mcmaster study

8/11/2019 McMaster Study

1/20

LIGHT RAIL, LAND USE CHANGE, AND IMAGE-LED PLANNING: A

COMPARATIVE REVIEW AND CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF

HAMILTON, ONTARIO

ABSTRACTPlanners and policymakers often cite the tangible objective of land use change and the intangiblegoal of altering image, branding, or perception as motivations and justifications for investmentsin light rail transit [LRT]. But how has light rail performed with respect to achieving thesegoals? This paper reviews and synthesizes the previous literature on LRT and other rail rapidtransit systems in North America, demonstrating that light rail alone is not a primary driver ofimage change and that a series of prerequisites must be in place for light rail to have ameasurable impact on shaping land use settlement patterns. An illustrative application of thisanalysis to the case of LRT in Hamilton, Ontario reveals a project that faces several challenges toachieving its stated goals.


2/20

INTRODUCTION

The past three decades have seen a remarkable growth in the number of light rail transit [LRT]systems in North America, with more route-kilometers of LRT constructed than any other typeof rail transit technology. This trend continues in the Province of Ontario, where all three levelsof government are actively engaged in an unprecedented expansion of light rail with 83.4 route-

kilometers of new projects worth $11.8 Billion approved and in the early stages of procurementand construction (Figure 1) and an additional 122.4 route-kilometers of new light rail lines andsystem extensions in various stages of planning and design.

The development of these new systems provides an interesting opportunity to criticallyexamine the light rail transit planning process, specifically the narrative crafted by policy andplanning actors to motivate and justify investments in LRT. As a city considers such aninvestment, the debate inevitably focuses on the benefits that can be achieved. This oftenincludes tangible objectives such as lower levels of congestion and air pollution and thepromotion of transit-oriented land use change, as well as intangible symbolic or emotionalbenefits, such as remaking the image of the host city as more modern and competitive in theglobal economy. In some cases, the accumulation of these benefits has been true. However, the

idea that these benefits are not only transferrable but inevitable in other host cities is ignorant ofthe North American rail transit experience, and making unsubstantiated claims of thetransformative powers of these systems is both irresponsible and hazardous to short and long-term public and political confidence in rapid transit as a tool for encouraging more sustainablepatterns of growth and travel.

This paper reviews and synthesizes the previous literature on rail rapid transit systems inNorth America with respect to their abilities to achieve tangible land use and intangible image-led planning objectives. The land use question has received considerable attention from a largenumber of authors, though this has resulted in a set of conclusions that are fragmented amongseveral works. On the other hand, the issue of rail transit in image-led planning remainsrelatively unexplored in the transit planning literature. In response to these shortcomings in theliterature, the paper presents a concise assessment of the prerequisites to inducing land usechange with rapid transit and clarifies the role of rail transit in city image and branding, drawingconclusions that should be considered by planners and policymakers in ex ante evaluations of theexpected benefits of such systems in other cities and regions in North America.


3/20

"

Figure 1 Light Rail Transit Projects in the Province of Ontario

LIGHT RAIL, LAND USE, AND IMAGE-LED PLANNING IN HAMILTON, ONTARIO

The impetus for this research is the $829 million 14km B-Line LRT in Hamilton, one of theseveral LRT projects underway in the Province of Ontario (Figure 2). Plans for bus rapid transitalong the corridor have existed since 1984, but it was not until the provincial election of 2007that Premier Dalton McGuinty championed the idea of provincial funding light rail along the B-Line, as well as the north-south A-Line to the Hamilton International Airport sometime in thefuture. In this sense, it is worth emphasizing that light rail was in many respects a provincialrather than local initiative.

In response, the City of Hamilton embarked on an extensive planning process for rapidtransit with an emphasis on light rail, beginning with two feasibility studies, the launch of asimultaneous land use planning process designed to promote transit-oriented development along

key transportation corridors in the city, and an extensive public consultation process to build agroundswell of support for the project. Based on these activities and a cost-benefit analysisconducted by the provincial transit agency Metrolinx (2010), the City of Hamilton was awarded$3 million to plan the B-Line project to a stage of 30 percent design, consideredimplementation-ready when funding is made available. As design work continues, plannersand policymakers involved in the planning process continue to present an investment in light railas one that will bring considerable benefits to the city, as discussed further below.


4/20

#

Figure 2 The City of Hamilton and the B-Line LRT

Currently in planning, the policy and planning narrative in support of the project is one heavilybased in the goals of city building and rebranding, attracting the curiosity of the authors to theassumptions informing these goals and the degree to which they are realistic and achievable inthe local context.

Like many cities, the primary goals of the B-Line LRT are to improve transit servicecapacity along the corridor, increase transit ridership, reduce pollution, and promote transit-oriented land use change and revitalization in the inner city and downtown core through theaccessibility advantages offered by LRT and transit-oriented land use planning initiatives. But incontrast to other rail systems, congestion relief is currently not a main driver of the rapid transitplanning process in the Hamilton context, though LRT is envisioned as a tool for maintaininglow travel times in the future.

According to the City of Hamiltons Rapid Transit Team (City of Hamilton, 2010d), aninvestment in LRT promises to:

Promote transit ridership

Induce new transit-oriented residential and commercial development

Revitalize Hamiltons lower city neighborhoods, waterfront, and downtown core by:o Stimulating higher density, mixed-use developmento Generating increased tax assessment


5/20

$

o Reducing automobile usage in the city core

Increase land values by 8 to 14 percent for properties within 800m of a light rail station

The ability of light rail to remake the citys image has also been a prominent theme, withLRT championed as a way to transform our community by altering internal and external

images and perceptions of the city (City of Hamilton, 2010). Fred Eisenberger, mayor ofHamilton from 2006 to 2010 and a pioneer of the campaign for light rail, notes that the projectcan be a catalyst to help Hamilton reach its full potential as a city and allow it to move aheadof the pack of medium-sized cities, not only in Canada, but in North America and around theworld (Eisenberger, 2011). Other actors have also contributed to this narrative, such as theeditor of the local newspaper who argues that Theres very little that promises to be astransformative to this citys fortunes its image, its collective self-confidence and its economicdevelopment as a quality light rail transit system and the Hamilton Light Rail communitygroup, which proclaims that LRT will bring billions of dollars of new investment to our urbancore, and show the world that Hamilton is an attractive, dynamic, and environmentallyresponsible place to live and do business. (City of Hamilton, 2010, p. 17)

These tangible and intangible propositions employed by planners and policymakers insupport of the B-Line LRT are valuable for helping to shape public and political support for theproject and laudable from a planning perspective. But the determination to market light rail as adriver of land use and image change raises important questions. How has light rail performed inrelation to these goals? Can LRT act as a driver of land use and image change on its own? Whatprerequisites must be in place to achieve such objectives? The paper now turns to a review andsynthesis of the empirical research on these issues to date.

Tangible Objectives of Light Rail Transit

To begin, it is useful to theorize the two broad tangible rationales that inform an investment inrail transit. As Cohen-Blankshtain and Feitelson (2011) explain, the first is to achieve high

levels of ridership by responding to existing travel demand, while the second is to create demandby affecting land use settlement patterns.

Existing Demand: Rapid Transit and Ridership

It is believed that the accessibility benefit obtained by providing rail transit service to acongested corridor will result in increased transit ridership and a cost-effective transit line, aswell as result in a reduction in congestion, travel times, and harmful emissions (Cohen-Blankshtain & Feitelson, 2011). However, previous research has been critical of the ridershipand cost projections used to rationalize investments in rapid transit in a number of cities, arguingthese systems have been subject to systematic cost overruns and ridership shortfalls (Flyvbjerg etal., 2005; Mackett & Edwards, 1998; Pickrell, 1992; Siemiatycki, 2009; Wachs, 1987).

What factors have contributed to this trend in rail transit infrastructure projects? Severalexplanations have appeared in the literature. Public sector auditors have tended to view theinaccuracy of projections as a result of technical errors in forecasting. Academic research hasadopted another perspective, viewing the chronic overestimation of benefits and underestimationof costs as strategic misrepresentation by project managers with a vested interest in a projectssuccess (Flyvbjerg et al., 2005; Siemiatycki, 2009).

Another explanation can be found in examining the connection between land use andtransportation where, at its most basic, the existing built environment provides a foundation for


6/20

%

travel demand. Early research established minimum densities required for cost-effective transitservice (Pushkarev & Zupan, 1977). More recent research has noted that the combined effect ofseveral measures of the built environment to be important in affecting travel behavior in additionto density, such as the diversity of land use mix, urban design, destination accessibility, anddistance to transit (Ewing & Cervero, 2010). For light rail specifically, recent work has further

explored the link between LRT ridership and factors such as residential and employmentdensities, transit accessible destinations, and service quality in the United States (Kuby et al.,2004) and Europe, Australia, and North America (Currie et al., 2011). Constructing light rail incorridors where these factors are present is crucial to attracting high levels of initial transitridership and the congestion and emissions benefits associated with it.

Induced Demand: The Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit

The second tangible rationale for an investment in light rail transit is to induce demand in areaswith unrealized developmental potential attributed to a lack of accessibility. It is argued thatonce a light rail line is constructed, these areas will enjoy higher land prices and higher densitydevelopment, which will in turn lead to increased ridership for light rail (Cohen-Blankshtain &

Feitelson, 2011). Indeed, many proponents of light rail argue that an investment in LRT can spururban growth, revitalize declining areas, and promote more transit-oriented development in acitys downtown core, inner suburbs, and outlying areas. But what does the literature sayregarding the impact of rapid transit investments on land use change?

Handy (2005) notes that in theory, rapid transit can potentially have both a generativeand redistributive impact on land use and development. However, a growing body of scholarlyresearch challenges the generative land use effects of rapid transit, arguing that rail transit on itsown cannot create new urban economic or population growth (Babalik-Sutcliffe, 2002; Black,1993; Hass-Klau & Crampton, 2002; Huang, 1996; Knight & Trygg, 1977; Loukaitou-Sideris &Banerjee, 2000; TCRP, 1995; Vesalli, 1996). Yet there is evidence that light rail and other rapidtransit systems can have a substantial redistributive impact and influence where and how growthin a region occurs (Cervero, 1984; Handy, 2005; Knight & Trygg, 1977; TCRP, 1995; Vesalli,1996). As such, rapid transit should not be understood as a primary driver of new growth andrevitalization, but rather as a tool to guide growth that would have occurred anyhow. But eventhe redistributive effect of rapid transit is dependent on a number of basic prerequisites (Cervero,1984; Cervero & Landis, 1997; Handy, 2005; Huang, 1996; Knight & Trygg, 1977; Vesalli,1996). A review of the literature has revealed six factors that contribute to the ability ofinvestments in rapid transit to promote development and land use change, without which railtransit is not likely to have a measurable impact on land use and development:

1. Increase in accessibilityAccessibility lies at the heart of locational advantages in an urban market whereindividuals base their locational decisions on a tradeoff between transportation costs andhousing consumption, and the attractiveness of higher-density, mixed use transit-orienteddevelopment is dependent on rapid transit offering a competitive alternative to othermodes for reaching destinations in the city. This includes accessibility at the start andend of a transit journey, emphasizing the importance of transit-based employment inaddition to transit-based housing. While there may be some latent demand fromindividuals who would self-select to locate in a station area, if rapid transit offers only amarginal or negligible improvement in accessibility and reduction in transportation costs


7/20

&

it is unlikely to create a transit-based locational advantage which can in turn impactridership and land use change. This is especially relevant in cities that are uncongested orwhere a spatially dispersed and automobile-oriented built environment is prevalent.

2. Positive regional economic, population, and employment growth and demand for

developmentThe land use impact of transit is conditional on the presence of regional economic,population, and employment growth that can be redistributed to a transit corridor and ahealthy real estate market with demand for higher-density living. Languishing growthand a soft real estate market can mean higher risks for developers and lenders and mayrequire significant market intervention to increase the supply of transit-oriented housing,though this does little to increase demand for such development. Demand also matters atthe local level, as even if a region is experiencing rapid economic, population, andemployment growth, there must be demand from developers to construct and individualsto live within the transit corridor. This prerequisite also suggests an element of timing, asthe potential redistributive impact of rapid transit is stronger if the facility was

constructed just prior to a period of rapid growth.

3. Positive social conditions in transit corridor and station areasSocial challenges, both real and perceived, can have long-lasting effects on the potentialfor land use change along a transit corridor, despite the best intentions of planners andpolicymakers. Positive social conditions play a vital role in the attractiveness of stationareas for development for developers, financers, and prospective residents. Criminalactivity can contribute to a perception of insecurity and other social issues such aspoverty, unemployment, the quality of schools or a general perception of disadvantagecan all but erase market demand for certain locations.

4. Positive physical conditions in transit corridor and station areas

High quality physical environments that are friendly to pedestrians and feature amenities,public improvements, and streetscape enhancements are more hospitable to transit ridersand thereby more attractive to developers, financers, and those presently or interested inliving there. Conversely, a deteriorated housing stock or incompatible land uses can hurtdemand for new development. This issue is related to the choice of transit corridor, asalignments in industrial areas or highway medians chosen for cost considerations cancreate a significant challenge to attracting transit-oriented land use change.

5. Available land for development and ease of land assemblyTransit-oriented development is much more straightforward and profitable for developersif large parcels of land are already available, cheap, and suitable for development. Landassembly can be a costly and time-consuming process and can benefit from the help ofthe public sector. In some respects development within established city cores may be at anatural disadvantage compared to greenfield locations, though development incentivesmay offset this.


8/20

'

6. Complimentary government planning and policyPolicies designed to incentivize transit-oriented development and level the playing fieldfor the transit mode are a critical factor in strengthening the relationship between rapidtransit and land use change. This includes a package of zoning, financing, and planningpolicies to promote transit-oriented development, parking and road investment policies

that restrict travel by automobile, and complimentary regional policies such as urbangrowth boundaries and densification targets and the correction of market distortions suchas the underpricing of automobile travel.

Intangible Objectives of Light Rail Transit: Image and Perception

Aside from the desire to achieve the tangible benefits of rail rapid transit, the construction ofmany such projects is grounded in a desire to cultivate a specific image, message, or perceptionto those within and outside the host city or region.

Discussions of such properties in the literature have previously focused on the role ofimage and perception as part of the decision to invest in a specific mode or transit technologyand are frequently invoked in support of light rail over bus rapid transit (and particularly for bus

rapid transit over regular bus service (cf. Cain et al., 2009; Levinson et al. 2002)) as LRT is saidto exhibit the perceived benefits of superior comfort, security, and reliability that stand to attractmore by-choice riders (Ben-Akiva & Morikawa, 2002), as well as a stronger message ofpermanence to property developers and patrons (TCRP, 1995). Nevertheless, recent researchsuggests that the differences in image between light rail and bus rapid transit may not be asstrong as originally thought. Rather than the choice of transit technology, Cain et al. (2009)found that the urban context in which a particular technology operated was a stronger predictorof positive image perceptions in transit rider focus groups rating light rail and bus rapid transitservices in Los Angeles. This finding lends credence to the argument by Edwards and Mackett(1996) that the preference for light rail over bus in many cities is irrational and rooted in politicalconsiderations that potentially crowd out more cost-effective options.

The City as a Brand: Rail Transit in Image-Led Planning

A particularly interesting topic beyond discussions of image in modal deliberations that has nottraditionally been the subject of much attention in the literature is the role of rail transit in urbanplanning rooted in image considerations at the city or regional scale. At its core, image-ledplanning is about marketing or designing the city as a brand and many cities have engaged inpromotional exercises based on what Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2005, p. 506) refer to as a needto differentiate themselves from each other, to assert their individuality in pursuit of variouseconomic, political or socio-psychological objectives.

While cities have engaged in forms of self-promotion for centuries, modern city brandingis considered a product of globalization. The increasing competition between places forinvestment, resources, employment, tourism, and human capital in a globalized economy has ledto a general recognition and validation of the application of marketing techniques to places bypublic sector actors as a means of achieving public goals, as well as a formalization of thepractice of selling places through the development of urban planning approaches and a toolboxof branding instruments (Ashworth & Voogd, 1990; Kotler et al., 1993; Ward, 1998). Todaysbranding exercises involve a mixture of promotional, functional, organizational, and financialmeasures employed by public sector actors to build consumer demand for and improve thecompetitiveness of a particular geographic location in the global marketplace.


9/20

(

One approach to city marketing and branding is the practice of urban planning in pursuitof specific image objectives, often manifested in the provision of infrastructure. Fromtransportation facilities such as rail lines, highways, or bridges to symbolic towers or super-tallskyscrapers, many cities around the world have turned to new construction as a means alteringperceptions and images of the host city. For rail projects specifically, Vuchic (1991) explains

that the construction of rapid transit systems can help serve as a landmark and presents anopportunity to give a city an identity. Indeed, many cities around the world associateinvestments in rail transit with a positive image of modernity and economic development and amethod of differentiation in a competition against other urban areas (Hass-Klau et al., 2004;Neuwirth, 1990; Siemiatycki, 2006; Van Der Westhuizen, 2007).

In North America, studies of Atlanta, Miami, and Detroit have identified the objective ofprojecting a world-class image as a major stimulus for investing in a new rail transit systems(Neill, 1995; Neuwirth, 1990). For light rail cities, both Dallas and Sacramento constructed theirLRTs in part to achieve world-class city status, with planners and policymakers in Dallas inparticular expressing a desire to compete against other major international trade centers likeChicago, New York, and Boston (Edwards & Mackett, 1996; Neuwirth, 1990). It is also

common to see rail rapid transit associated with a broader image of investment and revitalization.Buffalos Metro Rail LRT was constructed in part to address the real and perceived challengesposed by the decline of the downtown core (Cervero, 1984; Hess & Almeida, 2007; Neuwirth,1990), while the Blue Line in Los Angeles was designed to help revitalize inner-cityneighborhoods (Loukaitou-Sideris & Banerjee, 2000).

Such intangible justifications are often invoked during the light rail transit planningprocess to create symbolic or emotional messages surrounding the purported benefits of aninvestment in LRT and can elicit powerful responses from planners, policymakers, and thegeneral public. This process plays an important role in the transit planning process, as whenthese intangibles are combined with the more concrete goals and objectives outlined earlier, theyform the backbone of support for the political coalition required to bring a light rail or othertransit project from concept to reality (Knudson, 2009).

But can light rail transit address the significant challenges associated with revitalizationand project a positive and modern image not just to its own citizens, but to those around theworld? The presence of rail transit has been found to be a significant factor in the compositionof global- or world-city status among cities in the United States (Boschken, 2008). However, theability of rail transit alone to provide a world-class or global city status is questionable(Neuwirth, 1990). Boschken (2008) identified rail transit as one factor among many thatconverge to project this image, such as a large, monocentric urban area, a presence in the globaleconomy, global entertainment and media production, global research capacity, multiculturalexchange, and international transport gateways. Savitch (2010) argues that rail transit is afundamental element in promoting concentration, or the clustering of people, jobs, and mixedland uses in a city and the benefits this agglomeration affords. But like Boschken, Savitch viewsconcentration as only one of the four Cs alongside currency, cosmopolitanism, andcharisma that characterize the great cities of the United States. Likewise, Neuwirth (1990)cites similar characteristics in addition to transit that must be present to qualify as world-class.Each of these positions suggests that an investment in light rail is not an instrument foraccomplishing image change in and of itself.


10/20

)

A COMPARATIVE REVIEW AND CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF LIGHT RAIL IN

HAMILTON, ONTARIO

The paper now turns to a comparative review and critical assessment of the stated goals of the B-Line LRT. Because it is based on recent local conditions, this analysis is necessarilyhypothetical in nature and is designed to contrast and illuminate assumptions of land use change

and image-led planning in Hamilton with the preceding review of the literature.

Existing Travel Demand and Light Rail Ridership

Ridership and population densities along the prospective B-Line light rail corridor are currentlybeneficial to an investment in rapid transit. The corridor maintains the highest levels ofridership, productivity, and efficiency among the City of Hamiltons regular and express servicebus lines. The citys bus system carried 21 million riders in 2008, and the three east-westmainline routes that traverse the corridor together accounted for more than 9 million boardings in2007. Major trip generators along the corridor include the central business district, and thepotential light rail endpoints of McMaster University and the Eastgate Square shopping centre(City of Hamilton, 2010c). Density along the line is also reasonably high at 25 persons and jobsper hectare, rising to 200 persons and jobs per hectare in the downtown core, and it is estimated

that 17 percent of the citys residents and 20 percent of its jobs are within 800 metres of theprospective LRT corridor (City of Hamilton, 2009). Dwelling densities along the line of 17 unitsper acre are higher than the minimum of 9 cited in the literature in support of light rail(Pushkarev & Zupan, 1977) and comparable to the Canadian case of Calgarys LRT corridor(14.59) prior to construction (Cervero, 1985).

Land Use Considerations

Increase in Accessibility

If there is one defining feature of transportation in Hamilton, it is the citys abundance of one-way streets. Coinciding with the removal of Hamiltons electric streetcars, traffic planners in the1950s began a large-scale conversion of the lower citys main roads into one-way, high-speed,

and multi-lane arterials designed to expedite automobile travel to heavy industry at thewaterfront and the downtown core for commuters residing in the upper city. With a system ofsynchronized traffic signals and up to five lanes in each direction, travel by private automobile inHamilton is exceptionally easy. Furthermore, an abundance of parking in the downtown coreprovides greater end-to-end accessibility for automobile-based trips.

Unsurprisingly, the private automobile is the dominant mode of transport for thosecommuting to the lower city. But even out of those that live and work within the downtowncore, 75 percent choose to travel to work by automobile (City of Hamilton, 2010b). However,Hamiltons network of one-way streets, while ideal for automobile travel, is less than ideal forthe provision of cost-effective transit service and the promotion of transit-oriented development.In a congested city, rapid transit service can entice individuals to live closer to transit and

developers to construct housing to meet this new demand. But in an automobile-oriented citywith relatively free-flow traffic conditions, transit is likely to offer only a marginal accessibilitybenefit, if any benefit at all. Metrolinxs (2010) assessment of the benefits of the B-Line LRTnoted as much, arguing that its estimations of land use development potential are predicated onthe assumption of a two-way street conversion.

Future projections of road capacity and congestion carried out as part of the citysTransportation Master Plan (Figure 3) reinforce this position, noting that by the year 2031, evenin a base case scenario of growth and transportation maintaining current automobile-oriented


11/20

*+

patterns, there will be no east-west congestion along the vast majority of the prospective B-Linecorridor in the lower city (City of Hamilton, 2007). While the city has developed a plan forconverting some streets back to two-way traffic, to date, city council has shown little appetite foracting on a conversion of the main arterials, dropping this part of the plan early on in the process.For these reasons, light rail in Hamilton is unlikely to promote land use change based on an

increase in accessibility alone.

Figure 3 Transportation Master Plan 2031 Base Case Level of Service (Current Travel

Behaviour with Committed Improvements)

Positive Economic Conditions

A key prerequisite for achieving the land use potential of rapid transit is local economic,population, and employment growth. In this regard, Hamilton is performing reasonably well,

though its population and employment base is growing more slowly compared to prominentnearby municipalities. According to annualized compound growth rates from the CanadianCensus, between the years 2001 to 2011, the population of Hamilton grew 0.59 percent per yearversus 2.84 percent for the regional municipalities of Halton, Peel, York, and Durham.Hamiltons growth rate is similar to that of the City of Toronto (0.53 percent), though Hamiltonhas a large supply of greenfield land available for development and Torontos growth rateaccelerated to 0.88 between 2006 and 2011. Population growth in the lower city and downtowncore has generally been sluggish, with the majority of new growth occurring in suburban areas of


12/20

**

the city. Indeed, average home prices from the 2006 Census in the central and eastern lower cityare 22.3 percent lower than the upper city. However, recent assessment data from the MunicipalProperty Assessment Corporation (Figure 4) show that overall, properties in Hamilton increasedin value by 12.6 percent between 2008 and 2012, with higher-than-average gains in the westernhalf of the lower city, downtown core, and waterfront (Farley, 2012).

Employment growth has also been slow, though it is improving. Data from StatisticsCanada shows that the citys unemployment rate dropped from 8.5 percent in 2009 to 6.3 percentin 2011, falling further to 5.9 percent by the end of 2012, a rate that is 2 percent below theaverage for Ontario. Downtown employment saw a slow increase of 1,500 jobs in the centralbusiness district between 2001 and 2010 for a growth rate of 0.76 percent per year. Demand foroffice space in the downtown core remains soft with a high vacancy rate of 13 percent in 2010,though this is down from 15 percent in 2009. Likewise, vacancy rates for retail and commercialproperties are also high at 15.6 percent in the downtown, though this too is down from 19percent in 2004 (City of Hamilton, 2010a).

In addition to rising home values, there are number of signals of positive growthoccurring. As of the end of 2012, Hamilton saw approximately $1.5 billion in new building

permits, including the construction of several commercial, residential, and institutional projectsis underway in the downtown core, and new investment and the revitalization of housing stock inareas such as James Street North. The city was also named the number one for investment by theReal Estate Investment Network and the top city in Canada for attracting industrial andcommercial development by Site Selection Magazine (City of Hamilton, 2012). Furthermore,the future construction of a new GO Train regional commuter rail station off of James StreetNorth will offer all day bidirectional connections to the Toronto region. It is however unclearwhether such economic performance will continue into the future, though future projections ofpopulation and employment growth from the Government of Ontario estimate that Hamiltonsgrowth rate will accelerate as the rest of the Toronto region builds out to the Greenbelt urbangrowth boundary, adding 120,000 people and 90,000 jobs by 2031 (Government of Ontario,2006).


13/20

*"

Figure 4 Changes in Assessed Property Values in Hamilton for 2012

Positive Social ConditionsThe central and eastern sections of the B-Line LRT corridor are affected by a number of socialand demographic challenges. Data from the 2006 Canadian Census shows that compared to theupper city, the census tracts of the lower city are characterized by 22.5 percent lower medianfamily incomes and a higher percentage of children below the low income cutoff, governmenttransfers as a percentage of income, and number of high school dropouts. Additionally, researchby DeLuca et al. (2012) has shown serious disparities in determinants of health in the lower citycompared to the upper city and the rest of Hamilton. For example, Figure 5 details cumulativescores for census tracts in Hamilton on a number of health and quality of life indicators, with themost vulnerable areas (with the highest cumulative scores) located in the lower city.

Many of these indicators appear to be concentrated in the downtown. The core area

maintains a higher proportion of those between the ages of 25-64 that have less than a highschool education. One-quarter of those living downtown have attended university, compared to31 percent of those who travel to downtown for work. For individuals that live and workdowntown, the majority of incomes range from $0 to $29,999 and the highest proportion earnsbetween $10,000-$19,000, though nearly 7 percent have no income. The downtown is home to anumber of high paying jobs, with one-quarter of downtown workers earning more than $60,000,but these jobs tend to be held by those travelling to the CBD from elsewhere in the city (City ofHamilton, 2010b).


14/20

*#

Figure 5 Health, Social, and Economic Area Rankings, 2006

Crime and the perception of safety are also a factor in promoting land use change in thelower city and downtown core. Respondents to a survey conducted by the citys EconomicDevelopment department noted that more than 41.5 percent usually felt safe in the downtown,while 29.6 and 18.8 percent felt safe sometimes and never respectively (City of Hamilton,2010b). This feeling is supported by research from the Hamilton Police Service (2013) whohave identified several spatial clusters of violent criminal activity. Results indicate that themajority of violent crime is isolated to the lower-city and downtown core, precisely the areas inwhich the B-Line LRT will operate (Figure 6), though the spatial area of violent crime clusteringhas shrunk by 36.4 percent between 2009 and 2012. In contrast to the downtown core and eastlower city, the section of the line to the west of the CBD around McMaster University enjoysvalues for all of these indicators that are greater than the east and in many cases higher than

averages for the city as a whole.


15/20

*$

Figure 6 Violence-Prone Areas, 2009 and 2012

Positive Physical Conditions

Current physical conditions in many prospective station areas along the central and eastern

sections of the B-Line corridor present some challenges to their attractiveness to developers,financers, and buyers. Outside of the physical impact of the social conditions affecting the B-Line outlined above, such as a deteriorated housing stock, many station areas suffer from thedetrimental effects of Hamiltons network of one-way streets. While no research of the physicalimpacts of these streets exists for Hamilton specifically, early studies have examined thehumanist impact of streets on neighborhoods, observing adverse social impacts associated withone-way streets and high volumes of traffic (Appleyard, 1981; Jones, 1986). Later studies havecharacterized the negative impacts of one-way streets on commercial uses, noting that high-speed automobile traffic presents a hazard to pedestrian movement that erodes confidence in thephysical environment and discourages shopping in nearby commercial districts (Edwards J. D.,1998; Walker, Kulash, & McHugh, 1999).

Available Land

The B-Line LRT corridor does have a significant amount of land available for development. TheIBI group estimates that there are more than 500 vacant parcels totaling 243 hectares locatedwithin a two-kilometer radius of the proposed line, much of which consists of parking lots orvacant residential properties in the central and eastern sections (Figure 7). This total includes asignificant amount of industrial brownfield land (115 hectares), but these parcels are generallylocated far from the corridor in the citys industrial north end. Excluding brownfield sites, there


16/20

*%

are 128 hectares available for development. For parking, the City of Hamilton owns 63 lots inthe downtown core with another 28 privately held, and the vast majority of these are located inthe downtown core within 400 metres of the proposed LRT line. As such, there is a considerableamount of available land, much of which will not require land assembly or expensiveenvironmental remediation (City of Hamilton, 2009).

Figure 7 Parking and Vacant Parcels in the Lower City

Complimentary Government Policy

The City of Hamilton benefits from being part of an extensive regional planning exerciseunderway at the provincial level. Designed to address sprawling land use settlement patterns andcongestion in the GTHA, the Government of Ontarios Greenbelt and Places to Grow Acts of2005 and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe of 2006 as well as the attendanttransportation plans of the Big Move from 2008 provide a comprehensive transportation and landuse planning model for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area and wider region. Under thisplanning paradigm, development in Hamilton is subject to the Greenbelt urban growth boundaryand the city will be mandated to construct at least 40 percent of its new housing stock as infilldevelopment by the year 2015. At the local level, the City of Hamiltons Urban Official Plan iscommitted to achieving these targets by promoting medium and high density mixed-usedevelopment in designated nodes and corridors in advance of rapid transit, though it alsolargely continues to promote the outward expansion of suburban areas. Nevertheless, part of theB-Line LRT transit planning process includes an ongoing exploratory land use planning exercisedesigned to promote complementary land uses through transit-oriented design guidelines thatmay be implemented as policy in the future.

Image and Perception

Whether deserved or not, the City of Hamilton has a reputation for heavy industry and a blue-collar workforce. The main regional highway passing through Hamilton is in close proximity toheavy industrial concentrations and this has helped to shape perceptions. The city also maintains


17/20

*&

an image and perception problem among its own residents with a recent survey showing morethan 55 percent of Hamiltons citizens have either a negative or very negative view of downtowncompared to only 25 percent maintaining a positive or very positive attitude (City of Hamilton,2010b). However, as the literature review above has demonstrated, light rail and other rail transitin general is an insufficient condition for wholesale image change and must be combined with

other factors such as economic development if the City of Hamilton is to remake its image bothinternally among residents and externally to the Toronto region and beyond.

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that if a rail transit system is to have high levels of initial ridership it should be locatedalong a corridor with high levels of existing demand. However, it is often the potential forinducing transit-oriented land use change that emerges as a central planning consideration forachieving long-term ridership goals. But those involved in the transit planning process would dowell to observe years of research demonstrating that rail transit investments have struggled toachieve these goals in North American cities. Though these systems can bring considerabletangible benefits to host cities, the literature demonstrates that local conditions must be receptive

and a number of prerequisites must be in place if these systems are to achieve their ridershipobjectives and have a measurable impact on land use change.Illustrating these lessons through a critical comparative review of the B-Line LRT in

Hamilton reveals that if it were built today, some challenges will have to be overcome if it is toachieve its stated land use development goals. The B-Line corridor does feature a strongridership, population, and employment base on which to build, making a strong case for rapidtransit. However, this research demonstrates that along the whole B-Line corridor, localconditions compare favourably to three of the six land use change prerequisites noted in theliterature. There is an availability of parcels on which to build, complimentary governmentgrowth and transportation planning policy exists at the local and provincial levels, and localeconomic conditions appear to be heading in the right direction. However, the B-Line corridor,specifically the eastern portion of the planned line, faces a number of economic, social, andphysical challenges to attracting new demand and development, though the strengths in theseareas along the corridor from McMaster to the central business district does suggest somepotential for land use change in the western lower city and downtown core. Furthermore, thecity is actively engaged in a number of policy and planning programs designed to improveeconomic and social indicators in the lower city. But crucially, the arterial road network alongthe prospective corridor is uncongested and forecasted to stay that way with high road capacityand little interest shown to date in large-scale two-way conversions, thereby greatly reducing thepotential for any rapid transit-based locational advantage in station areas. Rectifying this placespublic planning actors in Hamilton in the interesting position of potentially having to alter areasonably free-flow transportation network in a way that creates disincentives for automobileuse for those travelling to, from, and within the lower city. Furthermore, implementing such aplan is sure to be no easy feat given an amalgamated governance structure with a majority ofcouncil seats in suburban wards overwhelmingly reliant on the automobile for travel.

Light rail has also been hailed as a transformative force for image change, able to reshapeinternal and external perceptions of a city as modern, progressive, and globally competitive. Todate, the transit literature has offered little clarification on the ability of rail transit to achievesuch goals. But as only one of several characteristics required to project a world-city image, railtransit exists as an important but insufficient factor for achieving the intangible image-led


18/20

*'

planning goals of city marketing and branding. In Hamilton, this analysis suggests that theability of the B-Line LRT to re-brand the city, at least on its own, is weak. Though light railmight help to some degree, achieving the projects broader image objectives is almost certainlycontingent on first realizing the B-Lines tangible economic, social, and land use goals, thoughas the analysis has shown, these goals are not without their own challenges.

To be clear, the B-Line LRT would undoubtedly have a positive impact on importantbroader planning metrics such as employment during construction, ridership, and qualitative userbenefits, especially in vulnerable neighbourhoods. However, the main motivations andjustifications behind the project appear to be primarily rooted in land use and image-ledplanning, hence the attention paid to them here. There is also no question that a narrative oftangible and intangible benefits is a fundamental factor in shaping public and political supportfor an investment in light rail and other rail transit. Nevertheless, the transformative power ofthe B-Line LRT and other LRT systems in general is greatly dependent on local context, andmaking unsubstantiated claims of their expected benefits in the face of local complexity weakensrail transit as a mode and policy choice in cities in the eyes of planners, policymakers, and thegeneral public. It has been more than 35 years since Knight and Trygg (1977, p. 245) cautioned

that Unreasonable claims of transits power to induce major land use change must be avoided.A similar message can be crafted for the role of rail transit in image-led planning. In response,rail transit is best understood not as a driver of land use change or as a panacea for image reformon its own, but as a singular, albeit potentially costly element in a long-term effort to reshape,revitalize, and re-brand host cities.

REFERENCES

Appleyard, D. (1981).Livable Streets.Berkeley: University of California Press.Ashworth, G. J., & Voogd, H. (1990). Selling the City: Marketing Approaches in Public Sector

Urban Planning.London: Belhaven Press.Babalik-Sutcliffe, E. (2002). Urban Rail Systems: Analysis of the Factors Behind Success.

Transport Reviews, 22(4), 415-447.Ben-Akiva, M., & Morikawa, T. (2002). Comparing Ridership Attraction of Rail and Bus.

Transport Policy, 9, 107-116.Black, A. (1993). The Recent Popularity of Light Rail Transit in North America.Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 12(2), 150-159.Boschken, H. L. (2008). A Multiple-perspectives Construct of the American Global City. Urban

Studies, 45(3), 3-28.Cain, A., Flynn, J., McCourt, M., & Reyes, T. (2009). Quantifying the Importance of Image and

Perception to Bus Rapid Transit.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.Cervero, R. (1984). Light Rail Transit and Urban Development. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 50, 133-147.

______, R. (1985). A Tale of Two Cities: Light Rail Transit in Canada.Journal ofTransportation Engineering, 111, 633-650.

Cervero, R., & Landis, J. (1997). Twenty Years of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System: Land Useand Development Impacts. Transportation Research Part A, 31(4), 309-333.

City of Hamilton. (2007).Hamilton Transportation Master Plan.City of Hamilton.______. (2009).Hamilton Rapid Transit Initiative: Economic Potential Study.City of Hamilton.______. (2010a).Downtown and Community Renewal Division: 2010 Annual Report.City of

Hamilton.


19/20

*(

______. (2010b).Hamilton Economic Development Strategy: 2010-2015.Hamilton EconomicDevelopment. City of Hamilton.

______. (2010c).Hamilton Street Railway Operational Review.City of Hamilton.______. (2010d).Moving Hamilton Forward with LRT.Public Works Department. City of

Hamilton.

______. (2010e).Moving Hamilton Forward with LRT.Public Works Department. City ofHamilton.______. (2012). 2012 City of Hamilton Annual Review.City of Hamilton.Cohen-Blankshtain, G., & Feitelson, E. (2011). Light Rail Routing: Do Goals Matter?

Transportation, 38(343-361).Currie, G., Ahern, A., & Delbosc, A. (2011). Exploring the Drivers of Light Rail Ridership: An

Empirical Route Level Analysis of Selected Australian, North American and Europeansystems. Transportation, 38, 545-560.

DeLuca, P. F., Buist, S., & Johnston, N. (2012). The Code Red Project: Engaging Communitiesin Health System Change in Hamilton, Canada. Soc Inic Res, 108, 317-327.

Edwards, J. D. (1998, September). Traffic Issues for Smaller Communities.ITE Journal, 30-33.

Edwards, M., & Mackett, R. L. (1996). Developing New Urban Public Transport Systems: AnIrrational Decision-Making Process. Transport Policy, 3(4), 225-239.Eisenberger, F. (2011, July 12). Why Light Rail Transit Matters. The Hamilton Spectator.Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis.Journal

of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265-294.Farley, C. (2012, November 17). 2012 Home Value Update. The Hamilton Spectator.Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M., & Buhl, S. L. (2005). How (In)accurate are Demand Forecasts in

Public Works Projects? The Case of Transportation.Journal of the American PlanningAssociation, 71(2), 131-146.

Government of Ontario. (2006). Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.Toronto, ON:Queen's Printer for Ontario.

Hamilton Police Service. (2013).An Overview of Violence-Prone Areas in Hamilton: ThreeYears Later.Corporate Planning Branch. Hamilton, ON: Hamilton Police Service.

Handy, S. (2005). Smart Growth and the Transportation-Land Use Connection: What Does theResearch Tell Us?International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 146-167.

Hass-Klau, C., & Crampton, G. (2002).Future of Urban Transport: Learning from Success andWeakness: Light Rail.Brighton, UK: Environment and Transport Planning.

Hass-Klau, C., Crampton, G., & Benjari, R. (2004).Economic Impact of Light Rail: The Resultsof Fifteen Urban Areas in France, Germany, UK and North America.Brighton, UK:Environmental and Transport Planning.

Hess, D. B., & Almeida, T. M. (2007). Impact of Proximity to Light Rail Rapid Transit onStation-area Property Values in Buffalo, New York. Urban Studies, 44(5/6), 1041-1068.

Huang, H. (1996). The Land-Use Impacts of Urban Rail Transit Systems.Journal of PlanningLiterature, 11(1), 17-30.

Jones, B. (1986). One Way to Neighborhood Deterioration?Journal of Planning Education andResearch, 5(3), 154-163.

Kavaratzis, M., & Ashworth, G. J. (2005). City Branding: An Effective Assertion of Identity or aTransitory Marketing Trick? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 96(5), 506-514.


20/20

*)

Knight, R. L., & Trygg, J. (1977). Urban Mass Transit and Land Use Impacts. Transportation, 5(1), 12-24.

Knudson, P. T. (2009). Coalition Formation and Metropolitan Contention: An Analysis of thePolitics of Light-Rail Transit in the Twin Cities of Minnesota. City & Community, 8(2), 177-195.

Kotler, P., Haider, D. H., & Rein, I. (1993).Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry,and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations.New York: The Free Press.Kuby, M., Barranda, A., & Upchurch, C. (2004). Factors Influencing Light Rail Station

Boardings in the United States. Transportation Research Part A, 38(3), 223-247.Levinson, H. S., Zimmerman, S., Clinger, J., & Rutherford, C. S. (2002). Bus Rapid Transit: An

Overview.Journal of Public Transportation, 5(2), 1-30.Loukaitou-Sideris, A., & Banerjee, T. (2000). The Blue Line Blues: Why the Vision of Transit

Village May Not Materialize Despite Impressive Growth in Transit Ridership.Journal ofUrban Design, 5(2), 101-125.

Mackett, R. L., & Edwards, M. (1998). The Impact of New Urban Public Transport Systems:Will the Expectations Be Met? Transportation Research Part A, 32(4), 231-245.

Metrolinx. (2010).Hamilton King-Main Benefits Case.Toronto, ON: Metrolinx.Neill, W. J. (1995). Lipstick on the Gorilla: The Failure of Image-Led Planning in ColemanYoung's Detroit.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 19(4), 639-653.

Neuwirth, R. (1990). Economic Impacts of Transit on Cities. Transportation Research Record,1274, 142-149.

Pickrell, D. H. (1992). A Desire Named Streetcar: Fantasy and Fact in Rail Transit Planning.Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(2), 158-176.

Pushkarev, B. S., & Zupan, J. M. (1977).Public Transportation and Land Use Policy.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Savitch, H. V. (2010). What Makes a Great City Great? An American Perspective. Cities, 27,42-49.

Siemiatycki, M. (2006). Message in a Metro: Building Urban Rail Infrastructure and Image inDelhi, India.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30(2), 277-292.

______, M. (2009). Academics and Auditors: Comparing Perspectives on Transportation ProjectCost Overruns.Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29, 142-156.

TCRP. (1995).An Evaluation of the Relationships between Transit and Urban Form.TransitCooperative Research Program, Research Results Digest. Washington, DC: TransportationResearch Board.

Van Der Westhuizen, J. (2007). Glitz, Glamour and the Gautrain: Mega-Projects as PoliticalSymbols.Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies, 34(3), 333-351.

Vesalli, K. V. (1996). Land Use Impacts of Rapid Transit: A Review of the Empirical Literature.Berkeley Planning Journal, 11, 71-105.

Vuchic, V. R. (1991, September). Recognizing the Value of Rail Transit. TR News, 13-19.Wachs, M. (1987). Forecasts in Urban Transportation Planning: Uses, Methods, and Dilemmas.

Climate Change, 11, 61-80.Walker, G. W., Kulash, W. M., & McHugh, B. T. (1999). Downtown Streets: Are We Strangling

Ourselves on One-Way Networks? TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium, 1-18.Ward, S. V. (1998). Selling Places: The Marketing and Promotion of Towns and Cities, 1850-

2000.London: E & FN Spon.

mcmaster study

Documents