Transit-Friendly Neighbors, Removed from Transit-Friendly Neighborhoods?

Transit-Friendly Neighbors, Removed from Transit-Friendly Neighborhoods?


Oct 22nd, 2010

By Yonah Freemark



Read More: http://americancity.org/columns/entry/2696/

Maintaining Diversity In America’s Transit-Rich Neighborhoods: http://www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/documents/TRN_Equity_final.pdf

New rail stations may be gentrifying neighborhoods to an extent that the people most likely to take advantage of transit services are being pushed out, forced to relocate because of higher prices. This is a claim that strikes deep at the heart of one of the most frequently used arguments in favor of new investments in transit systems, that it has the potential to produce significant ancillary development and therefore alter the structure of the urban environment, even as it increases mobility options for everyone.

A new study from Northeastern University’s Dukakis Center by Stephanie Pollack and Barry Bluestone doesn’t quite go that far. But it does indicate that there is a significant correlation between the construction of new transit lines and demographic change in neighborhoods. Is that to the detriment of the public transportation system, a sort of “cycle of unintended consequences,†as the report puts it?

These facts seem to demonstrate that the arrival of a new transit station will result in significant changes in the type of people who inhabit the neighborhood. Of the cities studied, those with light rail were the most likely to see major changes. The evidence related to increases in housing costs, owner-occupation, and automobile ownership seems to suggest that the population of these neighborhoods becomes wealthier over time. (This does not necessarily mean the poorer residents of the neighborhood have moved out; growing populations could mean simply a higher density over time. This study makes an assumption this this transition is happening.) Interestingly, this does not necessarily mean more white: Only half of new transit neighborhoods saw an increase in their white population relative to the region as a whole, with the other half seeing a drop.

Does that mean less transit use? The study shows that of the neighborhoods studied, 57% saw a larger increase in public transportation use than the metropolitan area. That should be expected, since the investment of millions of dollars in a new station should produce higher ridership. Troublesomely, however, 40% of the station areas had less of an increase in transit use than their respective regions. Is that a reflection of the changing demographics of the neighborhood?

As the study notes, “there is a symbiotic relationship between diverse neighborhoods and successful transit: transit systems benefit from and depend on the racial and economic diversity of the neighborhoods that they serve, just as low-income households and people of color depend on and benefit from living in neighborhoods served by transit.†If the improvement of transit options alters the composition of a community’s population so dramatically that it replaces lower-income people reliant on transit with middle- and upper-income individuals who aren’t, public transportation use may actually fall. It’s a perverse consequence of the fact that wealthy people now appear to want to live in places with transit options, but can’t necessarily be expected to take advantage of them in their daily commutes.

By evaluating changes in 42 neighborhoods around new transit stations in 12 metropolitan areas, the researchers found that:

* 64% of new transit neighborhoods saw higher population growth than the region as a whole

* 62% saw a larger increase in owner-occupied housing

* 62% saw a larger increase in median household income

* 74% saw a larger increase in rent

* 71% saw a larger increase in automobile ownership




A Chicago rapid transit train at Roosevelt Boulevard Credit: Flickr user Russell Sekeet (cc)

I don't buy into the whole gentrification issue. People that move into a neighbourhood came from somewhere and people who lived in the neighbourhood and moved out went somewhere. There are cycles and as long as there are always improvements happening in the worst neighbourhoods then the neighbourhoods that people end up in can't be that bad. It seems like the alternative is to leave the worst neighbourhoods alone but I would think that would leave people far more likely to feel stuck in a cycle they can't escape. The opposite to gentrification is the worst neighbourhoods get less desirable and the best neighbourhoods get more desirable. How is that an improvement?

The study suggests: " transit systems benefit from and depend on the racial and economic diversity of the neighbourhoods that they serve". I can understand the economic diversity having an impact but racial diversity? If there is any benefit to racial diversity on ridership then the obstacle to getting people on transit must be racism.

In a city where rapid transit is rare, sure land values will go up if a new LRT line is built, and that may well impact the local demographics. Things change starkly in established transit cities though - a walk through the Bronx or even our own Vic Park station neighbourhood will show that if transit is common in a city, new transit lines will not drive lower incomes residents out.

This certainly isn't true in cities with a lot of transit lines though (e.g. Paris, London, New York, Tokyo etc.) In those big cities usually the richest area has the best transit and the highest transit ridership (though many people still own cars). On the other hand there can also be good transit in poor areas which doesn't seem to affect land values very much (e.g. Bronx, Newark, Seine-Saint-Denis in the suburbs of Paris, also in Toronto Lansdowne/Bloor, Main/Danforth, around Lawrence West and Yorkdale stations).

Owning a car is expensive. If one does not need to use a car for work, errands, or just to get around, the better for all. That is why people will willingly pay more for a home near streetcars, subway, any kind of rapid transit, or the GO train.

That is a very good sign, in a way. It means that transit is becoming much more popular in the USA and thus people are willing to pay more to live near a major tranist line (something that has been obvious in Toronto for decades). Is this the end of auto-centric culture?

Now the municipalities need to leaverage those transit related building booms to get more public amenities and affordable housing.