Some recent anecdotal evidence that it doesn’t, or at least not much. Also, see here, here, and here. Warning: the links take you into the arcana of zoning ordinances and neighborhood politics.
That’s precisely the point.
Sigh.
Does Rail Change Land Use?
This article was written 14+ years ago
Matt the Engineer
The Beacon Hill story is especially frustrating, as the most dense plan they have still just looks like zoning that should have been put in place anyway – no sky-high towers, just 4 blocks of 65 foot (maximum) buildings. Now they want extra ammeneties to “compensate” them for having to have access to retail and a light rail station? Next time (hah!) we put in a light rail line, major upzoning should be a requirement before we agree to give a neighborhood a station at all.The sad part is that I think the neighborhood as a whole would welcome the retail that comes along with density. It’s probably just a few loud NIMBY voices that drown out the quiet majority.
Matt Petryni
It does. I mean, it’s probably going to take a while, but transportation almost always drives land use in one way or another.However, in the short-run; the “Vision Line” proposal is a total disaster in the making. I’m not quite as fearful as Publicola in thinking that the proposal will generate no urban development – it very likely will – but it’s classic Seattle to spend millions of dollars on the development of new transportation infrastructure that has little impact on mobility.The other links were equally frustrating; increased residential density comes with problems, to be sure. And it obviously dramatically changes neighborhoods, which sucks if that’s the place you live. But often having more people live and work in an urban area reduces crime, especially if it’s diverse. Oh well. I’m with the other Matt on this one. Maybe we should just get rid of zoning… well, maybe not that far, but you know. This is a balancing act.