HighLight Heading
July 2006
Research Conference Coverage
Impacts of Hiawatha LRT: residents cite noise, parking hassles
In a session on travel behavior and reliability, urban and regional planner David Laverny-Rafter presented his research studying the impacts of the Hiawatha light-rail transit (LRT) on station-area residents’ travel behavior and neighborhood quality of life. Laverny-Rafter is a Minnesota State University Mankato professor and an adjunct faculty member with the Master of Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) program at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
In October 2005, Laverny-Rafter’s research team surveyed residents living within walking distance (a half mile) of four Hiawatha LRT stations in south Minneapolis to determine whether LRT service has improved the quality of life in the area. The team wanted to delve deeper than Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements whereby sponsors of new capital investment projects, such as the Hiawatha Line, must collect information on the impact of their project. The survey, randomly distributed to 800 people, garnered 218 responses (27 percent).
Specifically, Laverny-Rafter’s team of graduate students asked area residents about their use of rail transit, feeder buses, walking, and bicycling; whether they were satisfied with public transit (e.g., frequency, reliability, quality of equipment and stations); and their perception of the impact of LRT service on neighborhood quality of life (in areas such as noise and pollution, safety, parking, and traffic). Responses—rating the quality of LRT, bus transit before and after the introduction of LRT, and neighborhood quality of life—were categorized as either “high” or “low.”
Overall, researchers found similar numbers of respondents rating neighborhood quality of life as high both before and after LRT. However, those rating it as low doubled, from 6 to 12 percent. According to Laverny-Rafter, more residents were upset with the additional noise, traffic hassles, and overflow parking since LRT began. Most residents (83 percent) rated the quality of transit service as high.
In terms of accessibility, the project documented that transit-dependent residents are being served, with many reporting travel-time savings, more travel options, and increased convenience. “People are seeing LRT serve broader options than just going to work,” Laverny-Rafter said.
Finally, the research team found that the advent of LRT resulted in increased overall transit use, though LRT ridership replaced many bus trips. However, 60 percent of those surveyed still choose to travel primarily by auto.
During another breakout session on the Hiawatha LRT, Gavin Poindexter, a research fellow with the State and Local Policy Program at the Humphrey Institute, discussed strategies to analyze and evaluate the economic and social impacts of LRT. He first examined how evaluations have been performed in similar environments, accounting for differences in mode types, and then analyzed which methods may be most suitable to evaluate the Hiawatha LRT.
Poindexter said a substantial amount of data has been collected on the Hiawatha LRT—“primary data” specifically to evaluate the LRT itself and “secondary data” originally collected for other purposes but available for evaluating LRT. Secondary data includes property valuations, demographics, police reports, tax information, and building permits. The challenge, he added, is mining this secondary data, though new technology is making the task easier.
Poindexter listed several organizations conducting evaluations, such as the Met Council, the cities of Minneapolis and Bloomington, Hennepin County, the University of Minnesota, and other research entities, and he considered ways key groups can work together to share data and produce better analysis and evaluation of the LRT.