienced a 23% premium (Cevero & Duncan,
County LRT 2001)
(Santa Clara, • Within 0.5 Km from a station office space sold for 2 to 5 cents more per square foot than
California) 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 • Proximity to stations resulted in a $4.90 premium per sq. foot (Ferguson A., 1998)
(Vancouver, BC)
TTC (Toronto, • A $2, 237 average premium was observed for homes along the transit corridor (Bajic, 1983)
Ontario)
(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 Capital Total Capital Development ROI
Kilometers Cost/km Cost Investment
Kenosha 3.2 $1.86 $6 $150 2,400%
Little Rock 4 $4.87 $19 $200 920%
Tampa 3.7 $15.12 $56 $1000 1686%
Portland 7.7 $7.07 $55 $2300 4112%
(Smith, 2006)
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.

Table E3: The Health and Environmental Costs of Transportation Use (in dollars per year)
(adapted from VPTI, 2007; OMA, 2000).
Health Effects from Automobile Cost (dollars Health Effects from Cost (dollars
Use (North America) per year) Transportation (Ontario) per year)
Direct costs of obesity (heart $75 billion (USD) Premature Deaths $5 829
disease, premature death, etc.)
Indirect Costs of Obesity (chronic $1 Trillion (USD) Hospital Admissions $16 807
illness, loss of work time, etc)
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

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.

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 Smart Growth
LRT increases public access to Light rail development can help

employment areas, residential achieve smart growth principles by
properties, commercial districts reducing urban sprawl, promoting
and municipal services, intensification and influencing
increasing the connectivity and development that better serves the
vibrancy of urban areas. economic, environmental and
social needs of communities.
Increased Land Values Transit Oriented Development
Greater access can make station LRT is a key component to

areas lucrative and valuable stimulate mixed-use, higher
places to do business; density communities within walking
stimulating economic distance of a transit stop making it
development. Proximity to local convenient to travel to a multitude
and inter-regional transit is also of destinations by foot, bike or by
an important factor in attracting public transit instead of by car.
residents to areas along the
corridor.
Increased Property Taxes Health and Environment
High value, high density, mixed LRT paired with complementary

use land parcels can produce land use policies can decrease
higher property taxes which help auto use, reduce congestion,
to pay for the capital and contribute to clean air and
operating costs of the system. encourage healthier lifestyles,
while decreasing noise pollution.

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.

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

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 pro-
development 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

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

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

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 • Value of properties rose 39% more than those located farther from rail service (Lyons &
Rapid Transit Hernandez, 2003)
(DART) • Property values increased by 32% near stations while properties further from the station only
(Dallas, Texas) 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 • Average house values increase at a faster rate closer to stations with an average of $2, 300
(Portland, Oregon) 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 • Value of land located nearer to stations rise with decreasing distance; however, land values
(Portland, Oregon) increase with distance from tracks in between stations (Knaap et al., 1996).
Metro • Every thousand feet further from a station, the price per square foot of a commercial property
(Washington, DC) decreases $2.30 (FTA, 2000)
• Rents decreased 2.5% every 150 m further from the station (Benjamin & Sirmins, 1996).
MetroLink • Property values increased 32% ($140 every 10 feet closer to the station beginning at 1500
(St. Louis, feet) (Garret, 2004).
Missouri)
San Diego • 10% - 17% increase in value for multi-family homes and a 72% premium in land parcels near
Trolley stations in the Mission Valley (Cervero & Duncan, 2002).
(San Diego, • Property value increased $272 every 100 m closer to the station (Landis et al, 1995).
California)
Santa Clara • Properties less than 0.5 Km from a station experienced a 23% premium (Cevero & Duncan,
County LRT 2001)
(Santa Clara, • Within 0.5 Km from a station office space sold for 2 to 5 cents more per square foot than
California) 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 • Proximity to stations resulted in a $4.90 premium per sq. foot (Ferguson A., 1998)
(Vancouver, BC)
TTC (Toronto, • A $2, 237 average premium was observed for homes along the transit corridor (Bajic, 1983)
Ontario)
(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 Capital Total Capital Development ROI
Kilometers Cost/km Cost Investment
Kenosha 3.2 $1.86 $6 $150 2,400%
Little Rock 4 $4.87 $19 $200 920%
Tampa 3.7 $15.12 $56 $1000 1686%
Portland 7.7 $7.07 $55 $2300 4112%
(Smith, 2006)
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

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),

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

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

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).

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
Minor Illnesses 29 292 100 31 962 200 38 549 300

(OMA, 2000; CMA, 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 14 419 11 823
Compounds (VOC)
Particulate Matter (PM) 5 346 2 620
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 18.13 18.13

(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
Policy Option Description Vehicle Use (%)
Transportation Planning Adoption of options that consider all direct 10 - 20

and indirect costs and benefits
Mobility Management Local Transportation Demand Management 4–8
Programs (TDM) programs that support and
encourage use of alternative modes
Commuter Trip Reduction Programs by employers to promote 1–3
alternative commuting options
Fuel Taxes – Tax Shifting Increases fuel taxes and other vehicle 5 - 15
taxes

Parking Management More efficient use of parking facilities 2–8

Parking Pricing Direct charges for using parking facilities, 3 - 10
with rates that may vary by location
Transit and Rideshare Enhances public transit and car-sharing 2 - 12
Improvements services
Smart Growth Policies More accessible, multi-modal land use 3 - 15
development patterns
(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.

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

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;

• 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

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 Walk Bicycle Other
Hamilton 78.2 7.1 8.0 5.1 0.9 0.7

All CMAs 70.8 6.6 14.8 5.7 1.3 0.8
(Heisz & LaRochelle-Cote, 2001, p. 48)
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

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) $123.0
Avoided Auto Operating costs (reduced gas costs and mileage) $66.3
Crash Cost Reduction (less time on the road means less probability $26.3
of crashes)
Pollution Reduction $25.5
Avoided Public Infrastructure $32.3
Avoided Auto Ownership $18.0
Parking Ramps not Built $11.1
Total $302.5
(Delancy et al, 2005)
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

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 Fuel, oil and tire wear. 10-15¢ per vehicle-mile. Higher
Costs under congested conditions.
Long-Term Mileage- Mileage-related depreciation, mileage 10¢ per vehicle-mile.
Related Costs lease fees, user costs from crashes
and tickets.
Special Costs Tolls, parking fees, parking cash out, Varies.
insurance.
Vehicle Ownership Reductions in fixed vehicle costs. $3,000 per vehicle-year.
Residential Parking Reductions in residential parking $100-1,200 per vehicle-year.
costs due to reduced vehicle
ownership.
(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

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

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).

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.

Appendix A: Estimated Vehicle Air Pollution Costs
(VTPI, 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.
Description
Transit Service Costs Financial costs of providing transit services
Fares Direct payments by transit users.
Subsidies Government expenses to provide transit services.
Existing User Impacts Incremental benefits and costs to existing transit users (changes in travel speed,
comfort, safety, etc. to existing transit users).
Mobility Benefits Benefits from increased travel that would not otherwise occur.
Direct User Benefits Direct benefits to users from increased mobility.
Public Services Support for public services and cost savings for government agencies.
Productivity Increased productivity from improved access to education and jobs.
Equity Improved mobility that makes people who are also economically, socially or
physically disadvantaged relatively better off.
Option Value Benefits of having mobility options available, in case they are ever needed.
Efficiency Benefits Benefits from reduced motor vehicle traffic.
Vehicle Costs Changes in vehicle ownership, operating and residential parking costs.
Chauffeuring Reduced chauffeuring responsibilities by drivers for non-drivers.
Vehicle Delays Reduced motor vehicle traffic congestion.
Pedestrian Delays Reduced traffic delay to pedestrians.
Parking Costs Reduced parking problems and non-residential parking facility costs.
Safety, Security and Changes in crash costs, personal security and improved health and fitness due to
Health increased walking and cycling.
Roadway Costs Changes in roadway construction, maintenance and traffic service costs.
Energy and Emissions Changes in energy consumption, air, noise and water pollution.
Travel Time Impacts Changes in transit users’ travel time costs.
Land Use Impacts Benefits from changes in land use patterns.
Transportation Land Changes in the amount of land needed for roads and parking facilities.
Land Use Objectives Supports land use objectives such as infill, efficient public services, clustering,
accessibility, land use mix, and preservation of ecological and social resources.
Economic Benefits from increased economic productivity and employment.
Development
Direct Jobs and business activity created by transit expenditures.
Shifted Expenditures Increased regional economic activity due to shifts in consumer expenditures to goods
with greater regional employment multipliers.
Agglomeration Productivity gains due to more clustered, accessible land use patterns.
Economies
Transportation More efficient transport system due to economies of scale in transit service, more
Efficiencies accessible land use patterns, and reduced automobile dependency.
Land Value Impacts Higher property values in areas served by public transit.
(VTPI, 2007)

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.

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).

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 Smart Growth
LRT increases public access to Light rail development can help

employment areas, residential achieve smart growth principles by
properties, commercial districts reducing urban sprawl, promoting
and municipal services, intensification and influencing
increasing the connectivity and development that better serves the
vibrancy of urban areas. economic, environmental and
social needs of communities.
Increased Land Values Transit Oriented Development
Greater access can make station LRT is a key component to

areas lucrative and valuable stimulate mixed-use, higher
places to do business; density communities within walking
stimulating economic distance of a transit stop making it
development. Proximity to local convenient to travel to a multitude
and inter-regional transit is also of destinations by foot, bike or by
an important factor in attracting public transit instead of by car.
residents to areas along the
corridor.
Increased Property Taxes Health and Environment
High value, high density, mixed LRT paired with complementary

use land parcels can produce land use policies can decrease
higher property taxes which help auto use, reduce congestion,
to pay for the capital and contribute to clean air and
operating costs of the system. encourage healthier lifestyles,
while decreasing noise pollution.

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.

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, 1410-
1415.
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.

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-air-
quality.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

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

View publication stats

Community Impact Economic Analysis of Light Rail T

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Community Impact Economic Analysis of Light Rail T

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community Impact Economic Analysis of Light Rail T

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Community Impact & Economic Analysis of Light Rail Transit

Article · January 2008

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rapid Transit Office

Community Impact & Economic

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 2 | 40

Hamilton’s historical roots as an electric, industrial and transportation-oriented city make a

Urban Development and Light Rail Transit

Land Values and Light Rail Transit

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 3 | 40

Table E1: Summary of LRT and Land Value Effects

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 4 | 40

Light Rail Transit and its Effect on Health and Environment

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 5 | 40

Minor Illnesses $29 292 100

Municipal Benefits of Light Rail Transit

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 6 | 40

Results of the Analysis

Hamilton’s population is projected to grow by 32% by 2031 which, according to the

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 7 | 40

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

Increased Accessibility Smart Growth

LRT increases public access to Light rail development can help

Increased Land Values Transit Oriented Development

Greater access can make station LRT is a key component to

Increased Property Taxes Health and Environment

High value, high density, mixed LRT paired with complementary

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 8 | 40

Purpose of the Study

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 9 | 40

Urban Development and LRT

Effects of Light Rail Transit on Urban Growth, Land-Use, Intensification and

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 10 | 40

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 11 | 40

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 12 | 40

Land Values and Light Rail Transit

Effects of Light Rail on Pre-construction Land Values

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 13 | 40

Effects of Light Rail on Land Values near Rail Corridors

Table 1: Summary of LRT and Land Value Effects

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 14 | 40

(Chen et al., 1998).

Negative Impacts of Light Rail on Land Values

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 15 | 40

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 16 | 40

LRT and Property Taxes

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 17 | 40

Light Rail and its effect on Health and Environment

LRT and Obesity

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 18 | 40

LRT and Air Pollution

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 19 | 40

2005 2015 2026

Premature Deaths 5 829 7 436 10 061

Minor Illnesses 29 292 100 31 962 200 38 549 300

Strategic Planning – Rapid Transit Office 20 | 40

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 435 0