Density and transit

In today's Post, Roger Lewis has a column, "Are trolley lines more than just a fashionable bit of nostalgia? ," which discusses how it is important to leverage transit in multiple ways, particularly economically. From the article:

Unlike a bus line, a trolley line is a relatively permanent infrastructure investment. Thus with fixed rails and stations, a trolley line can positively affect real estate values and greatly augment economic activity near the line. Property owners, developers and lenders are more willing to incur the risk of investing in projects near a trolley line than in projects near a bus stop.

Likewise, people who prefer living in cities are more strongly attracted to residential opportunities within walking distance of well-designed rail transit. Clearly, urban housing accessible to a trolley line is more marketable.

In the long run, investing in light rail can be economically beneficial for a city by increasing real estate values, business activity, jobs and tax revenues associated with the transit corridor. And increased tax revenues attributable to transit help cities finance and recover capital investments in transit. ...

But a hitch can arise in achieving the city's economic goals. Zoning and historic land use patterns may constrain potential transit benefits, exemplified by the District's H Street line, where commercial zoning applies only to lots directly abutting H Street.

The area of economic impact ideally would encompass higher density and mixed residential and commercial uses that extend beyond the one-lot-deep strip of properties on each side of H street. If they had their way, urban designers would stretch and rezone the transit-affected real estate corridor, increasing its width by several blocks.

Will real estate within a few minutes' walk of H Street ever be rezoned? Probably not before the trolley line is up and running. But if the trolley operates effectively and provides the amenity and convenience hoped for, perhaps the urban design and rezoning aspirations of city planners will be realized.

The tricky thing is the issue of land intensification in association with fixed rail transit improvements. This is contentious. Even in Arlington County, where the Wilson Boulevard corridor has been upzoned, and some single family housing areas were eradicated in this process--at least I remember Virginia Square in the late 1980s which is nothing like it is today, the process of intensification hasn't been easy.

I think about this with regard to Georgia Avenue in upper northwest DC, which in theory is my neighborhood commercial district, now that I live nearby. The reason the retail fails is twofold:

1. It isn't concentrated

2. There isn't enough housing density and therefore residents to support the amount of commercial space that exists, both along Georgia Avenue, and in secondary commercial districts such as at 14th and Colorado Streets NW or on Kennedy Street NW, and to some extent in Takoma as well (it would be different if the Takoma Theatre were in operation).

Arlington County understood that to leverage the value of proximity to heavy rail transit, they would have to intensify land use.

It's easy for me to say that for a couple of blocks on either side of Georgia Avenue or H Street that it should be rezoned. I don't live there, and it won't impact me.

But that comes at a cost to the people whose land/houses is in the way of intensification. Which is one reason that community opposition to what we might call easy intensification of commercial properties in commercial corridors can be frustrating. Generally, it doesn't impact residents, and increased density in transit corridors contributes positively in many ways to pro-urban objectives.

A couple weeks ago I was at the intersection of 14th and Colorado Streets NW, which used to be the termination of a streetcar line. Because of the streetcar line, apartment buildings 3-6 stories in height had been built in close proximity.

Then, it was understood that it made sense to build more densely along transit corridors, and apartments in this particular location allowed people to live in a more suburban setting without having to own a house.

I was thinking of opposition in Brookland to intensification of land use at the subway station (and subway lines cost much more than streetcar lines) and how 5-6 story buildings were "nonsensical."

But in fact such buildings make perfect sense, and in other jurisdictions, the buildings would be taller and larger still. It's frustrating that "back then" in the 1920s, people understood the importance of leveraging access to transit, whereas now it is such a struggle to get the point across.

(The photos in this post were taken within one block of the intersection of 14th and Colorado Streets NW, in Washington, DC.)