Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Four fallacies of "transit-oriented development"

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Allan Ferguson

Published May 13, 2008 at 12:49 p.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

As the Regional Transportation District has expanded its rail lines through Denver's southeast corridor and looks forward to "FasTracks" expansion along several other corridors westward, northward, and eastward, the planning mantra for development along these corridors has become "transit-oriented development" (TOD).

According to Denver's Office of Economic Development, some fifty-one of fifty-seven planned light rail stations "have TOD potential with eighteen of those sites containing ten acres or more."

In the TOD planners' vision of Denver's future, tens of thousands of people will flock to high-density housing to live, play, and shop near rail stations where they can leave their cars behind and join the happy world of carbonless commuters. To achieve this Nirvana, of course, many current homeowners and business people will have to be bought out, removed by eminent domain, or otherwise displaced to make room for the developers.

This developer's dream seems to have widespread, unquestioning support among elected officials at every level in Denver and Colorado. It's time to debunk a few of main tenets of TOD

Tenet #1 - TOD will encourage a return to the city and discourage suburban sprawl. This, of course, is utter nonsense. Historically, by making it easy to get in and out of the city center, transit lines have had the opposite effect. The development of rail lines and their relationship to suburban growth has been studied to death in Boston, New York, and Chicago. And, yes, even the Denver Tramway Company fed the growth of Englewood and Littleton, just as RTD will feed the continued growth of southeast Denver.

Tenet #2 - Ecologically sound, high-density TOD housing is the "wave of the future." Sorry planners, this is Colorado, not Washington DC or New York. What we have here is space and the desire for single-family home ownership. Relatively cheap land and housing lie outside the city. That has always been true in Colorado and will continue to be true. Those who buy into TOD housing will constitute no more than a drop in the population bucket of the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area.

Tenet #3 - TOD will get us out of our cars and cut pollution. Suppose by 2020 we're driving nonpolluting electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. What then becomes of this argument? How important is it that we get out of our cars? Moreover, in this sprawling metropolitan area, RTD will never have the money or rolling stock necessary to adequately cover the area with dependable, frequent bus service feeding into rail lines. This is Denver, not Boston or New York. We'll still need our cars.

Tenet #4 - TOD will create great, walkable, liveable communities. High-density residences tend to be populated by people with weak ties to their surrounding neighborhood, while those living in low-density housing tend to take greater pride in their property, know their neighbors, and participate more in every aspect of neighborhood life. Of course, this is a broad generalization, but it is also an accurate generalization fully studied by urban sociologists.

One further observation: Wherever the lines between elected officials and developers intersect, one will find unsavory influence, favoritism, and, ultimately, corruption. Denver cannot escape this fact of political life. Let us tread warily toward a future filled with TOD.

Allan Ferguson, a resident of Denver, is a neighborhood activist leading opposition to a proposed high-rise development at University Light Rail Station.

Comments

  • May 13, 2008

    10:46 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jacka writes:

    Allan, You raise very factual issues and your closing is spot on.

    I am against RTD using TABOR avoidance bond financing (Levy RTD bonding bill) to prop themselves up via financing developers. I am against RTDs taking of peoples homes, land and businesses w/o market based compensation - everyone has a price.

    I am not against TOD per se. I would not invest as a occupying resident in such as scheme unless I was 65+ and had a 1500 sqft unit with 2 car spaces. I might invest as a rental, but easier returns are available via REITs or other property firms that trade on the open markets.

  • May 14, 2008

    4:17 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    brandonn writes:

    Lets start with the easy one, number 3. The number one cause of greenhouse gases is not transportation, it's, you guessed it, electricity. Electricity is not clean. Hydrogen is a fallacy, as is ethanol. Any method of generating power or electricity has a cost to the environment, we can improve efficiencies, but we also need to reduce consumption. Primarily due to suburban sprawl, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) increases are growing faster than MPG increases. Not only do dense urban neighborhoods reduce VMT, they use less energy in their homes as well.

    Will TOD encourage urban sprawl? It's not going to eliminate it. There will always be people that live in the suburbs, drive to work or drive to a park-n-ride to get to their job. Transit will also encourage people to live close to the station. The station tends to increase land values near the station, and that encourages higher density development. Will people in Colorado purchase properties with higher densities? Two factors indicate they will. Neighborhoods closer to downtown and thus more dense have fared far better in the current housing slump than have most suburbs (the exception being high end suburban neighborhoods). Secondly, current sales of existing TOD projects indicate that people are willing to accept higher density in exchange for amenities that don't require a car to get to.

    Does density equal bad, "weak" neighborhoods? While there are many examples of dense neighborhoods that do not have a strong sense of community, there are just as many, if not more, examples of poorly designed suburbs that do not. Several recent studies have indicated that density is not the determining factor in neighborhood satisfaction.

    Land is about the only thing that is cheap about outlying areas. The infrastructure to get people and services out there is crushing municipalities. Road maintenance is the obvious one. Less obvious is sewer and water. Many of those maintenance expenses are being overlooked at the moment. It's a ticking time bomb. The initial costs are being subsidized by the government.

    TOD is not a panacea for all our environmental and transportation woes, but it is a piece of the puzzle. It's about creating another choice. No one is expecting the entire metro region to suddenly give up their suburban homes and move to within walking distance of a transit station, but many will. Many others will choose transit because they can't afford a car, or can't drive for medical reasons. We need options that will reduce our energy consumption, not just methods for increasing efficiency of energy production. TOD is one of those options.

    In regards to the "further observation," unless you built your house yourself during a time when there was no zoning, developers and government agencies were involved in it. TOD or otherwise, it's a good idea to keep an eye on your government.

    If you would like to see my citations, see my blog at http://thedenvertransitstop.blogspot.com

  • May 14, 2008

    11:25 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    tesujidragon writes:

    Great points Brandonn! I want to live in a TOD. If I were lucky enough to own a house close enough to be desired for development of a TOD community, I would surrender it in exchange for a reasonably sized unit.

    My dream is to live above a Whole Foods a half block (or less) off the rail. I am handicapped, and every extra step that I have to take diminishes TOD’s usefulness to me. Seniors who don’t see well at night would also benefit from TOD. As a matter of fact, anyone with mobility impairment would benefit. Single parents would save lots of time with amenities like daycares and pediatricians located at TOD’s. Or maybe, someone would rather put 400 – 700 dollars extra into their retirement instead of owning a car.

    TOD may be a nightmare for you Alan, but to many, it would be very helpful. No one expects a panacea. There are always trades to be made in life. I would gladly trade my yard work for closer neighbors (if the walls are well built), closer amenities and less commuting time.

  • May 15, 2008

    2:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SteveFesch writes:

    It's funny you mention "surrender" tesurijidragon. I own TOD land now and RTD is forcing me to surrender it via Eminent Domain. Anyone that owns land on the 120 mile corridor be aware. Be very aware.

    RTDevelopment is coming.

  • May 15, 2008

    12:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Acemon writes:

    TOD is indeed a requirement to make choo-choos work, yet many communities are opting to restrict high-density development in favor of single-housing neighborhoods. How can this conflict be resolved without the RTD planners fudging their ridership projections again?

  • May 15, 2008

    12:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    prk166 writes:

    tesujidragon ---> I'd rather spend another $400/ month on my car than spend an extra 20 hours a week taking transit to get where I'm trying to go.

  • May 21, 2008

    8:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    KevinD writes:

    Everybody face it:

    City Council, rightly or wrongly, is 11-2 in favor of implementing Blueprint Denver. (Charlie Brown and Jeanne Faatz will always vote against diminishing property rights) Council relies mainly on on Peter Park and his staff to interpret Blueprint for them, although through all this sturm and drang, many on council are learning to interpret it on their own. It really isn't that ambiguous, and incorrect only on a micro-scale. Again, the "incorrectness" is CPD's call.

    This tenet explains every controversial zoning decision made and to be made. If you are a developer and your plans conflict with CPD's view of Blueprint, divest NOW or lose your ass. If you are a single-family homeowner whining against TOD density, you are wasting your high-pitched breath.

    City planning doesn't guarantee a great city, but this bunch on council certainly thinks so. After all, it was city planners and city council that installed zoning in the first place, and now they are trying to fix it.

  • May 22, 2008

    1:11 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    keenplanner writes:

    Property rights are mostly a falacy. We all need to live together in this village and what you do with your property affects the whole. Owning property is best thought of as a temporary cooperative agreement between the property owner and his or her neighbors.
    Would you want your neighbor to foul the stream that you get your drinking water from?
    TOD is a similar concept. Single family sprawl and the supporting inneficient infrastructure, is fouling the environment for the rest of us, and TOD is a great choice for leaving a smaller carbon footprint, and divesting yourself of unnecessary automobiles.
    People who want to live in a single family house will always have that option, and it's getting cheaper and cheaper as people abandon far-flung suburbia for shorter commutes and gas savings, along with access to walkable and bikeable services. In fact, read this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/20... about the new least desirable neighborhoods in American cities: The Slumburbs.
    Congrats, Denver for making a sustainable choice!