Perhaps you’ve heard of transit oriented development before in different contexts, but I would venture to guess that it has been in a positive light, as I have seen in the past. But, there are two sides to every story!
The benefits of transit oriented development have been extensively written about and endorsed by planners worldwide. One of the forces that has popularized this type of development is the environmentally conscious movement. Through this lens, one of the greatest benefits of transit oriented development is reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This is a result of less cars on the road, which leads also to the benefit of less air pollution and smog. With a reduced amount of cars on the road, a wave of other benefits emerges including reduced transportation costs for individuals and families, expanded mobility choices, and increased transit ridership that in turn increases revenue for the city. The money saved by not having a car also benefits people as there is more money to spend elsewhere than a car. With cars gone, communities also become more walkable and therefore more active and healthy.
When access to transit is improved, there is also improved access to economic opportunity located in other areas. One last benefit is rather controversial because some see it as a positive and others see it as a negative. That benefit is the potential to increase property values, which is good for property owners.
Source: http://www.slideshare.net/EMBARQNetwork/implementing-transit-oriented-development-in-indian-cities-learnings-and-challenges
The negatives of transit oriented development are far less spoken of but still valid. As mentioned previously, transit oriented development has the potential to increase property values. However, the problem with this is that where there are a high amount of renters in an area, landlords will charge more and therefore the people must move, a process known as gentrification. This is in opposition to one of the pillars of sustainability which is social equity. Surprisingly, rises in property values due to transit oriented development is shown, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vehicle ownership became more common. This counters many of the benefits listed above.
Other negative consequences related to transit oriented development is that often planners and developers neglect nearby pedestrian access. So while an area may be called a transit oriented development, it actually is not walkable unless investment in other forms of infrastructure are secured. In fact, the construction of a transit station and nearby development can make it even less walkable. If an area is not walkable, the area will not grow. There is a misconception among many that where transit oriented development, or at least transit stations, are constructed, growth will follow. However, as is the case with this example in Coral Gables, Florida, this is false. If planners took more time to develop small-scale strategies such as with pedestrian accessibility, aesthetics, architectural design, and safety, more positives from transit oriented development could ensue.
Source: http://usa.streetsblog.org/2010/10/25/avoiding-the-unintended-consequences-of-transit-oriented-development/
Next week I will be narrowing down my topic in order to delve deeper into one aspect related to transit oriented development. Can’t wait!
Transit-Oriented Development: Suburban Future? 