How Infill Development Benefits Transit Riders

When a development is proposed in Pittsburgh that will increase building space, neighbors often object. Sometimes they are able to get the project cancelled entirely, other times they obtain costly concessions that deter developers from even proposing similar projects in other areas. One reason they are successful is that the benefits of infill development to the broader community are not always clear.

A proposed development at 3500 Forbes Avenue in Oakland provides a good case study. This planning commission briefing describes the proposed development and includes detailed visualizations. The proposed 10 story building would include ground floor retail, and 296 apartments. It would add a 20 ft wide publicly accessible pedestrian connection between  Semple St. and McKee Place.

A recent Post Gazette article documents the Not In My BackYard (NIMBY) objections of an adjacent property owner that have delayed this project.

A representative from Family House, which owns an adjacent property, has written a letter to the planning commission. It complains the proposed development “will negatively impact light, air, and views to and from” adjacent property. The letter also complains about the pedestrian connection between Semple St. and McKee Place; stating “an alleyway and public access to an area that is currently private with no legally permitted public access…The walkway provides no buffering, and will be a nuisance to Family House’s operations at all hours of the day and night, including those hours when our guests will be resting…[the apartment building] will be a nuisance and safety concern to residents of Family House and Oakland in general.”

The Post Gazette article doesn’t explain what the specific safety concerns are. High rise buildings have numerous safety advantages over other types of residential buildings. For example, the death rate from fire in high rise buildings is lower than in shorter buildings of the same use. Building more homes in areas with good transit and pedestrian networks allows more people to use safer transportation modes and makes our air safer to breath. Building pedestrian connections also supports safer transportation options like walking and transit.

The Oakland Planning and Development Corporation (OPDC) has also expressed concern with the ostensible lack of affordable housing in the development. Citing affordable housing concerns as an objection is particularly unfortunate because NIMBY obstructionism is one of the main factors making housing less affordable. Housing prices are based on supply and demand, and numerous academic studies have shown that new housing construction reduces prices in the surrounding neighborhood.

It is true that taller buildings may impact some people’s views. However this drawback is minor compared to the large community wide benefits of taller buildings. The most commonly cited benefit is an improvement to the tax base. Taller building pay more property taxes without adding to maintain roads and utility lines that a greenfield development of single family homes would.

One benefit that is typically overlooked is an improved transit system. The proposed building in Oakland is on the route of the new Bus Rapid Transit system being built between downtown and oakland. After downtown, Oakland has the best transit in all of southwestern Pennsylvania. Therefore residents of the proposed high rise would have higher transit ridership than average for Pittsburgh. The additional ridership would support providing additional service hours. This would increase service frequency for everyone riding on the affected routes, even people who don’t ride through Oakland.

For example, my wife rides the 61A bus, which passes this development in Oakland, from Squirrel Hill to Wilkinsburg for her daily commute. Any infill development in Oakland will support better frequency on the 61A, so she would benefit even though her route doesn’t pass the development.

The number of additional buses can be roughly estimated. Let’s assume that 50% of the 296 apartments have a resident who makes one transit round trip per day. This corresponds to 296 one way trips. This may be an underestimate, as many of the apartments will house multiple residents and some residents will make multiple trips per day. The Port Authority’s 2018 annual service report states that there are on average 33.2 bus passengers per revenue service hour. Therefore the ridership generated by this one apartment alone would be able to support 9 hours per day of additional bus service.

$\frac{296\ \textrm{trips}}{33.2\frac{\textrm{trips}}{\textrm{hour}}}=9\ \textrm{hours}$

The greater service frequency enabled by infill development would draw riders from existing residents as well, creating a feedback effect that supports better service for everyone.

The transit benefits from a single development are small for any individual rider. However the number of impacted riders is huge. The 61 and 71 buses, which pass by this development, have a combined daily ridership of over 40,000, a number that is likely to grow after completion of the BRT system. Each of those riders would enjoy a small benefit if the frequency on these bus lines were increased. However, this diffuse benefit is small enough that individual riders are unlikely to lobby for infill development projects which benefit them.

While the service impact from a single project to an individual rider is small, the cumulative effect of obstructionism to every infill development has caused a major reduction in transit service. So the next time you’re waiting at the bus stop or train station, consider that your vehicle would come sooner if our zoning and planning system allowed more high rise buildings.