The Overhead Wire has a nicely thought-provoking piece over something that’s bugged me for a long time - why building rail transit is a “waste” and a “gift to developers,” while building roads that enable more sprawl gets a pass. From The Overhead Wire:
I often wonder why there is a double standard. Many critics of the Portland Streetcar point to its success as a function of subsidies for developers. There are some projects in the Pearl that have gotten tax breaks, but let’s remember that Homer Williams didn’t have to upzone his property from 15 units per acre to over 100. 30% affordable housing and parks were also provided. So while there were breaks, there have also been benefits.
But on the other side, there are roads that are built into no-where because of expected future demand. There are very few cars traveling there at the time, but its expected to grow. So why the double standard? Why say that building a rail line to support future density is worthless while turning your head when a road is built to support future sprawl. One is enabling infrastructure waste and the other efficient development. Especially at a time with increasing energy costs and a need for alternatives.
Great points. There have already been stories about planned (and almost all sprawl-tastic) developments being planned by developers buying up land around the proposed (and pointless) Southwest Parkway, for example, yet nobody seems to mind. I expect to hear things like the above about the Fort Worth streetcar as we move forward on it, similar to the things said about Portland’s. It’s a small part of the numerous double standards in comparisons between roads and transit.
It doesn’t extend just to transit, though - I’ve had people tell me the same thing about urban infill development. A NIMBY-ish resident of the Monticello area once angrily declared to me that the mixed-use zoning for the 7th Street developments was just a “gift” to the greedy developers with no real benefit. I had to point out to them that MU zoning is not a gift - it is a return of something we used to do as part of normal development. It is the norm returning after displacing the exception, really. The benefits are real - things I’ve written about on here many times before. (I didn’t want to point out the subtle humor of a resident of one of the city’s more affluent neighborhoods lecturing about the “evils” of the big rich developers.)
0 Response to “Double Standards for Sprawl”