Transit-oriented development in Arlington, VA
In their second article this month criticizing the Cincinnati Streetcar proposal, the organization COAST continues to make bold claims backed up with few facts.
Their claims in this article?
- The belief that “Transit Attracts Development” is a myth.
- The extension of Washington, D.C.’s Metrorail system into Prince George’s County, Maryland has been a failure.
- The Cincinnati Streetcar will be a failure.
I’ll address those one at a time.
(1.) It is a fact that transit does attract development. Historically, all development has been centered on transit. Cincinnati was founded on the Ohio River which provided us with access for transportation and shipping. Modern day Cincinnati is heavily oriented around our many highway corridors, also used for transportation and shipping.
Of course, I understand that when most people refer to “transit,” they are speaking of “mass transit,” and specifically, “rail transit.” But the evidence shows that these attract development as well, and there is actually a specific term for it: transit-oriented development. It is defined as “higher-density mixed-use development within walking distance of transit stations.” Ironically, the Wikipedia page for Transit-oriented development features a photo (seen above) illustrating how Metrorail and the resulting transit-oriented development have shaped Arlington, Virginia.
(2.) I’m not extremely familiar with the Washington Metrorail system and its extensions throughout the years. However I seriously question COAST’s claim that the Prince George’s County’s routes have been a failure. Mark Miller claims that none of the expected development around the line has actually happened. But in fact, the Branch Avenue station is the location of transit-oriented apartment complex called MetroPlace at Town Center, and a proposed 801-unit apartment unit and retail center.
If there has not been an much of an explosion of transit-oriented development as expected, I have a logical explanation why: In that area, Metrorail basically serves as a commuter rail service. You can see from aerial photos that the stations in question are mostly surrounded by park-and-ride lots, parking garages, and suburban development. It’s not a surprise that it might take awhile for transit-oriented development to spring up in those areas.
(3.) COAST ends their article with the statement, “They [Prince George’s County] have created a money-pit, and can’t bring themselves to stop digging. Let’s not make the same mistake with a Cincinnati streetcar.”
But I can’t really see how the two systems relate. Sure, they’re both rail systems, but they’re very different. The Metrorail extension serves as a regional rail system that helps connect the suburbs with the city. The Cincinnati Streetcar is an urban circulator serving the city’s residents and visitors. It’s illogical to say that if the Metrorail doesn’t cause development, the Cincinnati Streetcar won’t cause development. Unlike the Maryland suburbs, several areas in Cincinnati simply can not develop beyond a certain point without modern mass transit.
Perhaps COAST is not trying to create a comparison between Metrorail and the Cincinnati Streetcar. Perhaps they are just doubting the authenticity of the reports showing the amount of development that will be caused by the Cincinnati Streetcar. But rather than just saying, “these studies aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on” (Miller), why not tell us what’s wrong with the studies? If they’re based on inaccurate information or illogical conclusions, point out specifically what those are.