Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Slick Vik

DART generated $7.4 billion in economic activity since 2002

Recommended Posts

Though ridership hasn't been great, a lot of investment has been made around rail stations, a hidden benefit

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/transportation/20140128-a-rail-difference-dart-stations-driving-nearly-4b-in-nearby-development-studies-find.ece

 

Investments that, in the absence of DART, would still have been made, but just wouldn't have been made around rail stations.  As with most government economic development strategies, investment in rail produces very little accretive economic activity, it merely redirects the activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Investments that, in the absence of DART, would still have been made, but just wouldn't have been made around rail stations.  As with most government economic development strategies, investment in rail produces very little accretive economic activity, it merely redirects the activity.

 

No. Way to twist a positive into a negative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Way to twist a positive into a negative.

 

Yes.  Do you seriously contend that DART has generated additional demand for multi-family housing or retail or office space in the Dallas area?

 

And, FWIW, nothing I said in any way turns DART into a negative.  Rail mass transit can provide a lot of positives.  Even redirecting investments to certain areas can, at least theoretically, be a positive.  But it is quite unlikely to generate significant accretive investment to the community as a whole.

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  Do you seriously contend that DART has generated additional demand for multi-family housing (the largest chunk of the so-called TOD) in the Dallas area?

 

And, FWIW, nothing I said in any way turns DART into a negative.  Rail mass transit can provide a lot of positives.  Even redirecting investments to certain areas can, at least theoretically, be a positive.  But it is quite unlikely to generate significant accretive investment to the community as a whole.

 

How is redirect? It's extra investment. Do you think in Houston the amount of investment on main street that's taking place now would have without rail? No. But that doesn't stop other investment from happening either. There are investors locally and from other parts of the country that are investing just because of the rail that otherwise wouldn't. Also those transit related jobs that are referenced wouldn't be there without more transit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is redirect? It's extra investment. Do you think in Houston the amount of investment on main street that's taking place now would have without rail? No. But that doesn't stop other investment from happening either. There are investors locally and from other parts of the country that are investing just because of the rail that otherwise wouldn't. Also those transit related jobs that are referenced wouldn't be there without more transit.

 

No.  There is zero evidence that it is extra investment.  The investment along Main Street might not be taking place along Main Street without Metro rail, but it would be taking place in Houston.  The overall market demand for multi-family, retail, restaurant, office space, and hotels is what it is and the existence of rail transit has vanishingly little effect on that overall demand.  X number of apartments will be built in Houston over a period of time.  Without rail, perhaps none of those would have been built along Main Street.  But they would all have been built.

 

Thirty years of case studies and historical research have documented the role that transit has played in the growth and development of cities and metropolitan areas since the late 1800s.

. . .

 
Urban rail transit investments
rarely "create" new growth, but more
typically redistribute growth that would
have taken place without the
investment.
Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it can be agreed that it development that it creats/redirects is more dense and focused allowing more people to live and businesses to exit in a limited area. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it can be agreed that it development that it creats/redirects is more dense and focused allowing more people to live and businesses to exit in a limited area. 

 

No argument there.  As I said above, rail transit can do many good things.  Redirecting investments to particular areas can be a good thing.  Increasing density can be a good thing.  Increasing overall investment in a city/metro area is just not one of the things we should realistically expect a rail transit system to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No.  There is zero evidence that it is extra investment.  The investment along Main Street might not be taking place along Main Street without Metro rail, but it would be taking place in Houston.  The overall market demand for multi-family, retail, restaurant, office space, and hotels is what it is and the existence of rail transit has vanishingly little effect on that overall demand.  X number of apartments will be built in Houston over a period of time.  Without rail, perhaps none of those would have been built along Main Street.  But they would all have been built.

 

Thirty years of case studies and historical research have documented the role that transit has played in the growth and development of cities and metropolitan areas since the late 1800s.

. . .

 
Urban rail transit investments
rarely "create" new growth, but more
typically redistribute growth that would
have taken place without the
investment.

 

 

Great. Ignore the study I put up and respond with one of your own. The property values along the rail specifically went up. That leads to higher tax revenue as well. And there are investors that specifically invest in transit oriented development. So if other investments are taking place anyway then this is extra investment. Plus the jobs aren't redirected they are transit specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great. Ignore the study I put up and respond with one of your own. The property values along the rail specifically went up. That leads to higher tax revenue as well. And there are investors that specifically invest in transit oriented development. So if other investments are taking place anyway then this is extra investment. Plus the jobs aren't redirected they are transit specific.

 

I did not ignore the study you put up.  The study you put up did not even directly make the claim you are making.   All they really said was that $X of investment have been made near the rail stations.  The idea that all of that investment was accretive and would not otherwise have been made in the Dallas area was your inference. 

 

The possibility there are some investors who specifically invest in TODs proves nothing.  Without the rail, the demand for apartments, retail, and office space would still have existed and that demand would have been addressed by non-TOD investors.  DART caused some of that investment to be redirected into TODs. 

 

There is simply no reason to imagine that the Dallas area would have had less overall demand for apartments, retail or office space (or that investors would not have met that demand) in the absence of DART (and again, the study you put up does not state that to be the case).

 

 

Edited by Houston19514

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not ignore the study you put up.  The study you put up did not even directly make the claim you are making.   All they really said was that $X of investment have been made near the rail stations.  The idea that all of that investment was accretive and would not otherwise have been made in the Dallas area was your inference. 

 

The possibility there are some investors who specifically invest in TODs proves nothing.  Without the rail, the demand for apartments, retail, and office space would still have existed and that demand would have been addressed by non-TOD investors.  DART caused some of that investment to be redirected into TODs. 

 

There is simply no reason to imagine that the Dallas area would have had less overall demand for apartments, retail or office space (or that investors would not have met that demand) in the absence of DART (and again, the study you put up does not state that to be the case).

 

Here are some more articles for you

 

$18 billion in development because of DC streetcar

 

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/after-streetcar-line-opens-18b-in-development-expected-in-dc/2014/01/24/ef73ae88-8389-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html

 

$1.5 billion because of Cincinnati streetcar

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2013/10/streetcars-economic-impact-likely-far.html?page=all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to post my reply to these statistics on the other forum..

"i just did the math on just the developments in downtown and the medical center, and only the ones i could find construction costs for [couldnt find costs for 609 Main, or Hilcorps new tower or alliance apts], and its over 2 billion in developments that have gone up along the original 8 mile stretch of the Main Street line since it was built in 2004.. not counting any developments outside of the medical center and downtown. over 2 billion for EIGHT MILES of rail. compared to 7 billion for 85 miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very unfortunate news.  Wish these articles would be banned from these forums as it bares no relevance to the discussion but an unfortunate tragedy.....

Edited by slfunk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic but y'all got hit with tornados and our residents died.  I'm very sorry and Houston was missed.  We were lucky, but Garland, Rowlett and DFW got slammed!  My condolences to everybody up to the north.  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic but y'all got hit with tornados and our residents died.  I'm very sorry and Houston was missed.  We were lucky, but Garland, Rowlett and DFW got slammed!  My condolences to everybody up to the north.  :(

 

Still alive! :)

I bet you thought I was taken up in the tornado.

 

Seriously it was crazy. The news channels were showing like 5 tornadoes and the National Weather Service or whatever actually interrupted the news. It was that serious.

We were in the path. I was in NE Dallas. It missed us but went east to Garland,Wylie and Rowlett. We had an aunt on the road in that area. She turned around and came to spend a night with us.

I saw the damage in Rowlett where my cousin lives. Her house was not touched but 2 streets over it was demolished. Apartment bldgs too.

 

I've never seen that in person. I would like to see a tornado from far far away like those stormchasers but not any closer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...