Edmonton (Alta.) - 1969 - Implications of Providing Rapid Transit in the Urban Area

SD L BRARY

3052

1111

TOMMIOM69

IMPLICATIONS OF PROVIDING EDMONTON.-PLANNING

RESEARCH REPORT

IMPLICATIONS OF. PROVIDING RAPID TRANSIT IN THE URBAN AREA

March, 1969

CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT EDMONTON, ALBERTA 4403.1a .E3 :5H4 1969

I —Art Departivern LIBRP The Ci ty

of

E. „

IMPLICATIONS OF PROVIDING RAPID TRANSIT IN THE URBAN AREA

March, 1969.

Research Division City Planning Department

TABLE

OF

CONTENTS Page

A. Locational Effects

1

B. Economic Effects

3

C. Effects on Congestion

6

D. Implications for Other Facilities

6

E. Conclusion

7

APPENDIX Excerpts and Summarizations from Publications

Following Page 8

A. General Location Implications

1

B. Economic Implications

4

C. Congestion Implications

6

D. Implications for Other Facilities

7

Bibliography

Following Page 7

IMPLICATIONS OF PROVIDING RAPID TRANSIT IN THE URBAN AREA

In giving consideration to the possible implications for the City of Edmonton of the provision of rail rapid transit, the terms of reference were taken to be a brief, overall review of the effects as experienced in other cities and as suggested by studies made of the subject. Of these studies, some have been concerned with specific situations in which rapid transit has been proposed, while others have dealt with its effects in a more general way on the basis of location economics. The major aspect which has not been covered except in passing, has been that of the effects of rapid transit on the revenue and expenditure positions of urban areas, and on associated things such as the relationship between passenger volumes and rapid transit revenues, etc. This varies from place to place, depending on the particular situation and on the type of rapid transit employed, and would require a more detailed analysis of technical data than is given here.

The summary which is given here is based on the attached excerpts and quotes from various publications. They present quantitative data on dollars, number of persons, etc. which illustrate the points made in this summary. The library of the Planning Department was the main source of information.

A. Locational Effects Any improvement in transportation within an area has the effect of broadening and creating new choices in employment, housing, recreation, education, and so on. This applies to rapid transit when it has the effect of relieving congestion and bringing about a better distribution of development within the urban area. For smaller urban areas this result of implementing a rapid transit system is only marginal, and the benefits are usually not large enough to justify the costs involved. However, balanced against this must be

- 2 -

some judgment of the future benefits of incurring what may seem under present needs to be unjustifiable costs.

Although the effects of rapid transit most often considered are the economic effects, these reflect the locational implications. Land use patterns change, bringing about different land values with all the implications that this has for development (and for municipal revenues and expenditures). Some of the benefits cannot easily be measured in dollar terms, and are benefits which accrue to the community at large.

The consensus seems to be that the provision of rapid transit to overcome pressing traffic problems has the major effect of reversing the trend toward decentralization and dispersal of the metropolitan area. Development becomes more compact and orderly with improved access for larger numbers of people. This is true not only of commercial and business activity, but also of residential development which is provided for persons who prefer to live within a short distance of rapid transit facilities. High density residential development in the vicinity of transit stations in turn attracts commercial development to serve the residential population and those who patronize the rapid transit facility.

Where for some reason the pre-determined location of rapid transit lines is through areas where higher density residential development is prevented, or where for some policy reason high density development is not allowed to occur, then the success of rapid transit itself may be doubtful. Transportation and development should be planned jointly, since ease of access encourages development and development generates movement. If high density development is not possible, then provision of large scale access to the rapid transit either

- 3 -

in terms of parking or of feeder buses becomes necessary.

Rapid transit has been seen to strengthen downtown commercial development, since the downtown is more easily accessible. The natural tendency of metropolitan office and commercial functions to locate near each other is not offset by the problem of congestion. In addition, large downtown areas, which would otherwise be sterilized for development because of parking facilities, are freed for development, and the downtown becomes more compact.

In many areas it has been felt that educational facilities (universities, etc.) benefit from rapid transit provision. Aside from the reduction in congestion which benefits the whole community, the costs of access to educational facilities becomes cheaper and the facilities themselves become more accessible to the metropolitan population.

The brief facts outlined above have been concerned with the implications in terms of location and distribution within the area served. In addition, rapid transit has also been seen to attract new business and industry to the community, because of the benefits of locating in areas which have such a facility. In fact, the permanence of rapid transit in itself attracts commercial and residential development.

Rapid transit does not necessarily bring about development, but it does stimulate and shape it. Areas which have lines, develop faster than those which do not. In the broad context it enables the urban authority to regain control of the urban environment, shaping desirable land use patterns and reversing the trend to sprawl.

B. Economic Effects The gross impact of rapid transit on metropolitan areas is not always

)

- 4 -

apparent. Its effect on nearby land values, uses, and so on are more easily recognizable. One study suggested, however, that the greatest measurable monetary saving was to the community as a whole, greater even than the savings to individuals using rapid transit or to the municipal corporation providing transportation facilities of all types.

The most immediate impact of a new rapid transit facility is on land values along the transit right-of-way (whether subway or surface). Experience has shown that there have been large increases in land values as the transit system stimulates commercial and high density residential development. The greatest impact of this sort occurs in the adjustment period following directly after the provision of rapid transit where there was none before. Nevertheless, this higher value, relative to previous values, has also been an important feature of land adjacent to the rapid transit. The greatest change in land values appears to have occurred where completely new rapid transit lines have been built, as against transit using existing railway rights-of-way. In addition to the change in land values, the peLwanence of rapid transit has had a stabilizing effect on these values. A special instance of the locational impact of rapid transit, with the accompanying economic implications, has been the development of "air rights" over or associated with the transit lines. This has been quite significant in some instances, and because of the more direct involvement of the transit authority, it can have far-reaching implications in terms of the control and direction of development.

Recent cost-benefit studies of rapid transit have stressed that analysis of the economic impact of rapid transit must go beyond the simpler, more traditional aspect of considering only the revenues and expenditures of

- 5 -

operation. Such analysis must perforce be based on certain assumptions and estimates, but there is general agreement that the economic benefits have in the past been under estimated. Keeping within the area of municipal finance, it has been estimated that the increase in tax revenues from increased values of properties adjacent to rapid transit can be enough to offset the amortization of the capital costs. At the same time there will be decreased expenditures on highway construction and maintenance, costs which in the long run may be quite significant. The population redistribution and residential clustering which is encouraged allows for the cheaper provision of services to residential areas. (Rapid transit itself is cheaper and more profitable with high-volume origin and destination of the patronizers of the transit.)

The same cost-benefit studies have analyzed the economic implications beyond the area of municipal finance, and point out that a complete analysis indicates substantial savings to the public which are external to the rapid transit system. These economies are not always seen by the public because of the tendency to consider only out-of-pocket costs in making comparisons. The automobile thus has an artificial advantage in terms of such cost comparisons, since out-of-pocket costs for automobiles compare favorably with the costs of using public transportation. Current methods of charging automobile users for the services provided to them (the gasoline tax, licensing by size, etc.) are such that higher charges may not reduce congestion but only bring about technological changes in the automobiles. On this basis it is suggested that subsidization of rapid transit is justified. In fact, the provision of rapid transit does result in substantial savings to the public, in terms of automobile operating costs, time to users (and non-users) of transit because of reduced

- 6 -

congestion, a higher business turnover because of increased accessibility, fewer funds invested in parking facilities, increased returns to property owners, etc. Dollar estimates of these show that many communities cannot afford not to provide rapid transit, as the total returns are greater than the investment.

C. Effects on Congestion The effect of rapid transit on traffic congestion is really a special feature of its locational impact. However, it is through this feature that some of the locational effects are felt, providing the means whereby large numbers of persons can be rapidly moved about in the urban area. A well-planned rapid transit system can keep a significant number of automobiles out of the downtown area, where congestion is usually greatest. Some places which have relied heavily on a good freeway network in the past are now turning to rapid transit as a means of reducing the commuter trips which use these freeways.

In addition to this, where rapid transit has been co-ordinated with existing transit, total transit riding has increased. Rapid transit served by associated transit facilities stimulates the use of the whole system. It does not necessarily lead to a decline in use of these other facilities.

D. Implications for Other Facilities There are certain other associated facilities which must be provided or improved with the provision of rapid transit. An important one is the means whereby passengers can be distributed throughout the downtown. Studies have pointed out the importance of being able to move passengers away from stations, otherwise the congestion simply appears in another form and place. Not only that, but many persons will not use the rapid transit unless it can be conveniently reached in terms of time and distance to and from stations.

- 7 -

Higher density residential development which rapid transit encourages is traditionally essential for the success of the system. Situations may arise in which for some reason this higher density is not possible. When this occurs, providing large parking facilities at stations in outlying areas makes rapid transit successful in low density areas which ordinarily would not produce the passenger volume to support mass transit.

E. Conclusion The effects of rapid transit as considered in this brief survey are predicated on the transit being patronized. It must be attractive and convenient enough, and provide a quality of service that it will be used to its full potential. When these criteria are met it can have far-reaching implications to the benefit of the urban area.

It would appear that in the case of Edmonton, the proposed first stage may not have the effect on land use and values which has occurred in other situations. The rapid transit will make use of an existing railway right-of-way which will continue to provide noLial railway service. Thus, for the foreseeable future the industrial land uses associated with the railway will continue to predominate. Once the rapid transit is extended along rights-of-way acquired specifically for this purpose the land use effects will no doubt become important.

At the same time, however, the limited extent of the proposed first stage of Edmonton's rapid transit together with the nature of the areas other than downtown which it will serve raises some policy questions which may have far-reaching implications. In order that the rapid transit may fulfill its goal of being mass transit which moves large volumes of people (and thus contributing to the financial success of its operation), it should be readily

accessible to a large number of persons in residential areas. The first stage of the system proposed for Edmonton (excluding the University - Michener Park leg) may not meet this criterion unless additional steps are taken to attract passengers. One such course of action which is suggested by experience elsewhere is the provision of the so-called "park-n'ride" or "kiss-n-ride" facilities at the outlying stations. Alternatively, existing bus transit can be re-oriented to provide efficient "feeder" service to the stations, rather than focusing on the downtown area as is presently the case. This would also eliminate duplication of bus and rail rapid transit encouraging greater use of the rail transit. Several points on the rapid transit right-of-way suggest themselves for these alternatives.

It would appear that before arriving at policy positions with respect to rapid transit, serious consideration must be given to these and other questions. Co-ordination of planning and development objectives with rapid transit proposals can help to ensure rapid transit has the desirable consequences in terms of development patterns and movement of persons. At the same time such co-ordination will contribute to the financial success of the purely operational aspects of the rapid transit.

xIamaaav

Selected Excerpts and Summarizations from Various Publications Illustrating in a General Way the Implications of Providing Rapid Transit in an Urban Area (Numbers preceding each paragraph refer to the publication so numbered in the accompanying bibliography) A. GENERAL LOCATION IMPLICATIONS I. Within the Urban Area 1. (p. 10) Public transportation is cheaper per ride where high volumes of riders want to move at the same time from the same origin to the same destination points. Thus, trip origin or destination areas must have relatively high densities of activities - office, industrial, commercial, and residential.

1. (p. 11) A continuation of present trends will ultimately mean that downtown areas as we now know them will cease to exist as the major concentrations of economic activity in our metropolitan areas. Decentralization of work places out of the downtoWn area should be reversed.

A well-planned transportation system can facilitate this.

3a.(p. 11) Toronto (1962): Office buildings and apartments continue to sprout along the Yonge Street subway-rapid transit route. A seventeen storey office building on air rights over Eglington Station (northerly terminal). $15 million office building and shopping centre project on air and ground rights at Davisville Station.

3b.(p. 6) If mass transport is not revived on an adequate scale, some cities face the need of devoting from 40 per cent to 80 per cent of their central land area to highways and parking.

3b. (p. 16) New York (1962): Subway and bus services around the corner or a short block away are important to the rentability of apartments even in the luxury class, according to Julius H. Sherry, local builder, 2

-2-

3d. (p. 7) In addition to moving people efficiently, rapid transit has a beneficial and stabilizing effect on nearby land values. The permanence of rail rapid transit attracts commercial and residential construction, as has been proven in Shaker Heights, Toronto, and other cities.

3f.

(pp. 6,7) Nationally as well as locally the importance of a strong central city is receiving more and more attention and acceptance as the economic, governmental, and entertainment center, and major tax base. Where dispersal is evident you will find poor transportation. Dispersal in itself is not a desirable goal, but rather is the result of an inadequate urban transportation system.

3h. (p. 6) Baltimore (1966): Consultants reported that rail-and-bus mass transit system would: - insure growth-potential would not be restricted because of inadequate access or circulation in the downtown area; - reduce future parking requirements in the downtown area, assuring this land for commercial redevelopment and other uses; - provide added impetus for the development of urban renewal areas; - be expected to Influence population redistributions by focusing growth around stations, and in turn leading to more orderly growth in surrounding suburban areas. This in turn would help to reduce costs of providing such services as sewers and water supply.

3j. (p- 5) Transportation and development must be planned jointly. Ease of access encourages development, and development generates movement.

A plan for one makes sense only if integrated with an appropriate plan for the other.

3j.(p. 12) Development of rapid transit has consistently generated more compact and orderly development with a strong downtown and clustered residential development.

3k.(p.

4)

Berkeley (1968): B.A.R.T.ts (rapid transit) two new Oakland stations were deliberately place d close together to knot together the disparate elements of a spread-out downtown shopping and business area.

3

-34.

The advent of B.A.R.T. will inexorably and positively broaden and create new choices In employment, housing, recreation and education.

The location of rapid transit stations will lead to high rise apartments to accomodate people who prefer to be within walking distance of transit stops, and shopping facilities to take advantage of high traffic volumes and increased population.

5a.

At least 45 per cent of more than 8,500 students, as well as most of the faculty and staff members, are using rapid transit to get to and from the new commuter-type Chicago Circle campus of the University of Illinois.

5a.

A report on a new study of New York City travel habits showed that 45.8 per cent of top corporate executives travel all or part of the way to their mid-Manhattan offices via subways.

5b.

Toronto (1965): Washington Post article said it would be a mistake to conclude that the subway is creating development of new buildings, which is going on all over the city of Toronto. However, the article said that the subway is giving shape and texture to the city, revitalizing the sagging downtown by anchoring new offices and stores in the middle of things.

Sc. Rapid transit is a tool for the development of orderly use of land. As transit lines move into the suburbs, the areas which have the lines will be boosted three years in development as compared with the areas which do not have it.

5c.

Rapid transit has importance in the selection of sites for new urban universities. With respect to the establishment of ainew branch of the University of Massachusetts it was said (1967) that the universityls aim of providing high quality education at the lowest possible cost to students who might otherwise never be able to attend college means that it must remain a commuter institution on a site served by rapid transit.

2. From Outside the Urban Area

3h. (p. 7) Baltimore (1966): Studies conducted in other cities also

4

-4Indicate that areas with rail rapid transit systems enjoy a decided advantage in attracting new business and industry to the area, thereby creating new jobs.

B. ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS

1.(p. 12) In the competition between public and private transportation, the private automobile has the artificial advantage given by differences in methods of calculating and charging costs. The driver buys a vehicle and pays for insurance, taxes, and repairs in a lump sum; he does not consider these first costs as part of the cost of making a trip. Nor does he consider his part of the cost in the many facilities that make his trip possible. In contrast, public transportation accounting includes the costs of providing an average ride in the fares charged. Thus the out-of-pocket costs of the private automobile usually compare favorablY with the charge for public transportation.

I. (p. 15) It is clear that more rational behavior cannot be expected of the public so long as the choices are given incorrect price tags at the time and place where decisions are made. Higher gasoline and license taxes although they are needed to pay for facilities, probably would have little effect on usage other than to increase the trend to lighter and more efficient cars. If necessary, the public transportation system should be subsidized to the point that out-of-pocket costs are comparable.

2. (p. 14) With respect to Toronto rapid transit: Indications are that the fare box may not cover operating cost. No clear evidence is available as to whether or not the subway system has increased transit riding.

It is claimed by realtors that the subway system has produced a substantial increase in land values close to the subway but no studies have been made of the gross impact of the subway upon metropolitan land values.

3b- (p. 5) The new system in Toronto, Canada has proved without question that a modern mass rapid transit system adds value to the surrounding property and the property it serves in a measurable and substantial way.

3c. (p- 7) Toronto (1965): (along the Danforth Avenue subway) Average house values moved up $1,000 in two or three months. Toronto' $67 million Yonge Street line sparked an increase of more than $5 million worth of tax revenues over and above what might have occurred under normal development conditions - more than enough to cover amortization.

5

-5Two-thirds of all major building construction in a five-year period (1959-63) was within walking distance of the subway.

3e. (p. 11) San Francisco (1965): An economist for the San Francisco rapid-transit agency estimated a saving by it of $94 million a year above the annual capital cost of the system. This was based on fewer automobile accidents, lower car-insurance, faster trucking service, lower traffic control costs, and a $92 million annual saving on alternative capital costs for construction of highways, bridges, and 25,000 in-town parking spaces to meet 1975 needs amortized over 40 years.

3g. (p. 6) Toronto (1966): The Yonge Street line acted to revitalize the downtown district dramatically, and provided a strong incentive to new businesses enterprises to locate near the city's north-south axis. Between 1952 and 1962, tax asthssments along the downtown portion increased 45 per cent, and along the outer reaches by 107 per cent. This compares with an average ass6ssment increase of 25 per cent for Toronto as a whole over the same decade.

3j.(p. 4) Toronto (1968): An appreciation of $15 billion in physical value in the previous ten years, of which tw6-thirds is attributable to the existence of the Yonge Street subway. Houses bought for $15,000 to $25,000 were sold for $50,000 to $75,000.

3k.(p.

4)

San Francisco (1968): The advent of B.A.R.T. (rapid transit) has triggered a building boom exceeding all voter expectations.

4.

Land values will typically increase in areas near transit stations, especially when more intensive land use occurs. The greatest change in land values will probably occur where completely new transit lines are built, rather than where existing railroad beds are used.

5e.

By 1990, the S eattle metropolitan area would realize additional benefits totalling more than $93 million from a rapid transit system, according to a member of Seattle's rapid transit planning team. Operating costs at that time would be $30.4 million a year, for a net benefit of $62.7 million (in 1990 dollars). The $93 million is comprised as follows:

6

-6- $20.2 million by persons now dependent on buses, at $1.55 per hour; - $19.4 million by persons now dependent on automobiles (including time savings, etc.); - $30.2 million by persons not using transit, based on savings in travel time; - $6.4 million by the business community (truck-industry time-savings, reduced employee parking requirements, net sales increases to retail merchants); - $7.8 million to property owners through average annual returns from increased property valuations; and - $9.1 million to taxpayers (from increased tax revenues at current rates, and reduced highway operating and maintenance costs).

5g.

Stanford Research Institute study for Los Angeles rapid transit concluded that the $2.5 billion proposed system is a sound investment, on the grounds that a conservative estimate of total benefits of $253 million annually exceeds by 87 per cent the estimated annual operating cost.

Net annual benefits of $117 million are seen as being 44 per cent to travellers and 56 per cent to the community as a whole. An additional benefit not expressable in dollar terms is that rapid transit will present the ppportunity for the community to regain control of its urban environment, to shape the land use closer to its desires, to reverse the trend of sprawl and burdening government costs, and to make what appears to be the best, first major step toward a more balanced and diversified community.

5h.

A $1.7 billion, 71-mile rapid transit system for the Baltimore area is estimated by consultants to return $1.31 for every $1.00 invested (called a "conservative" estimate). Returns referred to money which would otherwise have to be spent on improved bus transportation and additional highways plus the increased taxes that could be expected from higher real estate values on property adjacent to and near the rapid transit stations. Also included in the reference to "return" was the money individuals would save in such items as automobile operating costs, parking, and travel time.

C. CONGESTION IMPLICATIONS 3e. (p. 9) Philadelphia (1965): Program of improvements, st eamlining, extensions, and better co-ordination with respect to rapid transit is estimated as keeping at least 50,000 automobiles off downtown streets each day.

3e. (p. 12) A reduction in air pollution.

-7-

5d.

Montreal (1967): The big effect of the Metro subway in boosting transit riding (total) was shown in the annual report of the Montreal Transportation Commission.

5f.

The Los Angeles Regional Transportation Study reported that while the freeway system will be capable of handling much of southern California's 1980 travel demands, a rapid transit system would provide relief on heavily-travelled routes. According to the study 11 to 50 per cent of the commuter trips might be diverted from freeways to rail rapid transit in four principal travel corridors.

D. IMPLICATIONS FOR OTHER FACILITIES

3c. (p. 9) A Chicago Area Transportation Study recommendation for Chicago's loop, nnd of growing significance to downtowns everywhere, is the need for downtown passenger distribution. (Moving sidewalks or other gradeseparated pedestrian ways as direct links or efficient connections between commuter railroad stations and the major buildings in the Central Area.)

3e. (p. 11) Louisville, Kentucky (1965): General manager of transit company (buses, trolleys, etc.) expects rapid-transit to augment regular transit business, as people "won't walk too far to or from a rail-head".

3i. (p. 9) The principle of providing large parking facilities at rapid transit and commuter railroad stations in outlying areas permits the application of rapid transit in population densities which otherwise would not justify this form of mass transportation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Planning Policy Committee, "Urban Transportation", American Institute of Planners, February, 1964 2. N.D. Lea and Associates, Urban Transportation Developments in Eleven Canadian Metropolitan Areas, Canadian Good Roads Association

3.

"Going Places", General Electric Company a. October-December, 1962 b. January-March, 1963 c. First Quarter, 1964 d. Fourth Quarter, 1964 e. Second Quarter, 1965 f. Third Quarter, 1965 g. Second Quarter, 1966 h. Third Quarter, 1966 i. First Quarter, 1968 j. Second Quarter, 1968 k. Third Quarter, 1968

4.

Long Range Planning Service, Mass Transit Systems, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California (1962)

5.

"Newsletter", Institute for Rapid Transit a. October, 1965 b. December, 1965 c. June, 1967 d. August, 1967 e. December, 1967 f. February, 1968 g. July, 1968 h. December, 1968