Sometimes it’s fun to see strong evidence for something you’re already pretty sure is true. In this case: A map from Transport Textbook showing that suburban residents who live closer to rail lines tend to own fewer cars. (Click through the jump below for a full-sized version.)
The city in question is Melbourne, Australia. The graphic shows the local tram and rail network mapped against car ownership data. In combination they offer a pretty compelling argument that access to good transit reduces the need and/or desire to own automobiles among residents of outer suburbs.
Not surprisingly, the map also shows that inner suburbs and the city center have much lower car ownership — having plenty of transit options is presumably one factor there, as well.
Visit Transport Textbook for the full treatment and some good discussion.
Tags: DUH
The maps might show that transit reduces the desire to own an automobile.
Or maybe the maps show that people who really want an automobile, but can’t afford one, prefer to live near transit until they buy a car and then move away.
“Hospitals have lots of cancer patients” does not imply that the presence of hospitals makes people desire cancer.
Correlation is not causation.
Eh. I find that uncompelling. I mean, of course correlation isn’t causation. But when there’s a widespread effect like that that’s pronounced and holds through many disparate neighborhood, there’s good reason to lean toward the sensible explanation. In this case, that if it’s easy to take the train people are less likely to feel like they need that second or third car.
Plus, homes near transit stops are generally more expensive. Meaning those households are probably a bit wealthier.
So — I don’t think anyone’s claiming certainty, but the case seems strong.
-Jebediah
@Bill Nelson I dunno if you’ve ever looked at real estate next to train stops but it is wayyy more expensive than a car unless you’re into lambhorginis.
I think what you meant to say, which may be the effect we see here, is that people make lifestyle choices and move to places where they can live those lifestyles. If you choose to take transit, you need less cars but you also move to areas well served by transit. If you don’t choose to take transit, you move to a place where the real estate value is not based on proximity to transit.
If real estate prices really are higher near stations, then that doesn’t demonstrate that you need to be richer to live there — especially if proximity to transit means that you do not have to buy and maintain a fleet of cars.
In any case, I would agree that within a neighborhood, proximity to transit raises real estate values. It would be interesting to learn what the affect of transit is between different neighborhoods. For example, the most affluent NYC areas outside of Manhattan (and the spillover Manhattan areas of Park Slope, etc.) are far from subway lines — such as Riverdale, Whitestone, Belle Harbor, etc. If the #7 train was extended to Whitestone, would housing prices increase (with all other things, such as densities, held constant)?
Also: Do you know if newer rail lines in Dallas, Sacramento, St. Louis, etc., etc., etc., have reduced auto ownership in those cities? My guess would be that those projects had no influence on auto ownership, but instead shifted people from buses.
With regards to the wealth/transportation question, this map illustrates Melbourne. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the city’s geography, the large gap around which the city circles is the Pacific Ocean, and real estate prices in the area are mostly determined by proximity to the sea. If you take this into account, you can quite clearly see that wealth, at least in the case of Melbourne, has very little to do with car ownership.