Light Rail and Urban Development in the United States
October 06, 2017
For much of the second half of the 20th Century, cities in the United States developed by suburbanizing – wealthier families fled urban cores and settled in outlying areas, where the size of one’s house became a preeminent status symbol. Yet over the last few decades, these trends have reversed, at least among young, well-educated millennials. Between 2010 and 2015, in all but six of the country’s 33 largest metropolitan areas, population growth among educated millennials in core cities eclipsed that of their surrounding suburbs, with such populations in 13 cities growing at more than double the rate of their suburbs. 
By Jack Weisman
But younger people aren’t simply choosing to live downtown on their own. In many of the country’s fastest growing cities, investments in public transit have allowed their regions to capitalize on the urbanization of millennials and generate significant economic returns. Public transit ridership rose 37.5% between 1995 and 2014,  turning cities like Denver, Seattle, Portland, and Minneapolis, all of which invested heavily in light rail transit, into models of smart, modern urban growth.
Arguably, the most notable transit success story is Denver, which continues to expand its 23-year-old light rail system and reap the benefits of new investment. Denver has focused heavily on transit-oriented development, which seeks to develop areas around transit stations into commercial and residential hubs, boosted by easy access to transportation facilities. In Denver, entirely new neighborhoods have popped up around light rail stations, with large, modern apartment buildings providing mixed-income housing to new parts of the city. Denver is also hoping to leverage its light rail system to aid its burgeoning tech sector, bringing new jobs and economic activity to the city.  Throughout the city, property values have skyrocketed near rail stations, with some neighborhoods experiencing threefold increases in land value.  Moreover, these benefits are not limited to Denver – in Dallas, a sprawling, car-friendly metropolis in a conservative state, extensions to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail system generated over $2 billion in economic activity in 2014 and 2015 alone. 
And light rail is not the only form of transit that has been shown to generate economic growth. Bus rapid transit, which takes advantage of the flexibility and low cost of a bus, yet requires the dedicated traffic lanes and frequent headways that makes rail transit so desirable, has been shown to be a valuable investment. Cleveland, Ohio’s Healthline bus rapid transit system, which connects the city’s academic and medical institutions with its downtown, is widely praised as a successful experiment in bus rapid transit. New commercial and residential developments along the Healthline corridor have turned a $50 million investment into an estimated $5.8 billion in economic development – a return of $114.54 for every dollar spent on the project.  The Healthline is a somewhat unique case, as a 2014 study by the American Public Transportation Association found that, for each dollar spent on transit, cities experience $3 in economic returns  – certainly a significant figure, but nowhere near the number achieved in Cleveland. Still, the Healthline demonstrates that the benefits of transit are not limited to large cities with populations used to using public transportation.
But any focus on urban development is accompanied by concerns relating to gentrification, and the displacement of those who previously lived in newly-popular areas around transit stations. In Washington, DC, the construction of a streetcar light rail line in 2016 has been criticized for promoting further gentrification in a city that is often cited as one of the country’s worst offenders. However, recent development in Minneapolis has made it clear that transit-oriented development can benefit, not displace, existing residents. Despite concerns that the Green Line light rail line would harm low-income residents along its route, developments along the line included new affordable housing units, funded by tax breaks and grants from the city government. Existing local restaurants have seen marked upticks in business, and many shops have received loans from the government to make up for any loss in business caused by construction.  Of course, Minneapolis is a single example, and many cities aren’t as willing to invest in limiting the harmful effects of gentrification. Still, Minneapolis demonstrates that, as long as transit systems are developed with their communities in mind, they can serve old and new residents alike.
While he was running for president in 2016, Donald Trump made repeated mention of a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, supposedly a massive investment in fixing the American roads, bridges, railroads, pipelines, and buildings that have fallen into disrepair over decades of apathy and underfunding.  While President Trump has done little to live up to the promises that candidate Trump made on the campaign trail, proposing a budget that slashes funding for the Department of Transportation and encourages significant privatization,  infrastructure remains an important issue, and one of few issues about which there exists bipartisan consensus on the need to prioritize new investment. The infrastructural needs of different communities can vary greatly, but in urban areas, investment in light rail and bus rapid transit is a proven tool for commercial and residential development, serving economically diverse communities.
Student Blog Disclaimer
The views expressed on the Student Blog are the author’s opinions and don’t necessarily represent the Wharton Public Policy Initiative’s strategies, recommendations, or opinions.
 Pete Saunders, “Where Educated Millennials Are Moving,” Forbes, January 12, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petesaunders1/2017/01/12/where-educated-millennials-are-moving/#56309b8cd3cc.
 Keith Barry, “Why More Americans Are Riding Public Transit than Ever Before,” Wired, March 11, 2014. https://www.wired.com/2014/03/rising-mass-transit-ridership.
 Colin Woodward, “The Train That Saved Denver”, Politico, May 19, 2016. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/what-works-denver-rail-system-growth-213905.
 Michelle Askeland, “Light Rail’s Impact on Office is Undeniable,” Colorado Real Estate Journal, March 16, 2016. http://crej.com/news/light-rails-impact-office-undeniable.
 Michael C. Caroll et al., “The Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Development near DART Stations,” Dallas Area Rapid Transit, May 11, 2017. http://www.dart.org/about/economicimpact.asp.
 Alison Grant, “Cleveland’s HealthLine Gives More Bang for the Buck than Other Transit Corridors, Study Finds,” Cleveland.com. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/09/clevelands_healthline_gives_mo.html.
 Economic Impact of Public Transportation Investment,” American Public Transportation Association, May 2014. https://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/Economic-Impact-Public-Transportation-Investment-APTA.pdf.
 Steve Hargreaves and Dominic V Aratari, “How the Twin Cities Got Transit Right,” CNN, October 21, 2014. http://money.cnn.com/interactive/technology/minneapolis-light-rail/index.html.
 Missing: Donald Trump’s Trillion-Dollar Infrastructure Plan,” New York Times, February 27, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/opinion/missing-donald-trumps-trillion-dollar-infrastructure-plan.html.
 Mark Niquette, “Democrats Rip Trump’s Infrastructure Plan as ‘Sleight of Hand’,” Bloomberg, May 24, 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-24/democrats-rip-trump-s-infrastructure-plan-as-sleight-of-hand.
It has been nearly eighteen months since the US-China Trade War began in July 2018, largely due to two main factors: the United States’ perception that trade between the United States and China is unequal, and that China has been participating in unfair intellectual property practices. As the trade war persists, United States exports have suffered, affecting both businesses and consumers, albeit in different ways.
President Donald Trump has shifted American trade policy since entering office, most famously starting a trade war with China. The president, however, has also started trade disputes with other nations, including long-time American allies. In particular, the United States and the European Union have faced increased trade tension. For example, the president revived a long-running disagreement between Boeing and Airbus by placing tariffs on Airbus. This dispute represents a case study into the origins and consequences of Trump’s trade policy.
Regulating Consumers’ Rights to Repair Products: The Debate Between Convenience and Intellectual Property RightsConvenience has become a top priority of many consumers in the 21st century. The onset of new systems that allow people to obtain their necessities (and desires) quicker and easier than ever has individuals increasingly calculating their time as an opportunity cost. This phenomenon extends to the field of consumer products, and has given rise to the “right to repair” movement. This movement refers to ongoing debates in the tech policy/regulation community around whether a consumer should possess the inherent and official right to repair the products they purchase without fear of voiding the product’s warranty. There are opposing sides and perspectives on this matter, both of which will be explored throughout this piece.
The longest war in United States history has dragged on for more than 17 years with no end in sight. As the Taliban only increases in strength in Afghanistan using funds from drug trafficking, U.S. counterterrorism and counternarcotics efforts in the region still undermine one another and remain unsuccessful. Even with a peak of 100,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and upwards of 2 trillion dollars spent including some future cost obligations since 2001, one of the world’s greatest superpowers has been continually defeated by a small flower - the opium poppy.
In the past few decades, forces such as globalization and the rapid advancement of technology have dramatically changed the structure of the U.S. economy. Perhaps the starkest example of this is the decline of certain geographically-concentrated industries, such as steel, textiles, and coal. Policymakers have responded to this by giving greater consideration to regions that have been “left behind” and policies that can help revitalize these communities. The majority of these policies are “placed-based” fiscal policies which provide additional resources to certain areas to fund projects and programs that make them more desirable places for firms to do business.
How can you exercise financial discipline while also meeting unimpeachable standards of quality? It is a demand faced by those charged with financing some of the most sensitive functions of our government – in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On the one hand, their central mission is to keep us safe – and to that end, no expense should be spared. On the other hand, they must be responsible stewards of taxpayers’ money – only spending what is necessary and maximizing the return on dollars spent. Failure on either front is an easy target for public and congressional scrutiny. This is one of the challenges for today’s FBI.
Over the past decade, technology has profoundly changed the way we live. From drone delivery systems to autonomous vehicles, our current society operates at a scale inconceivable to even the greatest innovators of past. However, with the rapid onset of technological development, questions arise regarding how the government should regulate new and unknown risks.
One of President Trump’s key campaign promises was to reevaluate the trade relationship between the U.S. and China. In 2018, the Trump administration imposed tariffs of up to 25% on over $250 billion worth of Chinese goods. In response, China imposed tariffs of similar severity on $110 billion worth of American goods, such as chemicals, coal, and medical equipment. Since then, the two largest economies in the world have been engaged in an escalating trade war, but the meeting between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping during the 2019 G20 summit signaled progress in negotiations. Here, the two leaders agreed to a ceasefire and a return to discussions for a trade deal.
K.Y. McChesney wrote a now-famous analogy between homelessness and a game of musical chairs. The people playing the game are low-income households and the chairs are affordable housing units. When the music stops, all of the players rush to claim a chair. If there are more players than seats, some players are left standing. In the same way, if there are more low-income households than available affordable housing units, some people are left homeless. In the current US game of “affordable housing musical chairs,” more players are being added and more affordable housing chairs are being removed – leaving more people standing when the music stops.
The rise of peer to peer fundraising on digital platforms has many questioning whether technology will usher in a new era for accessible capital formation. Traditionally, investment in early stage ventures is restricted to ‘accredited investors:’ those of sufficient net worth and income levels. Nonetheless, both Regulation Crowdfunding and ‘Initial Coin Offerings’ (ICOs) allow unaccredited investors to ‘get in on the action’, participating in early stage funding in return for equity.