last modified: Sunday, December 11, 2005 10:39 AM
Light Rail Transit and Economic Development 
The National Business Coalition for Rapid Transit
states that the “rebirth
of public transportation is a critical part of
Any major metropolitan region lacking efficient,
effective mass transit will find it difficult to grow and develop into
a self sustainable regional economic power. Many cities have found
a solution in regional mass transit. The
Light rail transit has been “proposed for a number of developing cities on the grounds that it can offer a mass transit solution which will be capable of carrying high passenger flows, and have the right combination of an appealing, modern image without the high cost of a full metro system” (Gardner 1).
The post-industrial development of southeastern
The decision of which mass transit to implement
depends on the size and future needs of the community that it will
UWMCED offers several recommendations to create this community-wide revitalization around area transit stations. These recommendations revolve around many new urbanist principles, such as creating high density, mixed-use, walkable areas, with commercial, office, and residential components, as well as creating unique streetscapes and improving safety and security (Dunk et al 1996).
Rail vs. Bus: What works, which is better
There are many advantages to rail over bus mass transit. The most prominent is higher service quality which attracts many discretionary users; they can carry more riders thereby reducing labor costs; they require less land per peak passenger trip; and they cause less noise and air pollution (Litman 34). Because development tends to cluster around rail transit stations property values are higher (Litman 31). Investments in public transportation have generated even higher returns in the private market. On average, for every one dollar invested in public transit, $6 is returned in the economy (APTA b).
Rail tends to be a bit nicer, providing more leg room, comfortable seats, a smooth and quiet ride, and high speed travel (Litman 34). However, rail is more suited for high density areas (Litman 34). It is best when “serving corridors where destinations are concentrated, such as large commercial centers and mixed use urban villages” (Litman 34). It can be a catalyst for more “accessible, multi-modal communities and urban redevelopment” (Litman 34).
A study by Litman (2004) concludes that rail transit’s effectiveness is linked to its ability to provide economies of scale and network effects. A large system is more useful, can attract more riders, and can integrate more efficiently with overall transportation goals and land use patterns of a region (Litman 42).
The contentious debate of rail transit is its suitability to the environment where it is being implemented. Rail transit is not appropriate in every situation (Litman 36). There are many factors to consider when evaluating the overall benefits of mass transit. The more obvious are initial infrastructure costs, as well as ongoing operating and maintenance expenses. But equally important and often overlooked are the public health benefits of walking to transit stops, decreased traffic congesting, less traffic accident related damages, parking costs, etc.
There is some debate about the overall effect of rail transit on surrounding property values. While the net effect is to raise property values by increasing the accessibility of the area and spurring new development around the transit stations, there exists the problems of increased noise and pollution, and the increased traffic around the stations that may actually lower property values (Diaz).
Any sprawling city with mass transit will require lengthy bus rides and perhaps several transfers. Effective rail systems require higher densities than a sprawling metro area can provide. In many cases, cities have become so sprawled out that high speed rail transit is not currently a viable option. With proper planning, policy changes, and diligent efforts, rail transit can reverse these trends. Adding a rail system to an existing city will require integrating it with other transit options, such as bus or local streetcar and trolley systems.
It is clear that some version of rapid mass transit
is necessary to create a viable, synergistic, growing region. The
only hope for regional mass transit in southeastern
The successful implementation of rail transit in southeastern
American Public Transportation Association (APTA a). “Benefits of Public Transportation: Essential Support for a Strong Economy.” http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/essential.pdf, accessed on October 17, 2005.
American Public Transportation Association (APTA b). “Public Transportation Means Business”
accessed on October 17, 2005.
Levine, Marc V. (May 1992). “Light Rail in
Litman, Todd. (October 5, 2004). “Rail Transit
The National Business Coalition for Rapid Transit. (November 2003). “The Economic Importance of Public Transit.” American Public Transportation Association webpage, http://www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents/economic_importance.pdf, accessed on October 17, 2005.
Van Dunk, Emily, Marc V. Levine, and Dale Dulberger. (February
Rail Transit and Inner City Redevelopment: A Proposal for Transit Oriented
 Economic development as defined by Litman (2004) is “progress towards a community’s economic goals, including increased productivity, employment, business activity, investment and redevelopment” (30).