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

COMPARATIVE REVIEW AND CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF

HAMILTON, ONTARIO


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


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 type
of rail transit technology. This trend continues in the Province of Ontario, where all three levels
of 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 procurement
and construction (Figure 1) and an additional 122.4 route-kilometers of new light rail lines and
system extensions in various stages of planning and design.
The development of these new systems provides an interesting opportunity to critically
examine the light rail transit planning process, specifically the narrative crafted by policy and
planning actors to motivate and justify investments in LRT. As a city considers such an
investment, the debate inevitably focuses on the benefits that can be achieved. This often
includes tangible objectives such as lower levels of congestion and air pollution and the
promotion of transit-oriented land use change, as well as intangible symbolic or emotional
benefits, such as remaking the image of the host city as more modern and competitive in the
global 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 of
the North American rail transit experience, and making unsubstantiated claims of the
transformative 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 sustainable
patterns of growth and travel.
This paper reviews and synthesizes the previous literature on rail rapid transit systems in
North 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 large
number of authors, though this has resulted in a set of conclusions that are fragmented among
several works. On the other hand, the issue of rail transit in image-led planning remains
relatively unexplored in the transit planning literature. In response to these shortcomings in the
literature, the paper presents a concise assessment of the prerequisites to inducing land use
change with rapid transit and clarifies the role of rail transit in city image and branding, drawing
conclusions that should be considered by planners and policymakers in ex ante evaluations of the
expected benefits of such systems in other cities and regions in North America.

"

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 the
several LRT projects underway in the Province of Ontario (Figure 2). Plans for bus rapid transit
along the corridor have existed since 1984, but it was not until the provincial election of 2007
that 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 the
future. In this sense, it is worth emphasizing that light rail was in many respects a provincial
rather than local initiative.
In response, the City of Hamilton embarked on an extensive planning process for rapid
transit with an emphasis on light rail, beginning with two feasibility studies, the launch of a
simultaneous 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 a
groundswell of support for the project. Based on these activities and a cost-benefit analysis
conducted 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, considered
implementation-ready when funding is made available. As design work continues, planners
and policymakers involved in the planning process continue to present an investment in light rail
as one that will bring considerable benefits to the city, as discussed further below.

#

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 heavily
based in the goals of city building and rebranding, attracting the curiosity of the authors to the
assumptions informing these goals and the degree to which they are realistic and achievable in
the local context.
Like many cities, the primary goals of the B-Line LRT are to improve transit service
capacity 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 the
accessibility advantages offered by LRT and transit-oriented land use planning initiatives. But in
contrast to other rail systems, congestion relief is currently not a main driver of the rapid transit
planning process in the Hamilton context, though LRT is envisioned as a tool for maintaining
low travel times in the future.
According to the City of Hamiltons Rapid Transit Team (City of Hamilton, 2010d), an
investment 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 development
o Generating increased tax assessment
$
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, with
LRT 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 of
Hamilton from 2006 to 2010 and a pioneer of the campaign for light rail, notes that the project
can be a catalyst to help Hamilton reach its full potential as a city and allow it to move ahead
of the pack of medium-sized cities, not only in Canada, but in North America and around the
world (Eisenberger, 2011). Other actors have also contributed to this narrative, such as the
editor of the local newspaper who argues that Theres very little that promises to be as
transformative to this citys fortunes its image, its collective self-confidence and its economic
development as a quality light rail transit system and the Hamilton Light Rail community
group, which proclaims that LRT will bring billions of dollars of new investment to our urban
core, and show the world that Hamilton is an attractive, dynamic, and environmentally
responsible place to live and do business. (City of Hamilton, 2010, p. 17)
These tangible and intangible propositions employed by planners and policymakers in
support of the B-Line LRT are valuable for helping to shape public and political support for the
project and laudable from a planning perspective. But the determination to market light rail as a
driver of land use and image change raises important questions. How has light rail performed in
relation to these goals? Can LRT act as a driver of land use and image change on its own? What
prerequisites must be in place to achieve such objectives? The paper now turns to a review and
synthesis 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 in
rail 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 demand
by 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 a
congested corridor will result in increased transit ridership and a cost-effective transit line, as
well as result in a reduction in congestion, travel times, and harmful emissions (Cohen-
Blankshtain & Feitelson, 2011). However, previous research has been critical of the ridership
and cost projections used to rationalize investments in rapid transit in a number of cities, arguing
these systems have been subject to systematic cost overruns and ridership shortfalls (Flyvbjerg et
al., 2005; Mackett & Edwards, 1998; Pickrell, 1992; Siemiatycki, 2009; Wachs, 1987).
What factors have contributed to this trend in rail transit infrastructure projects? Several
explanations have appeared in the literature. Public sector auditors have tended to view the
inaccuracy of projections as a result of technical errors in forecasting. Academic research has
adopted another perspective, viewing the chronic overestimation of benefits and underestimation
of costs as strategic misrepresentation by project managers with a vested interest in a projects
success (Flyvbjerg et al., 2005; Siemiatycki, 2009).
Another explanation can be found in examining the connection between land use and
transportation where, at its most basic, the existing built environment provides a foundation for
%
travel demand. Early research established minimum densities required for cost-effective transit
service (Pushkarev & Zupan, 1977). More recent research has noted that the combined effect of
several measures of the built environment to be important in affecting travel behavior in addition
to density, such as the diversity of land use mix, urban design, destination accessibility, and
distance 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 employment
densities, 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 in
corridors where these factors are present is crucial to attracting high levels of initial transit
ridership 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 areas
with unrealized developmental potential attributed to a lack of accessibility. It is argued that
once a light rail line is constructed, these areas will enjoy higher land prices and higher density
development, 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 spur
urban growth, revitalize declining areas, and promote more transit-oriented development in a
citys downtown core, inner suburbs, and outlying areas. But what does the literature say
regarding the impact of rapid transit investments on land use change?
Handy (2005) notes that in theory, rapid transit can potentially have both a generative
and redistributive impact on land use and development. However, a growing body of scholarly
research challenges the generative land use effects of rapid transit, arguing that rail transit on its
own 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 rapid
transit systems can have a substantial redistributive impact and influence where and how growth
in 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 and
revitalization, but rather as a tool to guide growth that would have occurred anyhow. But even
the 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 of
investments in rapid transit to promote development and land use change, without which rail
transit is not likely to have a measurable impact on land use and development:

1. Increase in accessibility
Accessibility lies at the heart of locational advantages in an urban market where
individuals base their locational decisions on a tradeoff between transportation costs and
housing consumption, and the attractiveness of higher-density, mixed use transit-oriented
development is dependent on rapid transit offering a competitive alternative to other
modes for reaching destinations in the city. This includes accessibility at the start and
end of a transit journey, emphasizing the importance of transit-based employment in
addition to transit-based housing. While there may be some latent demand from
individuals who would self-select to locate in a station area, if rapid transit offers only a
marginal or negligible improvement in accessibility and reduction in transportation costs
&
it is unlikely to create a transit-based locational advantage which can in turn impact
ridership and land use change. This is especially relevant in cities that are uncongested or
where a spatially dispersed and automobile-oriented built environment is prevalent.

2. Positive regional economic, population, and employment growth and demand for
development
The 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 a
healthy real estate market with demand for higher-density living. Languishing growth
and a soft real estate market can mean higher risks for developers and lenders and may
require significant market intervention to increase the supply of transit-oriented housing,
though this does little to increase demand for such development. Demand also matters at
the local level, as even if a region is experiencing rapid economic, population, and
employment growth, there must be demand from developers to construct and individuals
to live within the transit corridor. This prerequisite also suggests an element of timing, as
the 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 areas
Social challenges, both real and perceived, can have long-lasting effects on the potential
for land use change along a transit corridor, despite the best intentions of planners and
policymakers. Positive social conditions play a vital role in the attractiveness of station
areas for development for developers, financers, and prospective residents. Criminal
activity can contribute to a perception of insecurity and other social issues such as
poverty, unemployment, the quality of schools or a general perception of disadvantage
can 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 riders
and thereby more attractive to developers, financers, and those presently or interested in
living there. Conversely, a deteriorated housing stock or incompatible land uses can hurt
demand for new development. This issue is related to the choice of transit corridor, as
alignments in industrial areas or highway medians chosen for cost considerations can
create a significant challenge to attracting transit-oriented land use change.

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



'
6. Complimentary government planning and policy
Policies designed to incentivize transit-oriented development and level the playing field
for the transit mode are a critical factor in strengthening the relationship between rapid
transit and land use change. This includes a package of zoning, financing, and planning
policies to promote transit-oriented development, parking and road investment policies
that restrict travel by automobile, and complimentary regional policies such as urban
growth boundaries and densification targets and the correction of market distortions such
as 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 of
many such projects is grounded in a desire to cultivate a specific image, message, or perception
to those within and outside the host city or region.
Discussions of such properties in the literature have previously focused on the role of
image and perception as part of the decision to invest in a specific mode or transit technology
and 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 said
to exhibit the perceived benefits of superior comfort, security, and reliability that stand to attract
more by-choice riders (Ben-Akiva & Morikawa, 2002), as well as a stronger message of
permanence to property developers and patrons (TCRP, 1995). Nevertheless, recent research
suggests that the differences in image between light rail and bus rapid transit may not be as
strong 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 predictor
of positive image perceptions in transit rider focus groups rating light rail and bus rapid transit
services 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 political
considerations 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 not
traditionally been the subject of much attention in the literature is the role of rail transit in urban
planning rooted in image considerations at the city or regional scale. At its core, image-led
planning is about marketing or designing the city as a brand and many cities have engaged in
promotional exercises based on what Kavaratzis and Ashworth (2005, p. 506) refer to as a need
to differentiate themselves from each other, to assert their individuality in pursuit of various
economic, political or socio-psychological objectives.
While cities have engaged in forms of self-promotion for centuries, modern city branding
is considered a product of globalization. The increasing competition between places for
investment, resources, employment, tourism, and human capital in a globalized economy has led
to a general recognition and validation of the application of marketing techniques to places by
public sector actors as a means of achieving public goals, as well as a formalization of the
practice of selling places through the development of urban planning approaches and a toolbox
of branding instruments (Ashworth & Voogd, 1990; Kotler et al., 1993; Ward, 1998). Todays
branding exercises involve a mixture of promotional, functional, organizational, and financial
measures employed by public sector actors to build consumer demand for and improve the
competitiveness of a particular geographic location in the global marketplace.
(
One approach to city marketing and branding is the practice of urban planning in pursuit
of specific image objectives, often manifested in the provision of infrastructure. From
transportation facilities such as rail lines, highways, or bridges to symbolic towers or super-tall
skyscrapers, many cities around the world have turned to new construction as a means altering
perceptions 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 an
opportunity to give a city an identity. Indeed, many cities around the world associate
investments in rail transit with a positive image of modernity and economic development and a
method 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 of
projecting 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 their
LRTs in part to achieve world-class city status, with planners and policymakers in Dallas in
particular expressing a desire to compete against other major international trade centers like
Chicago, 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 challenges
posed 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-city
neighborhoods (Loukaitou-Sideris & Banerjee, 2000).
Such intangible justifications are often invoked during the light rail transit planning
process to create symbolic or emotional messages surrounding the purported benefits of an
investment in LRT and can elicit powerful responses from planners, policymakers, and the
general public. This process plays an important role in the transit planning process, as when
these intangibles are combined with the more concrete goals and objectives outlined earlier, they
form the backbone of support for the political coalition required to bring a light rail or other
transit project from concept to reality (Knudson, 2009).
But can light rail transit address the significant challenges associated with revitalization
and project a positive and modern image not just to its own citizens, but to those around the
world? The presence of rail transit has been found to be a significant factor in the composition
of global- or world-city status among cities in the United States (Boschken, 2008). However, the
ability 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 that
converge to project this image, such as a large, monocentric urban area, a presence in the global
economy, global entertainment and media production, global research capacity, multicultural
exchange, and international transport gateways. Savitch (2010) argues that rail transit is a
fundamental element in promoting concentration, or the clustering of people, jobs, and mixed
land uses in a city and the benefits this agglomeration affords. But like Boschken, Savitch views
concentration as only one of the four Cs alongside currency, cosmopolitanism, and
charisma 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 for
accomplishing image change in and of itself.

)
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 necessarily
hypothetical 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 currently
beneficial to an investment in rapid transit. The corridor maintains the highest levels of
ridership, productivity, and efficiency among the City of Hamiltons regular and express service
bus lines. The citys bus system carried 21 million riders in 2008, and the three east-west
mainline routes that traverse the corridor together accounted for more than 9 million boardings in
2007. Major trip generators along the corridor include the central business district, and the
potential 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 jobs
per 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 the
prospective LRT corridor (City of Hamilton, 2009). Dwelling densities along the line of 17 units
per 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 the
1950s 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 the
waterfront and the downtown core for commuters residing in the upper city. With a system of
synchronized traffic signals and up to five lanes in each direction, travel by private automobile in
Hamilton is exceptionally easy. Furthermore, an abundance of parking in the downtown core
provides greater end-to-end accessibility for automobile-based trips.
Unsurprisingly, the private automobile is the dominant mode of transport for those
commuting to the lower city. But even out of those that live and work within the downtown
core, 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 for
the 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 city
with relatively free-flow traffic conditions, transit is likely to offer only a marginal accessibility
benefit, if any benefit at all. Metrolinxs (2010) assessment of the benefits of the B-Line LRT
noted as much, arguing that its estimations of land use development potential are predicated on
the assumption of a two-way street conversion.
Future projections of road capacity and congestion carried out as part of the citys
Transportation Master Plan (Figure 3) reinforce this position, noting that by the year 2031, even
in a base case scenario of growth and transportation maintaining current automobile-oriented
*+
patterns, there will be no east-west congestion along the vast majority of the prospective B-Line
corridor in the lower city (City of Hamilton, 2007). While the city has developed a plan for
converting some streets back to two-way traffic, to date, city council has shown little appetite for
acting 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 prominent
nearby municipalities. According to annualized compound growth rates from the Canadian
Census, between the years 2001 to 2011, the population of Hamilton grew 0.59 percent per year
versus 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 Hamilton
has a large supply of greenfield land available for development and Torontos growth rate
accelerated to 0.88 between 2006 and 2011. Population growth in the lower city and downtown
core has generally been sluggish, with the majority of new growth occurring in suburban areas of
**
the city. Indeed, average home prices from the 2006 Census in the central and eastern lower city
are 22.3 percent lower than the upper city. However, recent assessment data from the Municipal
Property Assessment Corporation (Figure 4) show that overall, properties in Hamilton increased
in value by 12.6 percent between 2008 and 2012, with higher-than-average gains in the western
half of the lower city, downtown core, and waterfront (Farley, 2012).
Employment growth has also been slow, though it is improving. Data from Statistics
Canada shows that the citys unemployment rate dropped from 8.5 percent in 2009 to 6.3 percent
in 2011, falling further to 5.9 percent by the end of 2012, a rate that is 2 percent below the
average for Ontario. Downtown employment saw a slow increase of 1,500 jobs in the central
business district between 2001 and 2010 for a growth rate of 0.76 percent per year. Demand for
office 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 commercial
properties are also high at 15.6 percent in the downtown, though this too is down from 19
percent in 2004 (City of Hamilton, 2010a).
In addition to rising home values, there are number of signals of positive growth
occurring. 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 projects
is underway in the downtown core, and new investment and the revitalization of housing stock in
areas such as James Street North. The city was also named the number one for investment by the
Real Estate Investment Network and the top city in Canada for attracting industrial and
commercial 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 Street
North will offer all day bidirectional connections to the Toronto region. It is however unclear
whether such economic performance will continue into the future, though future projections of
population and employment growth from the Government of Ontario estimate that Hamiltons
growth rate will accelerate as the rest of the Toronto region builds out to the Greenbelt urban
growth boundary, adding 120,000 people and 90,000 jobs by 2031 (Government of Ontario,
2006).
*"

Figure 4 Changes in Assessed Property Values in Hamilton for 2012
Positive Social Conditions
The central and eastern sections of the B-Line LRT corridor are affected by a number of social
and demographic challenges. Data from the 2006 Canadian Census shows that compared to the
upper city, the census tracts of the lower city are characterized by 22.5 percent lower median
family incomes and a higher percentage of children below the low income cutoff, government
transfers as a percentage of income, and number of high school dropouts. Additionally, research
by DeLuca et al. (2012) has shown serious disparities in determinants of health in the lower city
compared to the upper city and the rest of Hamilton. For example, Figure 5 details cumulative
scores for census tracts in Hamilton on a number of health and quality of life indicators, with the
most 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 high
school education. One-quarter of those living downtown have attended university, compared to
31 percent of those who travel to downtown for work. For individuals that live and work
downtown, the majority of incomes range from $0 to $29,999 and the highest proportion earns
between $10,000-$19,000, though nearly 7 percent have no income. The downtown is home to a
number 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 of
Hamilton, 2010b).
*#

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 the
lower city and downtown core. Respondents to a survey conducted by the citys Economic
Development 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) who
have identified several spatial clusters of violent criminal activity. Results indicate that the
majority of violent crime is isolated to the lower-city and downtown core, precisely the areas in
which the B-Line LRT will operate (Figure 6), though the spatial area of violent crime clustering
has shrunk by 36.4 percent between 2009 and 2012. In contrast to the downtown core and east
lower city, the section of the line to the west of the CBD around McMaster University enjoys
values for all of these indicators that are greater than the east and in many cases higher than
averages for the city as a whole.

*$

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 the
detrimental effects of Hamiltons network of one-way streets. While no research of the physical
impacts of these streets exists for Hamilton specifically, early studies have examined the
humanist impact of streets on neighborhoods, observing adverse social impacts associated with
one-way streets and high volumes of traffic (Appleyard, 1981; Jones, 1986). Later studies have
characterized 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 the
physical 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. The
IBI group estimates that there are more than 500 vacant parcels totaling 243 hectares located
within a two-kilometer radius of the proposed line, much of which consists of parking lots or
vacant residential properties in the central and eastern sections (Figure 7). This total includes a
significant amount of industrial brownfield land (115 hectares), but these parcels are generally
located far from the corridor in the citys industrial north end. Excluding brownfield sites, there
*%
are 128 hectares available for development. For parking, the City of Hamilton owns 63 lots in
the downtown core with another 28 privately held, and the vast majority of these are located in
the downtown core within 400 metres of the proposed LRT line. As such, there is a considerable
amount of available land, much of which will not require land assembly or expensive
environmental 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 exercise
underway at the provincial level. Designed to address sprawling land use settlement patterns and
congestion in the GTHA, the Government of Ontarios Greenbelt and Places to Grow Acts of
2005 and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe of 2006 as well as the attendant
transportation plans of the Big Move from 2008 provide a comprehensive transportation and land
use planning model for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area and wider region. Under this
planning paradigm, development in Hamilton is subject to the Greenbelt urban growth boundary
and the city will be mandated to construct at least 40 percent of its new housing stock as infill
development by the year 2015. At the local level, the City of Hamiltons Urban Official Plan is
committed to achieving these targets by promoting medium and high density mixed-use
development in designated nodes and corridors in advance of rapid transit, though it also
largely continues to promote the outward expansion of suburban areas. Nevertheless, part of the
B-Line LRT transit planning process includes an ongoing exploratory land use planning exercise
designed to promote complementary land uses through transit-oriented design guidelines that
may 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 to
heavy industrial concentrations and this has helped to shape perceptions. The city also maintains
*&
an image and perception problem among its own residents with a recent survey showing more
than 55 percent of Hamiltons citizens have either a negative or very negative view of downtown
compared 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 transit
in 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 both
internally 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 located
along a corridor with high levels of existing demand. However, it is often the potential for
inducing transit-oriented land use change that emerges as a central planning consideration for
achieving long-term ridership goals. But those involved in the transit planning process would do
well to observe years of research demonstrating that rail transit investments have struggled to
achieve these goals in North American cities. Though these systems can bring considerable
tangible 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 ridership
objectives 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 to
achieve its stated land use development goals. The B-Line corridor does feature a strong
ridership, population, and employment base on which to build, making a strong case for rapid
transit. However, this research demonstrates that along the whole B-Line corridor, local
conditions compare favourably to three of the six land use change prerequisites noted in the
literature. There is an availability of parcels on which to build, complimentary government
growth and transportation planning policy exists at the local and provincial levels, and local
economic 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, and
physical challenges to attracting new demand and development, though the strengths in these
areas along the corridor from McMaster to the central business district does suggest some
potential for land use change in the western lower city and downtown core. Furthermore, the
city is actively engaged in a number of policy and planning programs designed to improve
economic and social indicators in the lower city. But crucially, the arterial road network along
the prospective corridor is uncongested and forecasted to stay that way with high road capacity
and little interest shown to date in large-scale two-way conversions, thereby greatly reducing the
potential for any rapid transit-based locational advantage in station areas. Rectifying this places
public planning actors in Hamilton in the interesting position of potentially having to alter a
reasonably free-flow transportation network in a way that creates disincentives for automobile
use for those travelling to, from, and within the lower city. Furthermore, implementing such a
plan is sure to be no easy feat given an amalgamated governance structure with a majority of
council 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 reshape
internal and external perceptions of a city as modern, progressive, and globally competitive. To
date, the transit literature has offered little clarification on the ability of rail transit to achieve
such goals. But as only one of several characteristics required to project a world-city image, rail
transit exists as an important but insufficient factor for achieving the intangible image-led
*'
planning goals of city marketing and branding. In Hamilton, this analysis suggests that the
ability of the B-Line LRT to re-brand the city, at least on its own, is weak. Though light rail
might help to some degree, achieving the projects broader image objectives is almost certainly
contingent on first realizing the B-Lines tangible economic, social, and land use goals, though
as 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 important
broader planning metrics such as employment during construction, ridership, and qualitative user
benefits, especially in vulnerable neighbourhoods. However, the main motivations and
justifications behind the project appear to be primarily rooted in land use and image-led
planning, hence the attention paid to them here. There is also no question that a narrative of
tangible and intangible benefits is a fundamental factor in shaping public and political support
for an investment in light rail and other rail transit. Nevertheless, the transformative power of
the B-Line LRT and other LRT systems in general is greatly dependent on local context, and
making unsubstantiated claims of their expected benefits in the face of local complexity weakens
rail transit as a mode and policy choice in cities in the eyes of planners, policymakers, and the
general 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 reform
on 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 of
Transportation Engineering , 111, 633-650.
Cervero, R., & Landis, J. (1997). Twenty Years of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System: Land Use
and 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.
*(
______. (2010b). Hamilton Economic Development Strategy: 2010-2015. Hamilton Economic
Development. 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 of
Hamilton.
______. (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 European
systems. Transportation , 38, 545-560.
DeLuca, P. F., Buist, S., & Johnston, N. (2012). The Code Red Project: Engaging Communities
in 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: An
Irrational 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 Planning
Association , 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: Three
Years Later. Corporate Planning Branch. Hamilton, ON: Hamilton Police Service.
Handy, S. (2005). Smart Growth and the Transportation-Land Use Connection: What Does the
Research Tell Us? International Regional Science Review , 28 (2), 146-167.
Hass-Klau, C., & Crampton, G. (2002). Future of Urban Transport: Learning from Success and
Weakness: Light Rail. Brighton, UK: Environment and Transport Planning.
Hass-Klau, C., Crampton, G., & Benjari, R. (2004). Economic Impact of Light Rail: The Results
of 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 on
Station-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 Planning
Literature , 11 (1), 17-30.
Jones, B. (1986). One Way to Neighborhood Deterioration? Journal of Planning Education and
Research , 5 (3), 154-163.
Kavaratzis, M., & Ashworth, G. J. (2005). City Branding: An Effective Assertion of Identity or a
Transitory Marketing Trick? Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie , 96 (5), 506-
514.
*)
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 the
Politics 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 of
Urban 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 Coleman
Young'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 in
Delhi, India. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 30 (2), 277-292.
______, M. (2009). Academics and Auditors: Comparing Perspectives on Transportation Project
Cost Overruns. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 29, 142-156.
TCRP. (1995). An Evaluation of the Relationships between Transit and Urban Form. Transit
Cooperative Research Program, Research Results Digest. Washington, DC: Transportation
Research Board.
Van Der Westhuizen, J. (2007). Glitz, Glamour and the Gautrain: Mega-Projects as Political
Symbols. 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.