Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In cities where people have been commuting downtown by rail from the suburbs for over a century, New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia; it is well established. Workers want to buy homes near train stations, there are express runs, suburban stations have charm. Of course it requires a strong employment market downtown. Will it develop in metro areas that only recently got commuter rail? LA, Seattle, Salt Lake, Miami, DFW? And how long will it take?
One major consideration in my on-again-off-again home search in Miami is proximity to the proposed future Coastal Link commuter rail stations. The new line, unlike the one we have now, will actually go in to downtown instead of requiring 30-40 extra minutes with going out of the way and then dealing with the Metrorail to back track. Lots of value in homes that need a little TLC and will (hopefully) be in an advantageous commuting situation. Mortgage with insurance and taxes can easily be less than downtown rents on 1br apartments! I suspect as traffic continues to get work and once actual construction (hopefully) begins, people will be clamoring to get in those homes.
Phoenix added a light rail in 2008 (construction started in 2005). Properties along the light rail corridor have shown a steady increase in value, with several stretches of the corridor being redeveloped with multi-use structures, higher-end apartment complexes, shopping, etc.
The phrase you're looking for is "transit-oriented development", or TOD. Basically, development built to encourage the use of local transit. Typically, a transit line will go down, and development will follow.
Cities that recently got commuter rail, or are planning to get commuter rail, will inevitably see more development along that commuter line (specifically, development within walking / biking distance to the commuter stations). However, it is not an overnight process. Looking at Phoenix as an example, the line has been in operation or 7 years, and development is still on-going. There's a few extensions in the works that will provide similar development for outlying areas, but it'll be another 10 years before they see the "boom" that other areas are only starting to see.
Depending on how well the route is planned, how open the local population is to using public transit ("stigma" of public transit, local weather averages, ease of commuting with vehicles), how quick the public transit is compared to other means, and other factors, I'd wager that a noticeable redevelopment of commuter corridors would take between 5-10 years at best.
Phoenix added a light rail in 2008 (construction started in 2005). Properties along the light rail corridor have shown a steady increase in value, with several stretches of the corridor being redeveloped with multi-use structures, higher-end apartment complexes, shopping, etc.
The phrase you're looking for is "transit-oriented development", or TOD. Basically, development built to encourage the use of local transit. Typically, a transit line will go down, and development will follow.
t.
Not quite. TOD also includes places within walking distance, including supermarkets. Though often at the cost of smaller space. I refer also to larger homes close, but not necessarily within traditional walking distance (1 km) of the station.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,186,228 times
Reputation: 57821
The current light rail in Seattle is limited to downtown-airport, and much of it is in a tunnel or elevated. When the current expansion is completed, we will see if there is an affect, but I doubt it. There just isn't any room for more development in Seattle other than tearing down homes to build apartments/condos.
I don't think commuter railroads will be too much forming across the country. Its like today's world and government is not in the business of it....it seems. Its like the cities and metro areas are built totally different then the NE Cities, and Chicago. Those cities was built at a time when TRANSIT was the way to go....and most other and newer cities pretty much grew up and was designed around the automobile era. Then esp.today the people are so against transit in so many areas its crazy. Not saying that they cant be done....but i just dont see it happening anymore. The Northeast cities was lucky due to the fact they already had railroads and when some of them went out the window the cities or state took them over and served them.
I think the closest thing we may see spring up across the country is LIGHT RAIL lines. Its better then nothing. But anything is possible.
I don't think commuter railroads will be too much forming across the country. Its like today's world and government is not in the business of it....it seems. Its like the cities and metro areas are built totally different then the NE Cities, and Chicago. Those cities was built at a time when TRANSIT was the way to go....and most other and newer cities pretty much grew up and was designed around the automobile era. Then esp.today the people are so against transit in so many areas its crazy. Not saying that they cant be done....but i just dont see it happening anymore. The Northeast cities was lucky due to the fact they already had railroads and when some of them went out the window the cities or state took them over and served them.
I think the closest thing we may see spring up across the country is LIGHT RAIL lines. Its better then nothing. But anything is possible.
I suppose it could happen on a reasonably long (20 mile) light rail line, and there are more of them. I just thought of the commuter rail lines, half of which were commissioned in the last 20 years. LA and south Florida have commuter rail lines of substantial length that have been running a bit longer, but as far as I know a commuter culture hasn't taken hold.
Commuter rail and light rail are completely different. Commuter rail works in New York because it's heavy rail that runs express. You can get from Greenwich, Conn. to the heart of Midtown (30 miles) in around 40 minutes. No one would take it if it were light rail stopping every mile.
Commuter rail and light rail are completely different. Commuter rail works in New York because it's heavy rail that runs express. You can get from Greenwich, Conn. to the heart of Midtown (30 miles) in around 40 minutes. No one would take it if it were light rail stopping every mile.
Agree. If their was a light rail from Conn. to Manhattan i wouldn't take it because Light Rail can only go but so fast...and not for no 40 miles. Commuter Rail would be the better option...speed wise and stop wise and dedicated ROW and it can carry more people in one scheduled train trip then a light rail vehicle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
