$1.8 Billion

That's how much the development along the Charlotte light rail line adds up to. No small, change, that's over 250% return on the initial investment of just under $500 million. That's just on the development and doesn't include these savings:

Morgan said new mixed-use transit-oriented development has sprung up along the line. There’s numerous anecdotes about lifestyle changes, he said, including downtown workers living in condos or apartments near rail stations who have sold their cars and avoided insurance, gas and other costs while getting transit subsidies from their employers.

Shaking in Policy Boots

The opposition is getting worried and you can tell when their rhetoric starts to sound like this:

At the same time, many environmental groups, labor unions, consultants, and construction companies are urging the federal government to redirect federal transportation policy toward 19th century transportation options by shifting federal resources from highways and autos to transit and trains, as well as hiking and biking, in the belief that these latter modes--while slower and more costly--are more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly. With an opportunity to receive greater subsidies, the transit and train lobbies have moved aggressively to influence Congress and the media, and many in Congress are already promising to push for these changes.

In other words, watch out for BIG RAIL and SUPERTRAINS! Turns out, Obama doesn't listen to these dudes. We're looking at transit stimulus rather than Iran War Games at Heritage. The rest of the Heritage article is the usual shpiel about ridership share and all the other BS you come to expect from the sprawlistas.

This brings up another issue that Yglesias talked about today as well. With the auto industry, these guys (Cox and Utt) have been pushing hard in parrallel with the auto industry for standards that deny many people a lifestyle they would like to have and independence from an expensive habit.

The auto industry has provided a decent living to a large number of Americans for many decades. But it’s also been a very pernicious force on our public policy. If car companies expect progressives to deliver them a financial rescue, then it only seems fair to me that progressives will want the companies to stop blocking key elements of the progressive political agenda. That means dropping lawsuits like the one aimed at forcing California to lower its fuel efficiency standards, it means stopping involvement in whatever anti-green climate change front groups these firms are involved with, it means seeing members of congress from Michigan and other rust belt areas offering assurances to colleagues that they won’t stand in the way of serious climate legislation, etc.
...
These firms will be okay. Giving federal subsidies that are then used to lobby for pro-pollution public policy is not okay.

If only we could stop junk planning theory as well.

Go Walking!

From TCSP

Pent Up Demand, Synergy, & The Market

Chris Leinberger is hopping on the urban train so to speak. Brad Plummer's post over at TNR's The Vine has already gotten some coverage at Greater Greater Washington and The Bellows but here's the money quote that discusses the lacking supply of walkable communities people want but can't afford.

By his count, some 30 to 50 percent of residents in U.S. metropolitan areas want to live in a walkable urban environment—a trend fueled by the growing number of single and childless couples, who will constitute 88 percent of household growth through 2040. Trouble is, he estimates there are currently only enough walkable neighborhoods to satisfy about 5 to 10 percent of metro residents, which is why rents in transit-accessible areas are so exorbitant.

The other side of this as both blog posts noted above is the issue of land use and zoning. I'm going to throw another wrench in and say there has to be a market. There have been a few rail projects that hope the build it and they will come system will work but there needs to be a concerted effort and existing market to make it work precisely because of the problems with our zoning code. An example of this is Cascade Station in Portland. On the way to the airport, the Bechtel company traded building the line for the land at the station. Unfortunately 911 hit a few days close to the opening of the line and the market dropped out from under the developers.

There's also the synergy issue. Places like the Pearl District and the South End in Charlotte were the next places to grow and close to the downtown urban market. I would say the transit was able to shape the development intensity. Further down the South Corridor has been a bit slower to take off. Over time as the prime properties are expanded, I expect the development to move further south along the line.

So while I see there is demand for walkable urbanism as Chris calls it, there are timelines of implementation that should be mentioned as well so that people don't expect overnight change. The Rosslyn Ballston corridor didn't take off over night either. I feel like the synergy point is an important one that gets missed from time to time when people expect TOD everywhere once the line opens. It's a long term investment with long term results. It will be interesting to see what happens in Denver as the opening of the whole transit system almost at once under the Fastracks program. I have heard some state that the push and focus that happened along the Southeast Corridor won't be replicated because the demand will be spread out among all the opening stations. It makes for an interesting test of the synergy idea and whether transit will be able to focus the intensity as it has in other corridors that had all the attention.

On the issue of paying for lines, I think developers will get a major boost from the infrastructure investment and should pitch in, or at least not be able to keep the massive windfalls from the investment that was made by everyone. But its also dependent more on vacant and extremely underutilized property appreciation. More money will be generated through vacant to build out than the appreciation of properties that already exist. Too many people think value capture will always be the answer when sometimes it will not, because the increment is too small to generate the funding needed. These issues and a ton more are discussed in a recent paper on Value Capture by the Center for TOD. We'll discuss that piece another time.

Also, a while ago I covered some key quotes in Chris Leinberger's book, The Option of Urbanism. Here's the series post by post.

Series Intro
The Favored Quarter
The Endless Landscape
Real Development Subsidization
Metro Brings Change
Subsidizing the Rich

Poll Results: Stop the Silver Lie

Wow. You guys really don't like the Silver Line Phase 3 BRT project or as locals like to call it, the Silver Lie. I know its not a rail project but I thought it was an appropriate project to throw into the mix. Second was BART to San Jose and third was the San Francisco Central Subway which unfortunately for the project opponents got one step further to Federal Funding at the FTA with environmental clearance today.


I saw a few other poll ideas in the last poll series so I'll bring those up soon. I'll probably wait a few days as tonight is a pretty busy news night.

"A" Smart Switch

About a year ago when I heard that the A's were thinking about moving down to Hayward and far away from the BART station I thought they were crazy. Like location efficient housing where transportation was more expensive, they were just making their lives harder and profits smaller by deciding to locate so far away from the station. In fact they would have had to spend money on buses to bring people from the other side of the freeway to the stadium, or make their fans pay yet another fee to avoid the traffic.

Yet today they got a little smarter. I said a little because they were just talking about it instead of just doing it. Perhaps they were waiting for BART to San Jose to pass but this would really be a win win for everyone except of course the namesake of Oakland who loses the A's. As reported by SF Chron:

Here's a possible game changer - the Oakland A's will sit down this week with BART officials to discuss moving the team's proposed Fremont ballpark to within walking distance of the planned Warm Springs BART station.
...
Even Fremont Mayor and ballpark booster Bob Wasserman says he and his City Council colleagues "definitely" have to look at the idea, now that the tanking economy has forced the A's to put the rest of their "ballpark village" plan for 3,000 apartment and townhouses on ice.

Personally I think they should build the stadium on Broadway in Oakland along Auto Row. That whole area is just an explosion of redevelopment waiting to happen. Too many cars and too many parking lots on prime real estate. Anyone have money they can lend my development firm that doesn't exist yet???

Rail Advertisement Fail

Got a kick out of this one...

Paying the Rent

Insurance, depreciation and financing charges are major costs. "If you have two cars sitting in the garage, you can sell one for eight grand and that will help pay the mortgage,"

Who knew transit made money for you? The Washington Post has an article that in tone belays the shock that while gas prices are dropping, people are still taking transit. There are many who have known the benefits for years. It's like finding Narnia or something for those on the outside of urbanism though.

$600 Million for Streetcars?

Perhaps in Seattle soon. Maybe they'll beat out Portland or Minneapolis for first streetcar network. Fort Worth is hot on the heels as well. It seems to me that this would be a really long term bonus project with new jobs coming from the construction of the line and the densification that will come along the lines for years after construction.

Streetsblog.net Launches

For fans of our City Transit Advocates blog, you'll love Streetsblog.net.