Limited Public Transit Systems and Their Effectiveness With Encouraging Smart Growth in Urban Areas

Jonathan S. Lloyd Johns Hopkins Whiting School of Engineering

Smart Growth Strategies for Sustainable Urban Development and Revitalization EN 575.734.81 FA15

jlloyd16@jhu.edu

Abstract Public transit systems across the country have varying levels of ridership, which can be correlated to the reach that the systems have. Public transit that is limited in nature can still have impacts on the economy and environment of cities. Growth will occur as a result of the development if the established conditions in the city are prime for development, specifically the policies as well as the political and public will favor smart growth near transit corridors. The economic impacts associated with transit systems are often agglomerated in nature in that development and the benefits of the transit system, both employment opportunities and overall economic productivity, are centralized near the transit corridors. If the public has no demand for the development of a transit system, then the system will fail as seen in the failing attempts at developing a streetcar in downtown Dallas and Atlanta. Although the failure is short-term, both systems have been operating for less than a year, it is important for taxpayers, developers, and city officials to remember that transit investments pay dividends in the long-term. 1. Introduction There is no denying the fact that there is a direct link between the expansion of public transportation services and growth surrounding the expansion. Across the U.S. there are few cities that have effective public transit systems that are used to their capacities; the highest level of commuters who rely upon public transit to commute to/from work is New York City where thirty one percent of commuters use transit, Washington, DC is the next highest city with nearly fifteen percent of commuters relying upon public transit [1]. Although these two cities are leaders in public transit, the majority of cities across the country do not have an effective transit system; in 2013 New York had a trips per capita value of two hundred and twenty-nine, whereas Los Angeles, the next largest populated city in the U.S. only had fifty four trips per capita via public transit [2]. The contrast between the robust transit system possessed by New York City and the lackluster system in Los Angeles is amazing, however this is nothing when you compare it to some Midwestern cities, Kansas City had eleven trips per capita and Indianapolis had seven [2]. Although these cities are much smaller they are in a prime position to benefit from the positive impacts that public transit can have on a city. The benefits that smaller cities gain will be dictated by the scope of the system put in place, if a city begins a new transit system with a streetcar system that only covers a few blocks, the impacts may only be slightly greater than negligible. Kansas City has begun development on a streetcar that will only cover one district and merely a dozen blocks. Although on the surface this does not seem like a wise investment due to it’s limited scope,

2  

however the city is undergoing a transformation in the downtown region that this project will complement. The case will be made whether or not the project is cost effective using other major cities that have developed very limited public transit systems such as Atlanta and the Dallas Fort Worth metropolitan region. 2. Economic Impacts of Public Transportation In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries streetcars and other rail based public transit systems allowed for the development of centralized business districts in urban centers across the United States and Canada. The link that was generated between residential areas and business centers allowed workers to live outside of the downtown area, but in close proximity to the available transit as personal automobiles were not highly prevalent as a major source of transit at this time. The streetcar and rail lines determined where growth would occur because of the reliance upon the systems, as the system expanded so did the suburbs around the transit corridor [3]. This can still be seen today in many major cities across the United States such as Washington, D.C. and New York City; there are clusters of development along the transit pathways that allow workers, residents, and tourists to travel from one location to another with relative ease, this not only attracts residents to live in these areas, but it also attracts business to locate their offices in these areas. 2.1. Agglomerations [4] Chatman and Noland use the term agglomerations, or densely populated areas located in close proximity to transit stops, as the basis for their argument that improvements to public transit systems will cause an increase in employment opportunities and allow for urban development, which will in turn create agglomerated economies. Chatman and Noland completed extensive research using three measures for agglomeration, central city employment density, urbanized area employment density, and metropolitan area population. Central city employment density is a measure of the density of metropolitan cores that are serviced by a transit corridor, urbanized area employment density is a measure of employment concentration of the overall metropolitan area, and metropolitan area population is a measure of the size of the labor force of the metropolitan area. To validate their hypothesis that transit service type affect agglomeration in differing fashions, Chatman and Noland used multiple differing measures of transit services, some being connectivity, coverage, bus service, and different types of rail services. Using these different measures of transit service, various estimations, and the three measures of agglomeration, the writers generated three models that tested twenty-one transit measures; each model had a direct correlation to each of the three measures of agglomeration. After calculating the values of the three agglomeration measures, the writers also completed a calculation to create an agglomeration productivity series. They then went on to complete a transit-agglomeration-productivity estimate using the two sets of models they had previously generated. The data that was used to complete the calculations was collected for ninety percent of the metropolitan areas in the continental United States; data was collected on transit service, productivity, agglomeration, and controls. Transit service data consisted of twenty-seven metropolitan areas track length of railways in 2003 and two hundred and ninety metropolitan areas bus seats in vehicles and service miles, this data was used to generate twenty-one different variables that were introduced to the model. Productivity data was derived from the average wages providing variables on wages per capita and gross metropolitan product per capita. Agglomeration data variables consisted of metropolitan areas population, urbanized area density of employment, and employment density for central cities. The controls for the model were highway road networks, the level of the working-age population that obtained a college degree, and seven other Census Bureau variables were used.

3  

The results yielded a positive correlation between the employment densities in city centers and transit service, while the density of employment in urbanized areas had a negative correlation with transit service, and there were no strong correlations between metropolitan area population and transit service. Increasing the seats available on both buses and rails in an urban area by four seats per one thousand residents yields an increase of nineteen percent or an additional three hundred and twenty employees per square mile. The positive correlation between central city employment density and transit service also is associated with an increased productivity, which was calculated to be on average forty five million dollars per year for a metropolitan area. The results of the tests completed by Chatman and Noland were very positive in showing that there is a direct link of productivity and transit service in the context of central urban areas. Although the researchers believe that this comes in the form of more long-term benefits than many taxpayers are willing to wait in that to enhance an existing or develop a new transit system in a city is very expensive for the taxpayers. The taxpayers want immediate results for the money that is spent by the city, depending on the type of work that is completed the city could argue that the additional jobs and employee revenue is the immediate benefit that is gained by the citizens. 2.2. General Economic Benefits While the previous example showed how economic benefit could be gained on a small scale from public transit services, there are other benefits that are gained by investing in public transit using government funding. The general benefits are both induced and indirect; indirect coming from the purchase of materials for construction of the system that is to be installed, which can be spread across many companies in a metropolitan area as various materials will be needed [5]. Induced benefits are linked to the corporate services that come from construction and operations of a public transit system whether they are managerial, financial, or other professional services [5]. A study was conducted by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) that concluded that for one billion dollars invested in public transit there is a benefit of one and a half billion dollars from additional jobs and tax revenues [5]. Table 1 shows the benefits that are associated with every billion dollar spent of capital investments, operations, and the average. These results are astounding, nearly twenty four thousand jobs are created by a billion dollars capital investment and just over forty one thousand jobs are generated by a billion dollars in operations spending [6]. The results of the APTA study corroborate further the results of the study conducted by Chatman and Noland and add to the argument that there are direct linkages between establishing or enhancing public transit systems in a metropolitan areas. The factor that is not taken into account in the APTA study is the type of transit system; this information is critical for decision makers attempting to establish robust systems in their cities. In order to determine the most effective system type for a metropolitan area, a city needs to determine the impact that each system will have on their transit areas. Buses are less efficient modes of transit than rail systems because they are reliant upon traffic and make many stops, while rail systems such as light rail and subway systems can maintain more efficient schedules and have fewer stops [3]. Rail systems are more costly to build than buses because of the infrastructure that is required to operate, however if a city can show it’s taxpayers that for every dollar spent there will be one and a half dollar benefit it makes it easier to justify the expenditure for the more expensive system. 2.3. Economic Benefits of Atlanta’s MARTA System Bollinger and Ihlanfeldt conducted a study to determine the economic impacts that Atlanta’s MARTA (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority) has had on the city. The results do not favor the development of a limited rail based system. There were two conclusions that were made by the authors, the first being that MARTA has created no impact, positive or negative, towards the total population and

4  

employment around the MARTA stations and the second was that the employment opportunities shifted towards the public sector in regions with large levels of commercial activities [7]. There are many reasons why this may be true in the case of Atlanta, however this contradicts what the APTA study showed on the national scale and the research completed by Chatman and Noland on a small scale. The various reasons for the lack of success in Atlanta all revolve around the design and population density of Atlanta; the design of the city revolves around the dependence of automobiles and has spread as highways have expanded. “Modern urban transit systems rarely, if ever, provide a major effective increase in accessibility, because the areas served tend to be already more accessible by auto.” [8] Although this may be true, there are other methods that can be used to force the success of a transit system such as parking management. There are three steps that can be taken to enhance ridership of the system with parking management, the first is to provide free or discounted parking to those who ride the system, the second step is to reduce the available parking in the serviced area, and the last step would be to charge additional fees to use the reduced parking such that it is more cost effective to ride the MARTA than it is to drive and park in these areas. Providing the free parking near the MARTA stops for riders would attract drivers who now have reduced options for parking at their destination and will have to pay for parking at said destination. Although the results were not fantastic with Atlanta’s MARTA system, there are alternative methods to attract riders to the system outside of parking management and cities that are investigating the utility of developing a “limited” transit system can implement these methods to ensure the success of their investment. 3. Environmental Impacts of Public Transportation All of the impacts public transportation has on the environment are not positive in nature, however the negative impacts of public transportation often offset the negative impacts of alternative modes of transportation such as personal automobiles. One could make the argument that all transportation sources have a negative impact on the environment, however the levels vary depending on the mode. From a broad perspective transportation impacts the hydrosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, and the ecosphere [9]. Pollutants from transportation sources enter groundwater, which causes acidification and contamination by metals and nitrates. In addition to the direct impact of contaminants to the water and groundwater sources, the roads in which vehicles travel on hurt groundwater recharge because the runoff that is created does not allow for an equal dispersion of recharge to the groundwater; this effect is often overlooked by individuals who investigate the environmental impacts transportation sources have on the environment, however it can be highly detrimental especially in developing nations where aquifers provide a primary source of water. The lithospheric impacts of transportation arise from the increased levels of metallic ions that are released into the environment, which causes issues such as the loss of flora and fauna and the loss of nutrients in the soil [9]. Atmospheric impacts are derived from the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that impact the ozone and trapping additional heat in the troposphere and stratosphere. The impacts that occur within the ecosphere are broad and affect all living organisms; for animals including human beings there is a reduction in life expectancy and an increase in complications surrounding cardiovascular and respiratory systems because of the toxic emissions, for land organisms issues include a reduction in food supply for plants, soil erosion, reduction in groundwater availability and cleanliness, among other complications, and for the aquatic environment a reduction in nutrients that are available for aquatic species has broad implications to include reductions in populations and complete extinctions of species. On the contrary to the negative impacts that all transportation sources have on the environment, by using public transit there are noted benefits because of the collaborative nature of sharing a single mode of

5  

transit by multiple individuals. Trains are more efficient than buses, however the buses when fully occupied or even partially occupied are still more efficient in terms of energy consumption per passenger mile than a personally operated automobile. According to the Delaware Division of Waste and Hazardous Substances, commuter trains require nearly twenty-four percent less energy per passenger mile and buses require nearly nine percent less than a typical automobile [10]. In terms of fuel efficiency, a fully loaded commuter train car is fifteen times more efficient than an automobile with one occupant, a fully loaded bus is six times greater than that same automobile, and a bus with just seven passengers onboard is still more efficient than the car with just a driver [10]. From a hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions perspective trains release nearly one hundred percent less than automobiles, while buses emit twenty percent less carbon monoxide and ten percent less hydrocarbons than automobiles per passenger mile [10]. In addition to the tangible environmental impacts, public transit has other indirect impacts that from a long-term perspective aid the environment. These indirect impacts are primarily derived from a reduction in congestion on the roadways. If more people are using public transit instead of driving to work or other locations, then cars are sitting in traffic for less time so commutes become shorter and cars are idling for shorter periods of time, which allows vehicles to be more efficient. This increase in efficiency decreases the amount of pollutants that are released into the environment per passenger mile. Although there are quite a few negative environmental impacts associated with any source of transportation, using public transit reduces the direct and indirect impact commuters have on the environment by sharing the impacts with their fellow riders. What sort of impact does a limited transit system cause when commuters are still required to drive to get to the available transit? It will be greatly reduced because of the automobile trip, however if the transit can alleviate congestion in certain areas of a city it still has a positive impact on the environment overall, just not as great of an impact if the riders of the system that did not have to drive. 4. Kansas City 4.1. History of Streetcars in Kansas City During the early twentieth century, Kansas City boasted one of the most extensive streetcar systems in the country with a total of twenty-five lines and over seven hundred streetcars [11]. This extensive network that began in the nineteenth century with cars that were moved by horsepower, served nearly one hundred and forty million riders each year [12]. The extensive network that was established early on in the city’s history allowed for sustainable growth that consisted of a dense urban center that was primarily commercial use with single and multi-family homes surrounding the urban core. Kansas City was the third city in the United States to transform their streetcars to a cable railway system, which allowed the city to quickly become the third largest system in the country [14]. However, in the nineteen fifties, Kansas City expanded it’s highway system, much like many cities in the U.S. and saw a dramatic increase of residents moving to the suburbs away from the urban core. This highway expansion created many problems for the neighborhoods in vicinity of the city center and eventually properties became vacant and jobs began to move from downtown to other parts of the city [12]. This expansion led to the streetcar system to reduce its operations from twenty-five lines to three and finally ceasing operations in 1957; after the system was shut down, the streetcars were sold to other cities such as San Francisco and Toronto [11]. The last of the streetcar lines were transformed into bus routes and continued to see a decline in ridership. 4.2. Modern Expansion and Revitalization of Kansas City’s Urban Center

6  

In 2010, the population downtown was less than half of the population in 1950, however the city has made drastic efforts in recent years to attract millenials and other residents to the urban core; rental units in downtown are now nearly one hundred percent occupied and the tourist attractions now have over twenty million visitors each year [12]. The expansion has occurred as a result of both public and private investments, to include the Sprint Center (a twenty one thousand capacity indoor arena) and the adjacent Power and Light District, which houses many bars and restaurants that are attracting the city’s youth. The Power and Light District is one of the largest development projects to have been built in the Midwestern states, it is a mixed-use development that is built on nine blocks total and cost a eight hundred and fifty million dollars to complete; in 2009 the District received the Urban Land Institute Award of Excellence for it’s design [13]. The development of the Power and Light District was part of an overall five billion dollar “renaissance” of Kansas City’s downtown district. 4.3. Kansas City’s 21st Century Streetcar The successful development occurring in downtown Kansas City has led the city redevelop a single streetcar line. The line will cover just over two miles, is expected to cost one hundred million dollars, and is being called a “starter line” [12]. The route that was chosen by city planners and developers will link the areas of the River Market, the Central Business District, Crossroads Arts District, and Crown Center, which will link the city’s main entertainment districts with it’s art districts and another major transit hub, Union Station. The area that will be serviced by the streetcar comprises seventy percent of the commercial economic development potential in downtown Kansas City [15]. The city estimates that by building the streetcar, a total of eight hundred and fifty million dollars in economic development will occur in the subsequent fifteen years; already developers have invested over two hundred and fifty million dollars in new projects that are directly linked to the streetcar development [15]. Some of the investors of the new projects have never worked in Kansas City before, however stated explicitly that the allure of the streetcar project is what brought them to the city [16]. There are thirty-three new development projects total within the bounds of the transportation development district that Kansas City has established in vicinity of the streetcar [16]. 4.4. Paying for the Streetcar Kansas City received a twenty million dollar TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation to assist with the development, an additional seventeen million dollars from other federal grants, and used slightly less than sixty three million dollars in construction bonds to pay for the remainder of the project. The bonds will cost the city nearly four and a half million dollars annually for twenty-four years, in addition to the debt the streetcar’s operating budget is four million dollars, which means that for two miles of streetcar the city will need nearly eight and a half million dollars annually to own and operate the system [17]. The city established a Transportation Development District, or TDD, which is a component of the allure for developers. The TDD has expedited the permitting process for development projects from one month to a maximum of two weeks for building additions, new buildings, zoning alterations, and land development applications and a maximum of one week for tenant finish projects [18]. The TDD has been established within the bounds of the streetcar taxation district; in this district there is an additional one percent sales tax, an additional property tax on all real estate property, and every surface parking space has an annual taxable value of nearly fifty five dollars [17]. The additional property tax is forty-eight cents per one hundred dollar of assessed value where the assessed value is thirty two percent of the market value for commercial properties, for residential properties the tax is seventy cents per one hundred dollars of assessed value where the assessed value is nineteen percent market value, and nonprofit organization property is taxed at forty cents per one hundred dollars assessed value, however the first three hundred thousand dollars are exempted from the tax [17]. The sales tax generated four million eight

7  

hundred thousand dollars in 2014 and the city anticipates that value to increase in coming years with an increase in development in the TDD [17]. The individuals who live and shop in the TDD are the only ones that are directly paying for the streetcar (less the city wide public transportation sales tax), as there is no fare to ride the streetcar. The city determined that it would cost more to administer and execute enacting a fare than they would profit from the fare, however with a desire to expand the streetcar, will that sentiment change in the future? 4.5. The Future of the Streetcar Kansas City has already requested to develop a phase two TDD, which is setting the stage for the anticipated expansion of the streetcar system that would add an additional three lines as well as a rapid transit bus line, Figure 1 depicts the current streetcar line as well as the desired expansion lines [19]. The city anticipates that the current streetcar line and the desired expansion areas will increase total public transit ridership in the city between nineteen and thirty-six percent [15]. Expanding the system would not only cost an exorbitant amount of money in the development phases, but the city expects that the annual operating budget would be nearly twelve million dollars annually, which they expect to receive by expanding the boundaries of the TDD [15]. The expanded TDD will use the same tax standards as the existing TDD and the city expects that it would generate nearly fifty percent of the development costs for the expanded system from these taxes [15]. In addition to the public funds generated via taxes, the city is requesting additional federal funds to aid in the development of the expansion. The second phase of the project will connect additional neighborhoods to the central business district and has established the goal of developing vacant and underutilized properties in vicinity of the transit corridors as well as increase the population density in the urban core [12]. Based on community feedback and data analysis the expansion project’s various committees all concluded that the major goal of this project would be to revitalize neighborhoods and bolster economic development, while improving mobility and transportation options in the context of social equity were secondary goals of the project [12]. Less than twenty percent of all jobs in Kansas City are accessible via public transit, while less than half of the working age population live within walking distance to an existing transit stop; these statistics have ranked Kansas City ninetieth out of the largest one hundred metropolitan areas in the U.S. in terms of accessibility of public transit for work commuting [12]. The city hopes to increase it’s ranking and increase the accessibility of jobs via public transit with the expansion of the streetcar system in the coming years. 4.6. Financially, Does it Make Sense? There are mixed reports that indicate whether or not rail systems are as cost effective as buses, however from a riders perspective people are often more inclined to use transit when it is a rail system vice bus. Although there may not be any concrete research that has been completed regarding the Kansas City streetcar system to date, it is very telling that there are over thirty new developments underway in the TDD and for a majority of the projects, the developers have explicitly stated that they are investing there because of the streetcar system. If the city expands the system to have four streetcar lines and an express bus line, between the operational costs and the debt from development, the annual expenses may be more than the tax revenue. Although they may not obtain enough money from taxes, with an expanded system it would make sense to charge a fare for riders, as there would be more ridership, this additional revenue could offset the expenses, although it probably would not cover it all. Although again they may not be yielding enough profit to pay the debt and operational costs, the long-term investment of the system is what must be considered. If the city is able to complete phase two and then create a light rail system that could link the further out suburbs of Johnson County, the environmental and economic benefits would exponentially increase because of the commuters they could then attract whether they are going from the suburbs to the city center or vice versa. The potential positive economic and environmental impacts of

8  

the future system are unknown, however the city is making strides to move the city forward and they are doing so in an intelligent manner. 5. Other City’s Limited Rail System 5.1. Dallas Dallas, Texas has a one and a half mile streetcar that began operations in April 2015. It too received a TIGER grant from the Department of Transportation to develop the line and combined that along with other public funding to pay for the development of the system [20]. Dallas is already planning to expand the streetcar along the existing route to connect Dallas’s Union Station with the Bishop Arts District. Even though it has been operating for several months, leaders are more excited for the expansion of the lines than they are the existing line as there are not substantial documentation touting the development that has occurred as a result of the newly completed streetcar line. Dallas has a rather extensive public transportation system that consists of multiple modes of transit, light rail, commuter rail, buses, and now a streetcar, streetcar riders are able to access the other modes via one of the origination points of the streetcar at Union Station [21]. Another troubling component of the Dallas streetcar is it only operates Monday through Friday between 5:00 AM and 7:15 PM; these hours of operation do not capture a large component of riders that could benefit from the streetcar. Like many streetcar and public transit developments, the initial project is typically not the final project, however it appears as though Dallas rushed to use federal money to develop a streetcar that has limited impact on the city’s residents, even with the intended expansion route. 5.2. Atlanta Atlanta, much like Dallas and Kansas City recently began operating a streetcar in that performs a loop in the downtown portion of the city. The total length of the streetcar is two and seven tenths of a mile that consists of twelve stops that connects to the MARTA heavy rail lines that allows for connections to the remainder of the city [22]. Atlanta is also generating plans and requests for funding to expand the service an additional one and sixth tenths of a mile at an estimated cost of nearly sixty-three million dollars [22]. Atlanta anticipates that the streetcar and it’s expansion, will generate a total of over four million square feet of new office space and over five million square feet of new retail space in vicinity of the streetcar from new developments [22]. Atlanta’s system seems to have been thought out more thoroughly than Dallas’s streetcar as it runs through areas that experience heavy traffic by both tourists and commuters and provides a link between the light and commuter rails to the urban core. Although it connects these areas, in February 2015 a report was published that showed ridership was eighteen percent less than what the city had originally anticipated, just two months after beginning service; in addition to the lower ridership, the operating costs were nearly fifty percent higher than anticipated [23]. Critics say that the streetcar’s area of operations cover primarily tourist areas, therefore the ridership could increase during peak tourist season, an additional issue that critics had with the streetcar was that Atlanta did not alter it’s land-use policies to aid the streetcar development prior to service beginning [23]. 6. Limited Transit Systems Kansas City’s limited rail based transit system that is currently being developed is merely a starting point for the intended expansion of service to reach additional neighborhoods, so the city hopes. If Dallas and Atlanta’s transit systems are any indication of how Kansas City’s streetcar system will function when it becomes fully operational, it may not be a financially wise decision to expand the system, from a short-term perspective. This may be true in when looking from the perspective of these other two major cities that have existing transit systems that do not have an outstanding track record of ridership, however in a

9  

city like Kansas City where this is an invested interest in the downtown “renaissance,” the will of the people will go a long way to continue the momentum to carry the streetcar beyond what the current design. Although cities across the country have existing bus systems, research has shown that rail based systems have the propensity to attract more riders, therefore if cities are able to link the bus routes to the planned streetcars they are creating a multi-modal transportation system, which in itself is not a “limited” transit system, however increasing bus routes typically does not enhance development as rail transit systems have proven to do, especially in the case of Kansas City. The redevelopment of Kansas City’s downtown region that began prior to the announcement of the development of the streetcar has been enhanced by the streetcar and will continue to do so after it has been established and expanded. Kansas City’s development within the TDD is an agglomerated development, as defined by Chatman and Noland. The developers have targeted the specific region because of the benefits the streetcar will bring to their locations. This agglomerated development, albeit on a small scale in comparison to a city like Washington, D.C. where patches of development can be seen around the metro stations especially in the suburban city of Arlington, will begin to yield similar benefits when the system expands and allows more commuters to utilize the transit system. It would be difficult to imagine that by developing a very limited streetcar system Kansas City will yield close to forty-five million dollars in additional economic productivity, but it is the start of the future for the city. 7. Conclusions Certain cities have established themselves as having elite transportation systems in part because of their extensive reach; cities such as New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. have set the benchmark for the country to aspire to attain as each of these cities slightly less than or have grossly exceed one hundred trips per capita [2]. Major cities across the country should be working towards attaining values similar to these three, however cities like Los Angeles fall well below that mark with only fifty five trips per capita, which sadly still ranks in the top fifteen transit systems in the country [2]. Although some cities have attained great things, there are cities that will never attain similar levels of ridership from their existing public transit systems because of the limited nature (single-mode transit systems, typically buses). The economic and environmental impacts of public transportation systems are extensive, but are not always directly correlated to a transit mode and they are not always positive in nature. Economic impacts can be investigated from three different scales: national, regional, and local. It is often best to begin at the local level to see how the transportation systems are able to derive positive or negative impacts. There has been a multitude of research completed on the impacts of public transit on a local scale; Chatman and Noland’s research on how transit impacts agglomerations was cited extensively to prove that locally the impacts that transit systems make have great benefits. Their research concluded that if cities increase the seats available on buses and rails alike by four seats per one thousand residents there is a net increase of three hundred and twenty employees per square mile in urban areas, that is both jobs and employees. In addition to the additional employment opportunities, there was a positive correlation between employment density and transit service in that the economic productivity of an urban area increased by forty five million dollars annually with an increase in transit activities. On the national scale, for every billion dollars invested in transit, there is a net return of one and a half billion dollars between jobs created and tax revenues. The environmental benefits are associated with the collaborative nature of public transit in that each individual riding public transit shares a portion of the environmental impact that activity is generating. A fully loaded commuter train required twenty four percent less energy per passenger mile than a vehicle with one occupant.

10  

It is important for a city like Kansas City to look at the long-term impacts that developing a streetcar and associated transit capacities will have on the city. The short-term impacts of a new development are often negative, as seen by Atlanta’s recent streetcar development that in the first six weeks of operations, their budget had increased by fifty percent than what was initially expected and the ridership was eighteen percent lower than predicted. A direct link can be drawn between smart growth in downtown Kansas City and it’s newly developed streetcar system, albeit a limited transit system. There have been thirty new developments within the current TDD Kansas City established, many of which the developers explicitly stated they were drawn to the area because of the work the city is completing on the streetcar. There are multiple factors that are at work in alluring the developers to the region, the TDD has expedited permitting, the downtown region has undergone a “renaissance” redevelopment over the recent years that has increased the population of the downtown region exponentially, and the developers see the city making a long-term investment in the area. This long-term investment shows the developers that the city is focused on smart growth in the downtown urban core and as seen across the country, areas that are developed using these principles have property values that are continually rising. There is one key factor that has to be met to state that there is a direct correlation between limited public transit systems and smart growth in urban environments; public will. Dallas and Atlanta both have relatively extensive public transit systems, but both cities have attempted to expand their system to include a streetcar line; in 2012 Atlanta ranked forty-fifth in trips per capita with slightly less than thirty and Dallas was ranked a measly one hundred and second with slightly less than fifteen trips per capita. The key factor missing in both of these cities is the public will and demand for the public transit systems. If a city has the backing of the public, developing a limited transit system will enhance smart growth and will eventually lead to an expansion of the system, which will continue to provide benefits for even more of it’s residents.

11  

Table 1. Summary of Economic Benefits of Public Transit [6].

12  

Figure 1. Kansas City Proposed Streetcar Expansion [19]

References: [1] "Public Transportation Commuting U.S. Map." Public Transportation Commuting U.S. Map.

13  

Governing Magazine, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [2] Fischer-Baum, Reuben. "How Your City’s Public Transit Stacks Up." DataLab. Five Thirty Eight, 31 July 2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [3] Duany, Andres, Jeff Speck, and Mike Lydon. The Smart Growth Manual. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print. [4] Chatman, D. G., and R. B. Noland. "Transit Service, Physical Agglomeration and Productivity in US Metropolitan Areas." Urban Studies 51.5 (2013): 917-37. Web. [5] Weisbrod, Glen. Economic Impact of Public Transport Investment: American Experience and Applicability. Rep. Boston: Economic Development Research Group, 2013. Print. [6] Weisbrod, Glen, and Arlee Reno. Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment. Rep. N.p.: American Public Transportation Association, 2009. Print. [7] Bollinger, Christopher R., and Keith R. Ihlanfeldt. "The Impact of Rapid Rail Transit on Economic Development: The Case of Atlanta's MARTA." Journal of Urban Economics 42.2 (1997): 179-204. Web. [8] Knight, Robertl., and Lisal. Trygg. "Evidence of Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit Systems." Transportation 6.3 (1977): n. pag. Web. [9] Rodrigue, Jean-Paul. "The Environmental Impacts of Transportation." The Environmental Impacts of Transportation. Hofstra University, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [10] "Division of Air and Waste Management." The Environmental Benefits of Riding Public Transit. State of Delaware, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [11] Dodd, Monroe. A Splendid Ride: The Streetcars of Kansas City, 1870-1957. Kansas City, MO: Kansas City Star, 2002. Print. [12] "1. The Potential of a Streetcar System." NextRailKC. NextRail, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [13] "Developments." The Cordish Companies. The Cordish Companies, n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [14] Historic Properties Survey Technical Report Kansas City Downtown Streetcar Project. Rep. Kansas City: Kansas City Missouri, 2012. Print. [15] "Executive Summary." NextRailKC. NextRail, 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [16] O'Shea, Aidan. "More than a Year from Operation, Kansas City’s Streetcar Is Already Driving Investment Downtown." Smart Growth America. N.p., 14 Nov. 2013. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [17] Alcock, Andy. "A Streetcar Desired? Doing the Math on How the Taxpayer-funded Kansas City Project Adds up." KSHB. N.p., 02 Nov. 2015. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [18] "Downtown Streetcar Transportation Development District (TDD) Project and Coordination Program." City Planning and Development. City of Kansas City, n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2015. [19] "FAQ About Local Funding For KC Streetcar Expansion." City of Kansas City, Mo. City of Kansas City, n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2015. [20] United States of America. North Central Texas Council of Governments - Dallas, TX. Downtown Dallas - Oak Cliff Streetcar. By Jay Kline and Cheryle Tyson. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. [21] "DART.org - Dallas Area Rapid Transit." DART.org - Dallas Area Rapid Transit. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [22] "Atlanta Streetcar." Atlanta Streetcar. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [23] Schmitt, Angie. "Streetsblog USA." Atlanta Streetcar’s Early Ridership Numbers

14  

Disappoint. N.p., 20 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [24] Bowers, Eric. "Canon 5D Mark II Archives - Page 10 of 68 - Photoblog." Photoblog. N.p., 20 June 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2015. [25] Alonzo, Austin. "KC Streetcar Authority Hires Branding Firm, Talks Construction." Kansas City Business Journal. N.p., 30 June 2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.