Advocates of DART’s aggressive rail expansion, which it calls the most ambitious in North America, argue the theory that development will cluster along rail lines because people want to live nearby, park their cars and commute by train. A core objective is to improve the air. Plus, supporters say, rail boosts property values and thereby helps economic vitality.
My observation, from my daily commutes on the Red Line, is that TOD has been slow to develop near DART stations. And I doubt anyone has data indicating whether nearby residents are indeed DART users.
Now comes an article in San Francisco’s Fog City Journal, and referenced on the online site New Geography, that takes aim at TOD theory. It maintains development along San Francisco rail lines may have helped developers but hasn’t changed commuting habits in ways that help the environment. Quoting now:
Under a cursory examination of the concrete realities on the ground, in San Francisco, Transit Oriented Development is a Green bait and switch designed to promote developer profits [1.5] while exacerbating the very conditions which lead to increased emissions, climate change, congestion and slower, less reliable surface transit.
Simply because desirable aspects of a policy appear to work on paper does not mean that they work that way in reality, or that other aspects of the policy don’t actually work against preferred aspects. Compact urban development can lead to denser more walkable communities, but only with sufficient investment in regional infrastructure to discourage auto ownership by making transit more attractive.
In the absence of that level of investment, the economic characteristics of this type of development in San Francisco will most likely diminish transit reliability by increasing auto trips-the precise opposite of TOD’s stated goals.
To a degree, this reflects my frustrating experience as a DART user. I moved near two DART stations in Richardson so I could walk to either, but there is no direct pedestrian link. I have to either walk through woods or take a bus. There is little associated residential.
Further, because DART rail moves along former railroad right of way, it goes largely through warehouse, commercial and light industrial corridors where attractive development won’t happen. There probably was no other affordable way to lay tracks, probably.
A quick checklist of the DART Red Line stations going north from downtown barely supports the TOD theory:
Cityplace: Nada. Goes underneath a pre-existing office building.
Mockingbird Station: Prime example cited by TOD advocates. OK, but do we know whether nearby residents commute by rail or car or shop within walking distance? If not, it may only be that developers have benefited. And if there’s big money to be made, why hasn’t DART been able to lease building rights atop its huge parking lot there?