Where to Build: At Railway Stations
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 06.13.07
The Wall Street Journal is probably being bought by Fox so it is going all trendy and youtubular with videos and covering issues like this: The hottest development spots are no longer raw land but next to the local train stations. (we have covered this before) They continue: Demographic and lifestyle shifts are among the primary reasons many cities and developers are willing to bet on transit-oriented development. A growing number of households include singles and retiring baby boomers who are opting to live in smaller homes in urban areas.
"I think we have a collision of things going on -- a desire to revitalize our cities connecting with the growth of smaller households that are desiring denser and more-convenient living choices," says William Millar, president of the American Public Transportation Association, a nonprofit advocacy group in Washington, D.C. "This isn't to say that the traditional suburb is going away," he says, but there will be more housing built "for this demographic who desire walkable communities with easy access to transportation." ::Wall Street Journal
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
Lloyd beat me to this post so I got to add my 2 cents here. Where I live along the Philadelphia "Main Line" train route, homes within a roughly 4 block walking distance, even though old and smallish with one car garages, command a 10 to 40% price premium and get snapped up fast when they come on market.
There is often opposition to expansion of car parking at community train stations by people who have that narrow property value interest in mind and also don't want to suffer the added traffic car traffic and more crowded trains. In a societal sustainabilty sense, there is a certain wisdom to that selfish instinct to self protect.
The solution of expanded walking and biking networks, so that the 4-block circumference can be expanded greatly, covering many more homes, has not yet surfaced much as a public issue...but it surely will.
Building near a train station is great and all, don't get me wrong. Until the noise problem is solved however, we aren't going to see many people moving to these places if they can avoid it. I live over 2 blocks away from a train track, and its still freaking loud every time one passes.
Brandon, I'd guess being close the station where the trains are slowing to a stop is much quieter than your location stated as close to tracks. But those big cities where the trains come in underground are dreamy.
For Brandon: Also on the Main Line, there is a virtual land rush by developers to snap up old dilapidated commercial properties near train stations and turn them into high end condos and apartments. I imagine that there will be some serious sound proofing but the demand is real and has been written about extensively. Some mention of LEED certification has been made for these but that's not the main demographic driver.
Because of the high rents for residences and businesses in NYC, there is a significant movement of people and businesses from NYC to downtown Philly, where another condo boom is on in response to that trend. At the same time, wealthy suburbanites who now want to sell their homes in retirement and have lost an interest in driving into the City are the ones snapping up those Main Line condos, from which they can walk to the train and enjoy access to the City. The two trends together are putting a squeeze on young people who formerly could afford to live in and close to Philadelphia.
This makes sense all around, and the trend the WSJ has picked up on has been in play for a few years now.
Not every location next to every rail line is optimal for development. For a passenger rail line (or any transit) to be efficient enough to be justified, there needs to be sufficient density of potential users clustered around the stops Existing rail infrastructure is expensive, so it's wonderful to be able to leverage it for new or expanded ridership.
The density doesn't have to be high rise to be effective, but you do need to aggregate enough riders to justify the station. Every additional station lengthens the overall trip, and longer trips are not welcomed by commuters, who often make decisions on whether to drive or take transit based on their calculation of the worth of their time and trouble commuting.
A quarter mile radius around a transit station also has viability for dense housing, and will attract retail and services that will benefit from the concentration of users. Locations nearest the station will have the greatest value and often see the most intense levels of development, and the highest sales/lease rates.
This level of development and services also makes it possible to live near these stations and not require a car for most needs - it's much more than a commuter phenomenon. Lower costs from not needing a car or using it less helps to support the higher housing costs.
Brandon's noise complaints are really a criticism of the construction and maintenance of the rail line. While no transit is perfectly silent, it is well within the technology and capabilities of modern transit to have rail lines that are very quiet.
Tracks need to be leveled and rail sections welded together. Wheels need to be round - if they lock when braking they get flat spots that click or thump, and accelerate track wear. Brakes need adjusting so they don't squeal. Grade separation between tracks and roads will mean no need for clanging bells and flashing lights, and less train whistles.
It's a long way from rocket science, but often much more than a transit line is used to, or has the budget to implement. Help 'em out.
There needs to be something to be said about the benefits of Transit Oriented Development in lesser density areas. A lot of professionals in my field (urban planning) think that a low density area can't support transit. This is WRONG.
There are a lot of instances where development cannot occur (political or environmental constraints), but where a transit stop could be feasible. It's not as great as walking to the train, but it's better than driving the entire way.