Don,
I would argue that is a false positive. Absent the project most of that growth/development would have happened elsewhere. It is not growth, just redistribution of wealth and income. Proponents of public works projects never ask what would happen without the project and they often knowingly and falsely count redistributive effects as positive, which is completely wrong in economic terms.
Mac
Look at all the construction and home repair that will be taking place in the very near future (if not already) from a couple of storms (Coastal Texas and South Florida). On one side of the ledger it is a loss - on the other side of the ledger it is increased purchase of building supplies and labor to install all the building supplies.
I will admit that ‘community planners’ rarely know the total effects of what they are planning - especially of the employment market in the area of the plan ramains relatively stable. With a stable economy for the plan area, it is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
A lot of the first generation streetcar construction was promoted by real-estaste interests to open up ares for new housing construction. So economic development for light rail is nothing new Indeed the idea goes back to the land-grant facilitation of railroad construction in the 19th Century. And it has been proven that light rail does do a better job of attracting people to public transit who would otherwise drive and in some cases contribute to congestion. But I think a sense of proportion is rquired. To me, a light rail line with ridership of only 5000 riders a day must have some other purpose than either transportation or economic development of a normal nature. Possibly it is a tourist attraction in itself? Or just an expensive icon and loss-leader for an entertainment or shopping area?
In the case of Sound Transity, I think the overall figures show a gain in total transit ridership, which means that the light rail expansion there is doing its job. I have been told that on the local transit system the simple conversion of the Ballard bus line to electric trolleybus resulted in a 30% increase in ridership. This line is now being considered for rail, either light rail or streetcar, the difference being primariliy the amount of tunneling and PRoW as comopared with lanes shared with general traffic.
Sound transit ridership 1st three quarters up 26% over 2016. The unique I-5 auto traffic situation in the Seattle area can easily drive more to ride Sounder and Link. Bus traffic often gets mired on I-5 due to the many accidents and that happens about 4 times a week either north or south of downtown SEA.
For 3rd quarter detailed report with Sounder increasing almost 6%. Link increasing 19% which appears to be all the increase in ridership. Bus flat.
4th quarter results out for year link up 30 % for year sounder up 10%. Having trouble posting link