Or is it a tool to encourage development where government wants it? (Where government wants people to live, not where real people want to live.)
An Oregonian article from 201 explains it all. At first the author makes BRT look like a good economic alternative to light rail that cities ought to consider, but the real purpose of any mode of transit is to spur development where government wants it. No, not your elected officials - REAL government power - the administrative state (Central Planners). And if rail or BRT service isn't enough for developers, there are plenty of government monetary and code incentives to go with it.
BTW: National and local studies prove that more people want to live in a small town in a single family house than in urban multifamily housing. No government effort is being put into the people's vision.
Oregonlive, September 24, 2013, By Joseph Rose
Study: TriMet MAX Blue Line nation's
top transit system for spurring development
When it comes to stimulating real-estate investments and combating traffic jams, no U.S. surface transit system has been more successful than TriMet's Gresham-to-Hillsboro MAX Blue Line, according to a new study released Tuesday.
The 33 miles of light-rail track has generated $6.6 billion in transit-oriented development designed as an alternative to traditional car-dominated suburban growth, the Washington, D.C.,-based Institute for Transportation and Development Policy found.
At the same time, with transit systems and cities across the country struggling to recover from the Great Recession, the report questioned whether light-rail is the most efficient way to invest limited transit dollars.
In fact, researchers found that bus rapid transit, a concept first developed in South America that gives buses dedicated lanes through gridlock, offers a bigger bang for the buck than light rail or streetcar.
The study uses Cleveland's Healthline BRT as the model.
"While a tough regional economy and shrinking population forced many of the surrounding cities to cut public services and reduce jobs in the public and private sectors," the report (PDF) says, "Cleveland managed to transform a modest $50 million investment in bus rapid transit into $5.8 billion in new transit-oriented development."
By placing bus rapid transit in a strategic corridor where government redevelopment efforts were concentrated, Cleveland managed to stimulate $114.54 dollars of transit-oriented investment for every dollar it invested into the BRT system, the study found.
"I think the study validated the decisions we have made and where we're looking to go in the future," Middaugh said.
The Portland Streetcar, meanwhile, scored "below basic" in the study, when compared to transit-oriented development linked to BRT projects.
Still, the streetcar, long promoted as an urban development tool, showed a respectable $41.50 invested for every dollar spent, the research shows.
USC NOTE: Some have suggested that development along transit corridors has less to do with transit and more to do with monetary incentives like tax abatement, code modifications, urban renewal grants, SDC fees waived, infrastructure built, and other goodies. The Pearl District is an example of monetary benefits to the developer trumping the light rail. 
No comments:
Post a Comment