Justifications for transit investments have included stimulatingcommunity revitalization, creating jobs, spurring economic development along a specific transit corridor, and maintaining and sustaining dense urban centers that are becoming paralyzed by automibile congestion. However, opponents of transit investments argue that the actual economic effects of transit do not meet these claims and do not warrant the expenditure of public funds. Transit studies have provided mixed evidence of whether or not the objectives are actually met by transit. A review of the transit literature was conducted to examine the existing economic impact reports for rapid transit systems in the united states and canada. Sample cities were chosen for case studies to test the varying opinions of policy makers, planners, business people, and developers on the objectives of transit investmentsand to determine the extent the objectives were achieved in each city. Four types of cities were sampled: older, established rail cities (boston, massachusetts); newer rail cities (atlanta, georgia); newer cities proposing rail transit (dallas, texas); and smaller, bus-oriented cities (hartford, connecticut). For each city, the transit system's characteristics, goals and objectives, and impact on economic development were discussed. Findings indicate that transit assists other factors in creating and directing new development projects, provides crucial access into highly congested downtowns, contributesto quality of life that makes a city more attractive for economic development, and provides economic opportunity for transit-dependent populations in urban areas. This paper appears in transportation research record no. 1274, Transportation and economic development 1990:proceedings of a conference, williamsburg, virginia, november 5-8, 1989.
Abstract