Does transit lines truly spur residential development? (Blue line, Boggs, BonAir, Denise) (Pittsburgh: apartment, condos)

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by _Buster

Look into Arlington, VA along the Metro line. It's not a myth.

The difference is that people actually want to live in Arlington for various reasons. The neighborhoods listed in this thread are not very desirable even with transit. That's the reason why there isn't residential development. There are so many available properties around the southern hilltop that are already vacant, no need to build more.

[ny789987]

Transit notwithstanding, people don't want to live in a neighborhood in which they are going to get shot. The blue line serves its purpose for people living south of castle shannon. They should just remove the intermediate stops and speed up the commute.

[LIRefugee]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

In Atlanta, there's been little development along the transit lines, unless it is orchestrated by MARTA. There is TOD and its along roads. I think TOD along transit rail lines is a myth.

There's been plenty of development in Buckhead, to name one counterexample.

Much of the southern portion of the airport line have stops spread far apart along a rail line with much old industrial-looking development around it. The spacing and the lack of proximity to the more economically active areas of the city would make new development far from a foregone conclusion.

If Atlanta focuses its Transit-Oriented Development along roads, that would give one reason why Atlanta is a transportation disaster. Atlanta isn't much of a good example for rail transit except on how to implement it half-heartedly.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

The problem with the Blue Line is its topography. It runs through very steep terrain and is often isolated from the neighboring urban fabric. This limits its potential for enhancing real estate along its route and certainly construction of TOD.

Bingo.

We could put TOD development near the blue line in some cases, but due to topography, such developments wouldn't be part of the neighborhoods proper to any real degree.

To consider TOD development, we need to consider places like Beechview, Dormont, Mt. Lebanon, and Castle Shannon, where the transit line goes directly on/near the main commercial drag. Places like Beltzhoover or Bon Air need to succeed or fail on their own. Same way few would use Herron Station in Polish Hill if it wasn't for the neighborhoods other positive qualities.

[_Buster]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

The difference is that people actually want to live in Arlington for various reasons. The neighborhoods listed in this thread are not very desirable even with transit. That's the reason why there isn't residential development. There are so many available properties around the southern hilltop that are already vacant, no need to build more.

The reasons most people want to live in Arlington are because of the developments that came up after the Metro orange line was built, as well as walkability to that line for jobs in DC. Before the metro it was nice, but mostly low density single family housing, suburban style. So probably the biggest difference in Pittsburgh is safety of the neighborhoods along the line.

[fleetiebelle]

Originally Posted by eschaton

To consider TOD development, we need to consider places like Beechview, Dormont, Mt. Lebanon, and Castle Shannon, where the transit line goes directly on/near the main commercial drag. Places like Beltzhoover or Bon Air need to succeed or fail on their own. Same way few would use Herron Station in Polish Hill if it wasn't for the neighborhoods other positive qualities.

There were a bunch of community meetings in Beechview a few years ago, and one of the big questions was: how do you get people to want to get off the train, rather than just pass through on their way to/from downtown and the South Hills? Dormont and Mt. Lebanon are seen as destinations in themselves.

[pman]

Originally Posted by fleetiebelle

There were a bunch of community meetings in Beechview a few years ago, and one of the big questions was: how do you get people to want to get off the train, rather than just pass through on their way to/from downtown and the South Hills? Dormont and Mt. Lebanon are seen as destinations in themselves.

that's a good problem to have, far easier to deal with than places where nobody ever goes. just geeting the ura to sell off the blighted properties it owns would be a shot in the arm. I go to beechview for curedmeats on occasion.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by pman

that's a good problem to have, far easier to deal with than places where nobody ever goes. just geeting the ura to sell off the blighted properties it owns would be a shot in the arm. I go to beechview for curedmeats on occasion.

The URA tried to sell them... to Bernardo Katz...

[MathmanMathman]

Originally Posted by LIRefugee

There's been plenty of development in Buckhead, to name one counterexample.

Anyone would be kidding themselves if they think the MARTA line did all that. Georgia 400 spurred most of that development. Yup, a road.

Much of the southern portion of the airport line have stops spread far apart along a rail line with much old industrial-looking development around it. The spacing and the lack of proximity to the more economically active areas of the city would make new development far from a foregone conclusion.

Doraville in the northeast was an opportunity as the GM plant was closing down. Doraville had a hard time finding a developer despite the proximity to a MARTA rail station.

If Atlanta focuses its Transit-Oriented Development along roads, that would give one reason why Atlanta is a transportation disaster. Atlanta isn't much of a good example for rail transit except on how to implement it half-heartedly.

No focus needed, the free market drives it. The problem in implementing rail is the ridiculously high cost. Atlanta does what it can afford.

[LIRefugee]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Atlanta does what it can afford.

And it gets what it pays for.