Talk:Health impact of light rail systems

Air quality

 * One argument is that just because a light rail system is available in a particular urban environment, this does not necessarily mean that a significant number of residents will choose to give up their automobile. Furthermore, expansion replaces urban space which would have likely been used to build more streets/highways. Instead, there are more vehicles on more congested roads, leading to longer traffic times and contributing to increased amounts of smog and pollution. However, reputable sources could not be found to substantiate these claims.

Then why in God's name is this paragraph in the article at all? Can we delete this? MatttK (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is speculation about other pure speculation. Is that encyclopedic at all? Berkan~svwiki (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This article seems to be talking about Denver an awful lot
Without even saying so. Furthermore it brings up a whole host of weakly sourced and/or irrelevant points to paint light rail negatively Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Economic growth and development
This paragraph is mainly about economic effects of LR, and the displacement of poorer communities is already included in Negative consequences. I'd just completely remove this paragraph, as it brings nothing new to the topic this article is about Jan Lukas 22 (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)