August 1, 2001-- Economic development is one of the side-benefits that Seattle's light rail and monorail proponents say will accompany the building of their systems. Such Transit Oriented Development (TOD) attracts new commercial and residential development in their vicinities, translating into neighborhood revitalization. TOD was a consideration in the decision to place the first leg of LINK light rail (current incarnation) in the Rainier Valley. Monorail supporters believe stations themselves can become commercial centers, that revenue from leases to in-station businesses can help a citywide monorail be profitable.

What if TOD occurs as promised? Two points become paramount. First, in most of the areas where stations might be sited, redevelopment may not needed or, if needed, could be achieved with targeted economic stimulus. In the Columbia City district in Rainier Valley, economic redevelopment preceded the opening of Link light rail. Fremont experienced more than a decade of commerce and new construction without TOD.

The second point has to do with the economics of train transit. Because stations must be spaced far apart (too close together means frequent stops, leading to low speed), most people wanting to ride the train would have to come from outside each station's neighborhood. This leads to "station traffic" congestion, caused by buses and cars going to and from the station. Parking facilities will be needed at stations for those who drive.

TOD is really a misnomer. Certainly, new development would be attracted (in theory) by the stations, but the modifier "transit-oriented" implies that transit riders would be the only patrons or employees of station-area businesses, or residents of station-area condos & apartments. This would obviously not be the case, as businesses would attract automobile traffic as well, and residents could drive their cars wherever they wanted. In an inner city this leads to more congestion; in a suburb it creates congestion and a locus for future sprawl. In both cases it is a change in community character which will not please all residents and businesspeople.  And such changes would be irrevocable-- can you imagine huge, expensive rails and stations ever being removed or relocated? No, that would be denounced as a waste of money, the affected neighborhoods would have to live with unintended consequences.

TOD & density

The reason governments are investing so much taxpayer money on TOD has as much to do with creating higher population densities within walking distance of train stations as it does mere economic development.  Trains, with their large-capacity vehicles, are more cost effective the more people they carry per run.  The more people who live, work or shop near stations, the more people for whom the train will be convenient.  So TOD should lead to higher ridership.  But here's the cheat: The demand more likely to be satisified by rail is mostly new, artificially created by TOD.  Because TOD represents new housing, new jobs, and new retail, the pre-existing travel demand that gave rise to pre-rail traffic problems (and calls for a mass transit system) will still be there, largely unsatisfied, after the trains are up and running.

Before rail Community with 23 "units" of transit demand	With rail Rail line with TOD station development (walking distance radius shaded blue). 20 units of demand remain unsatisfied

TOD can destroy community to redevelop it

The ultimate irony about TOD is that, especially with light rail, it is absolutely necessary, because the construction of tracks and stations can remove the businesses in its path through condemnation, or so cripple them that they are forced to move away from the new transit.  This happened in the Rainier Valley-- small, successful, and often minority-owned businesses were relocated or crippled at great cost.  It is true that the owners were eventually compensated. The pricetag for mitigating these and other light rail negative impacts? $50 million. On Beacon Hill the neighborhood institution South China Restaurant was offered only $10,000 to relocate. It relocated to Bellevue.

In contrast, Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is more likely to be land-use-neutral, following existing land uses instead of determining new ones. PRT stations would be large-size only in downtown and major activity hubs. In most parts of the city, small PRT stations would be located every half mile, with each station serving an area within a quarter-mile radius. Neighborhoods would not be overrun by station traffic caused by people from outside the area, because each half-mile-wide area would have a station of its own. The tiny size of PRT stations and low impact of the slim elevated rails mean homes and businesses would not have to be demolished.

PRT: any neighborhood a Transit Village

With PRT ANY neighborhood can be a transit village, even without TOD. This is because PRT installation is more affordable than conventional rail and minimally disruptive. Once operational, PRT service is triggered by actual demand, so each area receives only the service it needs—no TOD is required to create the kind of higher densities a rail system needs to be efficient. If placement of a PRT segment creates undesirable land use, relocation is practical due to the lower construction sunk costs, in the range of $5-10 million per mile (contrast with $200M/mile for light rail and $75-100M/mile for monorail). PRT stations' small size and standardized design would obviously be cheaper than large-footprint train stations.

With PRT Transit in more places; more opportunities for TOD

A good way to view the PRT-land use connection is that PRT makes it possible for the first time for urban planners to separate Transit Policy from Land Use/Economic Development Policy.  For if PRT is affordable enough to provide excellent transit to all neighborhoods regardless of their form or density, then cities have flexibility to plan new development and redevelopment based on zoning as well as comprehensive urban planning strategies (of which transit is just one of many considerations). Both high and less dense areas could have comparable transit service with PRT.

The author has a degree in Policy Analysis from the University of Washington Graduate School of Public Affairs (now known as The Evans School).

Get on board! Personal Rapid Transit

Back