Can we resist displacement due to transit-oriented development? — Shelterforce Shelterforce

The goal of transit-oriented development (TOD) is vibrant, walkable neighborhoods centered around public transportation hubs. At Smart Growth America, we work to reduce car dependence, promote sustainability, and improve quality of life. But those same improvements can lead to gentrification and displacement if we don’t actively work to keep people in their homes.

Recent report National Institute for Transport and Communities sheds light on these dynamics. Between 2010 and 2019, areas around transit stations in 42 metropolitan areas accounted for 20 percent of new jobs and households in the regions, despite making up less than 1 percent of urbanized land. Notably, this growth was driven primarily by people of color and households headed by people under age 65.

The report shows that transit-oriented development attracts diversity, but the analysis also raises red flags about affordability. Median household incomes in areas around light rail and streetcar stations grew 9 percent faster than in neighboring regions, a hallmark of gentrification in which rising property values ​​and the cost of living push out longtime residents in favor of wealthier newcomers. The study found no changes in revenue at commuter rail and bus rapid transit stations.

Consider the Capitol Hill neighborhood in Seattle. Once a haven for artists and other low-income residents, Capitol Hill has now become one of the city’s most desirable neighborhoods thanks to its proximity to light rail stations and downtown amenities. The property value has has grown in recent yearsappreciating many indigenous people. Similarly, the expansion of the MAX light rail system in Portland, Oregon, stimulated development but increased housing costs in surrounding areas.

In the direct work that Smart Growth America has done in many cities, according to other studiesWe found that rail expansion can cause nearby home values ​​to be approximately 15 to 25 percent higher than they would otherwise be. Although this is small compared to other economic impacts, the increase is still noticeable. It’s a double-edged sword: It increases city revenue and increases homeownership, but it can also displace people.

What can we do?

Not all transit-oriented development ends in large-scale population displacement. The Arlington, Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in Virginia, served by the Washington, D.C. Metro Orange and Silver Lines, is an example of TOD done right. Proactive zoning policy Affordable housing initiatives in the ’90s and ’00s allowed Arlington to prevent accelerated displacement while promoting economic growth and reducing car dependency. Once auto-centric, this corridor is now vibrant, walkable and livable, with median incomes roughly in line with its wider region.

To prevent displacement as a result of transit-oriented development, we need to adopt strong policies to protect vulnerable populations and incentivize the creation and preservation of affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning is one effective tool that requires developers to include a certain percentage of affordable units in new projects. The transit-oriented Denver Regional Development Fund proposes a different model, preserving or creating thousands of affordable housing units near transit stations.

San Francisco Small Sites Program this is another example. By providing funding to nonprofit organizations to purchase and maintain affordable rental housing, the program ensures that rising housing costs do not displace low-income residents. Tenant protections and rent control measures can also stabilize communities and keep people in their homes.

But housing policy alone will not be enough. Meaningful community participation is critical to ensuring that development projects reflect the needs and desires of existing residents. Involving community members in the planning process from the beginning can help planners identify potential negative impacts and develop strategies to mitigate them.

The ability of transit-oriented development to create inclusive, resilient and economically vibrant communities cannot be ignored. However, decision-makers must ensure that new developments do not exacerbate inequalities for the people who already call these communities home. As we move forward, it is critical that the needs of diverse populations be at the forefront of TOD planning. Policymakers must strike a balance between encouraging development and protecting affordability, ensuring that the benefits of TOD accrue to all residents, not just the wealthy.

Investments in TOD represent a key opportunity for cities to improve livability and sustainability. But the way forward requires simultaneously raising two priorities – development and equality. This is a challenge worth taking on and a test of our urban imagination and our commitment to creating cities that work for everyone.

About the author

Michael Rodriguez

Michael Rodriguez, AICP, is the Director of Research at Smart Growth America, where he conducts and oversees quantitative and qualitative research for SGA’s numerous research initiatives. His expertise lies in the financial and economic impacts of transportation and infrastructure projects, particularly in relation to smart growth and walkability.