Property Values and Light Rail Transit:

Source: APTA 1999 Rapid Transit Conference

According to the study, "Impacts of Rail Transit on Property Values" presented at the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Conference, studies of twelve rail projects (including both heavy rail and light rail) have demonstrated that rail has positive effects on property values. The study judged the value of property through the price or value of homes next to and farther away from the rail line. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system in the San Francisco Bay Area is the most well-documented transit system in the United States. Comparisons were made between the property values of new housing developments around transit stations and developments well outside of BART station areas. Although the prices of rental housing units near the Pleasant Hill station cost more than comparable rental housing farther away, in other neighborhoods, such as Albany, El Cerrito and Richmond, apartment unit rents exhibited no significant difference based on the distance from the BART station. This fluctuation was evident in many other areas; the variation of home price sales from 1971 (13 years before the 1984 opening of the line) to 1990 (6 years after opening) along the heavy rail Metrorail system in Miami-Dade County, Florida was attributed to neighborhood type as was the impact of the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority in DeKalb County, Alabama. In Miami, higher growth, higher priced neighborhoods experienced a greater positive price change than stagnant, lower priced neighborhoods, whereas in Atlanta, the higher income neighborhoods did not appear to show value associated with being near rail though lower income neighborhoods did show positive value with that association. Positive value increases with pedestrian accessibility both in terms of residential proximity, generally only homes one-half mile or less away from the station experienced positive change, and commercial proximity, the systems that reached more locations or strong centers of development within their respective regions experienced the most significant association from the transit station. Thus, it seems that rail transit shows positive correlation to property values when the access provided is valued over the nuisance effects of noise, perceptions of crime and visual intrusion.

While the study used 'positive value' to mean an increase in value, I do not think this necessarily correlates with a better state of affairs. I agree that augmenting the desirability of living or doing business near transit stations is a good way to promote continued or renewed settlement of urban centers, but urban rail systems also serve communities on the periphery of a city, hoping to lessen congestion from commuters. Elimianting long commutes would also make homes and businesses near transit stations in the suburbs more desirable to live or work in. How can cities resolve this dilemma? How can sprawl be discouraged at the same time as mass transit develops to reduce traffic?

Additionally, by raising rental or sale prices for housing along the rail line, it is possible that residents could be displaced. If transit stations make a surrounding low income neighborhoods too expensive for their residents, where will they go? To a less expensive neighborhood, farther away from transit stations, where it will be more difficult (as it was before the rail line) to access employment centers, cultural centers or retail opportunities? This hardly seems like a positive effect.