Household income composition changes with rapid transit implementation: A natural experiment study of SkyTrain, Metro Vancouver, 1981-2016 by Danielle N. DeVries B.Sc. (Hons., Health Sciences), Simon Fraser University, 2016 Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Urban Studies in the Urban Studies Program Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences © Danielle N. DeVries 2019 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Spring 2019 Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation. Approval Name: Danielle N. DeVries Degree: Master of Urban Studies Title: Household income composition changes with rapid transit implementation: A natural experiment study of SkyTrain, Metro Vancouver, 1981-2016 Examining Committee: Chair: Karen Fergusen Professor, Urban Studies & History Meghan L Winters Senior Supervisor Associate Professor, Health Sciences Peter V Hall Supervisor Professor, Urban Studies & Geography Andy Yan External Examiner Director, City Program Adjunct Professor, Urban Studies Date Defended/Approved: March 12, 2019 ii Abstract Background—Rapid transit such as SkyTrain is beneficial to move people efficiently, reduce carbon emissions, and increase physical activity. However, these benefits attract new development resulting in rising housing prices that may consequently change the household income composition. Metro Vancouver has not skirted this phenomenon, with rapid population growth and signs of neighbourhood change near SkyTrain. Research Question—Does the household income composition change in areas nearby new SkyTrain stations? Hypothesis—After a new SkyTrain station opens, lower income households may initially have better access to rapid transit, but over time nearby areas shift towards higher income households. Methods and Procedures—This natural experiment study uses census data for Metro Vancouver census tracts (CTs) 1981–2016. Household income composition is measured using relative share of households (location quotient (LQ)) in three income categories. Exposed areas are within 1.6 km (20-min walk) of SkyTrain stations compared to the rest of the region. Spatial analysis visualizes geographic distributions using ArcGIS, and statistical analysis tests concepts with linear mixed effects models using R software. Results—The study assesses 374 CTs in 17 municipalities and finds areas nearby new SkyTrain stations start with a larger relative share of lower income households at baseline (1981) but shift towards more affluence over time. The areas exposed to SkyTrain changed in relative share of households faster than unexposed areas by LQ= -0.024, -0.012, and 0.026 more for very low, lower, and high income households, respectively, per census year (every five years). This means the relative share of each income group changed by 1–3% more in exposed areas than unexposed areas over every five-year period or a total change of 8–18% more over the entire study period. Conclusions—Future planning must consider SkyTrain does impact who lives in areas nearby and options to protect lower income housing with access to transit are needed. Keywords: rapid transit; neighbourhood change; displacement; household income; low income; transportation iii Dedication To my grandma, Carrol, you taught me that hard work, perseverance, and a never- ending passion for our work can take us places beyond our hopes and dreams. Thank you for being my strong female mentor, incessant supporter, reality reminder, and life- long friend. I love you. iv Acknowledgements First, I would like to acknowledge the continuous support and teaching I receive from my supervisor, Meghan Winters. You are a powerhouse, a wonderfully passionate and wise researcher, and I am so lucky to work with you and learn from you. The team (family) you have built in the CHATR Lab has been my academic support and personal stress reliever on many projects. To the team, Stephanie Sersli, Michael Branion-Calles, Kate Hosford, Caitlin Pugh, Lief Pagalan, Amanda Rowlands, Cassandra Mah, Moreno Zanotto, Jaimy Fischer, Colin Ferster, Merideth Sones, and new and future members, thank you for everything from learning to code to coffee breaks. To the members of the Urban Studies community, you have become another huge part of my academic family. Thank you to the professors, Peter Hall, Anthony Perl, Meg Holden, Karen Fergusen, Paddy Smith, and Matt Hern, for challenging me to think outside of my quantitative training into the world of urban theories, even when I resisted. Your pushing me elevated this thesis beyond what I thought it could be. To all of the students and alumni I’ve connected with, the members of my 696 class, and those who pushed me to expand my thinking with feedback on my work and collaborations in the USGSA, Kate Elliot, Holly Adams, Tanya Hebron, Joan Chamunorwa, Julianne King, Steve Tornes, Yida Lim, Zachary Strom, Rahil Adeli, Jordan Booth, Qara Clemente, and many, many more, I thank you for your support and friendship. Also, to Terri Evans, the program would not be what it is without you. Thank you for your support with academic planning and your quick answers to whatever questions I come up with. To my friends outside of my academic circles, thank you for putting up with months (ok, years) of my obsessing and sometimes complaining about my thesis work. To my room mate and dear friend, Anna Riabkova, you’ve seen the best and the worst. Thank you for always putting up with me, offering helpful cheering-up even when I don’t want it, and being there for stress relief and a good meal. To Layla Clarkson, we’ve been through this journey together from writing our master’s applications while our friends were out and about in Durban to our Salt Spring writing retreat to bring this paper to it’s finish line. Thank you for always being there. To my family, you are my reality check to ask me why the heck it is taking me so long to finish this thesis and remind me of all the wonderful things I’ll be able to do with v you in my free time once this project is complete. Thank you for being my encouragement and support from the start to achieve work in a field that I love and is a stable career. Yes, I am finally done, for real. Finally, to my colleagues at TransLink. I met you mid-way into writing this thesis, but the experience I gained internally and the support you have provided to complete this work while working full time has been a blessing. Thank you to all who provided feedback as I troubleshooted various angles to approach this data. It has been a comfort and encouragement to know that I have an audience excited to hear about my work in progress and results. Last and perhaps most importantly, I respectfully acknowledge that Simon Fraser University is located and my study takes place in the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish Peoples, who include the xʷməθkʷəy̓ əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱ wú7mesh Úxwumixw (Squamish), səl̓ilw̓ ətaʔɬ (Tsleil-Waututh), sćəwaθən məsteyəxʷ (Tsawwassen), qiqéyt (Qayqayt), SEMYOME (Semiahmoo), and Stó:lō (including q̓ ʷa:ńəƛ̓ ń (Qwantlen/Kwantlen), q̓ íc̓ əy̓ (Katzie), and kʷikʷəƛ̓ əm (Kwikwetlem/Coquitlam)) peoples. My thesis addresses current concerns with housing affordability and household income composition changes over the last 35 years that are concerning for access to transit and areas throughout the region. We should also consider these findings within the deeper, long-standing context of displacement from and access to traditional lands in the region over the last 200 years. vi Table of Contents Approval .......................................................................................................................... ii Abstract .......................................................................................................................... iii Dedication ...................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... v Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... vii List of Tables .................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures.................................................................................................................. x List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................. xi Chapter 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 1.1. Research Question ................................................................................................ 2 1.2. Hypothesis ............................................................................................................. 2 1.3. Normative Stance .................................................................................................. 2 1.4. Research context ................................................................................................... 3 1.4.1. Study Area – Metro Vancouver ...................................................................... 3 1.4.2. Public Transit in Metro Vancouver ................................................................. 5 History of Public Transit ..........................................................................................