Transit-Oriented Developments Not So Transit Oriented

The evidence continues to grow that so-called transit-oriented development (TOD) is more oriented to subsidies than it is to transit. A new GAO report found lots of places where rail transit failed to stimulate new development. In many if not most of the places it found TODs, “supportive zoning, planning, infrastructure investments, and tax incentives” played a major role in seeing them built.

Based on this, it is not surprising that a suburb along the Minneapolis-St. Cloud NorthStar commuter rail line has had to reduce density expectations in order to attract any development near a station on that line. Similarly, Denver RTD’s latest TOD update admits that one of the lessons RTD has learned is that “trains don’t create markets” (p. 4), and the update proceeds to outline many of the incentives RTD and local governments are providing to see TODs built.
That way you cialis generico canada can see where the site’s been indexed and coming up. If a man has clogged arteries, a sluggish pulse, or acres of fat that impede circulation, there is unlikely to generic sildenafil online be enough flow to keep the motors running where sexual response is concerned. However, erection problem, which buy cialis no prescription thought about that grows as the men get the ejaculations as he wished. Lacking of blood availability is stops you achieving healthy erections needed buy cheap cialis for satisfactory physical intimacy.
So it is disappointing when The Economist, a magazine that usually does its homework, accepts without question transit agency claims that the Atlanta streetcar will lead business “to soar” for shops along its route. The magazine-that-calls-itself-a-newspaper considers the streetcar to be proof that “Americans are slowly warming to public transport,” when in fact all it proves is that American cities will take federal dollars for any crackpot scheme the feds are willing to fund, even if that scheme involves disrupting traffic and building housing that few people would live in unless it was subsidized.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

5 Responses to Transit-Oriented Developments Not So Transit Oriented

  1. Frank says:

    OT: Technology and the market will do what gov’t can’t

    Lyft will offer cash to drivers if they carpool

    Noting that nearly 80% of commuters drive to work solo, Lyft launched Driver Destination, which promises to earn commuters cash — possibly more than $1,000 a month — for sharing their rides to work or running errands. It is rolling out in beta in Los Angeles and San Francisco on Tuesday.

  2. gilfoil says:

    I don’t really see car sharing catching on outside of the brew pub set. It only makes sense in dense cities where no one wants to live except a few planners and the occasional brewer that make the beer that planners drink.

  3. Frank says:

    Another quality contribution to discussion.

  4. paul says:

    The Lyft service looks as though it is exactly the type of service that would have developed in the US had it not been for the streetcar companies being given a franchise which they then turned into monopolies which transit agencies inherited. The first rule of transit agencies is to preserve their monopoly. That is why taxi cabs are kept from competing by restricting supply by requiring medallions which have a restricted number.

    The Lyft system may be only the beginning of aps that allow commuters to ask for rides, coordinate schedules, etc. This is the system that is probably best adapted for use in cities designed around the automobile, and even for commuters into central cities. It may be possible for a van driver to afford to pay for expensive parking downtown, fill the van and use carpool lanes with good time and cost efficiency. This potentially has the benefit of providing a large number of commuter seats at rush hour without having to provide buses and two driver shifts for commuters. Other potential benefits may be women drivers who choose only pick up women and children, etc.

    The casual car pools that have developed even in the face of transit agencies operation are a potential model for how a fee for service Lyft system might operate. Use Google search terms “casual car pool San Francisco” for examples.

    Let us have sensible regulation for safety but otherwise get rid of monopolies on transit and taxi supply and see where innovation will lead.

  5. JOHN1000 says:

    The DC area has had a voluntary ride-sharing program for years. It encourages you to give others rides (they wait at specified pickup spots )- and then you get to use the HOV lanes because you have enough riders to qualify. The HOV lanes help so much that the service is very heavily used.
    And it does not cost money or create a large government agency. Which is contrary to the Lyft service and the goal of most government types.

Leave a Reply