Transit-Friendly Neighbors, Removed from Transit-Friendly Neighborhoods?
A Chicago rapid transit train at Roosevelt Boulevard Credit: Flickr user Russell Sekeet (cc)
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?
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
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.
It should be noted that some of these effects may be in a city’s interest, whether or not transit ridership increases. Having higher-income residents move into a neighborhood may increase the local tax base and reduce negatives like crime and blight. At the same time, displacement of poor people may reduce their ability to get around easily by public transportation.
In order to prevent similar situations from occurring in other cities where new transit systems are installed, the Dukakis Center has produced a toolkit designed to suggest was to orient a transit station around the existing neighborhood. This may involve planning cooperatively, engaging the community, and developing community benefits agreements.
Ultimately, the effects of transit investments on communities vary significantly depending on the place. Some cities have seen significant gentrification in their new station neighborhoods, others have not; some areas feature high-income residents who use transit, others do not. But when planning expansions of transportation networks, it is essential to plan for these externalities. You don’t want to build a transit system that’s so appealing that no one rides it.
Yonah Freemark is an Urban Leaders Fellow, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation. He writes the Grassroutes column for Next American City. He also writes The Transport Politic blog. Contact him at yonah@americancity.org
Best of Flickr: Streetcars
Bixi bike sharing goes global, and with it, the City of Montréal
Raleigh’s Downtown Upgrade Pans Out
The American poor spread to suburbia, but we’re not ready
ant6n in montreal on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:35pm
You mention the effect of poor people potentially being displaced - but I wonder how many people may actually become wealther due to better transit options allowing access to more jobs.
The focus should not just be on the rapid transit stations itself. In many systems (e.g. Calgary?) most of the users at a rail station do not necessarily walk to the station, but are actually a bus ride away. An improvement in rail transit can reduce travel times from farther areas—as long as feeder buses are properly set up and connect to the rail station well.
It is possible that some of the less wealthy get displaced from the direct vicinity of a new station, but they may just move to a point a couple of blocks down where they still have improved mobility.
alexjonlin in Seattle on Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:42pm
This is why affordable housing is going to be a big issue in the next few decades. As we work to make our cities better, how can we make sure everyone can still live there?
Also, although transit use may not go up as much as hoped, people could be making fewer trips and making a lot more of their trips by walking, as transit-oriented neighborhoods tend to have lots of walkable retail.
peaton on Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:37am
If more units are built some, or many, of the lower cost ones remain. Was that taken into account? I wonder if the care statistics would be lower if building in cities were subject to less regulation. If developer´s could build more smaller units w-o parking requirements, etc. This is somewhat of a libertarian critique, and it might lead to other problems associated with density, but removing building restrictions might also lead to more affordable housing and greater diversity in housing stock.
peaton on Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:39am
or the reverse of the libertarian argument would to regulate against new parking in developments within x distance from a transit stop.