In theory this could be solved politically, but when I'm looking for housing options, I tend to ignore bus and look only at rail, because it's the only thing I can be reasonably sure will still be there in a few years. Buses get rerouted all the time, so I can't assume that my convenient directly-on-the-line-to-work bus route will still exist in 5 years, but I can fairly safely assume that BART will still be on the same route in 5 years, because the cost of moving rails and building stations makes it much more stable (light rail isn't as expensive to reroute as BART, but still too expensive to do normally).
From what I've read, developers think similarly: they're willing to invest capital in housing developments near rail-transit lines, but not on the basis of bus lines, because they need to be able to assume that the transit situation will be stable for long enough to pay off their investment. In other words, the flexibility of buses is precisely the problem, because it means residents/developers/employers can't rely on them in making plans.
"Buses get rerouted all the time" living in Hamburg, Gemrany most of my life, I have had seen bus lines rerouted maybe 2-3 times in my life. Changing public transit access that often as in your city argubaly adds uncertainty to development projects. but i'd tackle this problem from another angle.
I think a lot more urban public transportation could be achieved by tackling your mentioned correlation: Property owners benefit by far the most from public transport infrastructure errected nearby their property (at least if underground or not noisy etc.).
Even if the owner's property taxes rise, the tax increase usually lacks behind the actual property value increase by some years up to a decade.
So if I want to solve it politically I'd:
1) get rid of that lacking-behind in property valuation. Then
2) maybe add the expectalbe increased property-tax income to my calculation when planning a new subway line
3) consider talking to owners. if a subway line is to be errected, I'd propose to owners that I'am willing to errect stations nearby their property if they participate in the costs.
I see your argument, and in some places, this might work.
I believe that in most places in the US, your suggestion that nearby property owners might support nearby transit to the extent of partially paying for it would be a non-starter. Usually, nearby (say, within 200m of the route) property owners oppose new bus/train routes tooth and claw.
One of the most famous examples of anti-transit sentiment from property owners is the congressional bill that Henry Waxman (a generally liberal Democrat) got passed, prohibiting a subway extension from downtown Los Angeles toward the ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Subway_Extension_(Los_...).
About 25 years later, this law was lifted, but a lot of the sentiment remains.
wow... this NIMBY mentality is a complete different issue. my idea isn't really thought through and may be naive. But i think the anti-transit sentiment is very much comparable to anti-gerntification sentiments and a somewhat blurred definition of public space, real property and the like.
Thanks for your perspective. It's interesting to connect anti-gentrification to NIMBYism.
I have come to believe that most anti-gentrification sentiment, at least where I live in LA, is misplaced. It's a young city and to expect neighborhoods to stay the same on the time scale of decades is unrealistic. There are laws (many mistaken, IMHO) to prevent property taxes from rising more than about 2% per year, so nobody will be forced from their home. Renters may have to move, although there are rent protections on many properties also.
Anyway, anti-gentrification sentiment is interesting because it never stops. People who moved to my neighborhood in 2000 think the 2010'ers are gentrifiers. People who moved here in 1990 think it's the 2000'ers. People who moved here in 1970 think it's anyone after 1980.
Most resentment and name-calling about "gentrification" is among the young, however. By contrast, NIMBYism is more of a middle-age and old person's thing. At least where I live.
"anti-gentrification sentiment is interesting because it never stops."
Excactly! Where does one draw the line? Usually one draws the line so that protection includes himself. For me, it's a moral problem as well, because this line-drwaring scales up to elections that justify way too much government regulation. From my perspective anti-gentrification sentiment is almost always misplaced.
"By contrast, NIMBYism is more of a middle-age and old person's thing."
Maybe the difference is also, that NIMBY-ians engage proactivly against changes (they know that where they live is already good), where as anti-gentrificationists seem to be more reactionary (not anybody expected sudden price rises to occur).
Where I connect NIMBY- and anti-gentrification-sentiments is that one want's prohibit things to change (anti-immigration, trade restrictions). All of those sentiments are understandable. But prohibiting things from change via legislation tends to be an unfair deal for future generations. The change I don't want to happen is an opportunity that for many will never occur.
"to expect neighborhoods to stay the same on the time scale of decades is unrealistic."
Absolutely. In Hamburg there are restrictions on building heights. The most stupid one is, that in downtown 'no bulding should block the view of the churches'. It's the one place in Hamburg, where land is so expensive that buildings need to rise in height if you want affordable rent prices. But the buildings can't rise, so no one lives there anymore. Thus the churches have lost their communities and downtown is a dead place after 8pm. Just one example where the attitude of "conserving culture" leads to killing it off.
From what I've read, developers think similarly: they're willing to invest capital in housing developments near rail-transit lines, but not on the basis of bus lines, because they need to be able to assume that the transit situation will be stable for long enough to pay off their investment. In other words, the flexibility of buses is precisely the problem, because it means residents/developers/employers can't rely on them in making plans.