4 ms·

A local metro area put in a light rail train down through a major city street. It was sold as a way to reduce congestion and bring more people and development o

A local metro area put in a light rail train down through a major city street. It was sold as a way to reduce congestion and bring more people and development opportunities through. The reality is a lot of small minority owned businesses couldn't survive the years of construction and reduced parking, and the trains didn't bring more shoppers through. A lot of homes and buildings were sold as taxes went up, but the new development were all luxury style apartments. The people who benefited were commercial developers and yuppie types, and the lower class, largely minority people who made up most of the area were pushed back into other neighborhoods. It turns out, judging the effects of an action like development requires a lot of local context, and people can quite rationally be upset that they are going to be sacrificed for someone else's gain.

debacle 3y ago
What town was this in? We are fighting the same type of thing right now. They are trying to put in a light rail to bring in more "equity," while at the same time re-zoning the existing low income housing that they're claiming the rail is for for townhomes.
- bluGill 3y ago
  You should fight for automated light metro. Just put the light rail on elevated viaducts (which wouldn't cost much more), and run the same trains fully automated (normally an option on those trains). The whole thing becomes cheap to run (which is where the costs are in modern cities), and much faster.
CalRobert 3y ago
One problem is that decent transportation makes areas nicer and more appealing, so more people want to live there, which of course makes the existing housing stock more expensive. This is a consequence of decent transportation being so rare, sadly.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  This particular area has had very heavy bus coverage for years. It actually has fewer buses servicing it now, and to get out of the neighborhood you have to switch over to the light rail.
0_____0 3y ago
Why did taxes go up? That seems to be separate from the issue of construction causing an inconvenience, but is apparently a decisive factor. FWIW the Civic Center area of SF used to be the theater district before BART was built through there in an extremely invasive cut and cover way, which led to theaters shuttering and being replaced by ... seedier operations.[0] [0] Source: I remember reading this somewhere like ten years ago
- zdragnar 3y ago
  The taxes were based on land valuation. This was already a relatively low income part of town, and having direct access to the light rail was seen as a value add. It was likely also a secondary effect of the new luxury style apartments that were built. I lived relatively close to it for a few years (all before the rail was put in and during construction), but definitely wouldn't live there again.
mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Light rail is the worst of all worlds! Rail should run on its own right-of-way, ideally grade-separated. It shouldn't be sitting in traffic.
bluGill 3y ago
The short term effects from installing transit are overall worth the long term benefits, but I fully agree it can be hard if you are seeing the short term ill effects. New luxury are a good thing - it means there is more housing in your city. Sure the local area looks more expensive, but rich yuppies need to live someplace. The real question is are you building enough that the poor can afford to live someplace, or pushing poor out completely. All housing starts out as luxury housing and then 20-40 years latter becomes were the poor want to live. So if you have a problem with housing costs today the problems are rooted in the decisions of 1985! You cannot correct them overnight. However crying the rich benefit so we do nothing just ensures the problems will remain in 2065.

debacle 3y ago

What town was this in? We are fighting the same type of thing right now. They are trying to put in a light rail to bring in more "equity," while at the same time re-zoning the existing low income housing that they're claiming the rail is for for townhomes.

bluGill 3y ago
You should fight for automated light metro. Just put the light rail on elevated viaducts (which wouldn't cost much more), and run the same trains fully automated (normally an option on those trains). The whole thing becomes cheap to run (which is where the costs are in modern cities), and much faster.

CalRobert 3y ago

One problem is that decent transportation makes areas nicer and more appealing, so more people want to live there, which of course makes the existing housing stock more expensive. This is a consequence of decent transportation being so rare, sadly.

zdragnar 3y ago
This particular area has had very heavy bus coverage for years. It actually has fewer buses servicing it now, and to get out of the neighborhood you have to switch over to the light rail.

0_____0 3y ago

Why did taxes go up? That seems to be separate from the issue of construction causing an inconvenience, but is apparently a decisive factor. FWIW the Civic Center area of SF used to be the theater district before BART was built through there in an extremely invasive cut and cover way, which led to theaters shuttering and being replaced by ... seedier operations.[0] [0] Source: I remember reading this somewhere like ten years ago

zdragnar 3y ago
The taxes were based on land valuation. This was already a relatively low income part of town, and having direct access to the light rail was seen as a value add. It was likely also a secondary effect of the new luxury style apartments that were built. I lived relatively close to it for a few years (all before the rail was put in and during construction), but definitely wouldn't live there again.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

Light rail is the worst of all worlds! Rail should run on its own right-of-way, ideally grade-separated. It shouldn't be sitting in traffic.

bluGill 3y ago

The short term effects from installing transit are overall worth the long term benefits, but I fully agree it can be hard if you are seeing the short term ill effects. New luxury are a good thing - it means there is more housing in your city. Sure the local area looks more expensive, but rich yuppies need to live someplace. The real question is are you building enough that the poor can afford to live someplace, or pushing poor out completely. All housing starts out as luxury housing and then 20-40 years latter becomes were the poor want to live. So if you have a problem with housing costs today the problems are rooted in the decisions of 1985! You cannot correct them overnight. However crying the rich benefit so we do nothing just ensures the problems will remain in 2065.