.jpg)
Rail Stops Vs. Bus Stops
Great quote via the Overhead Wire…
“Rail transit drives walkable urban places. I’ve never seen one dollar of real estate investment invested because of a bus stop. But if you have [rail] transit, it’s a different story altogether.” – Chris Leinberger
Permanence yields investment. Bus stops come and go. I would take it a step further and suggest that in several cases the presence of a bus stop could actually inhibit real estate investment.
About Jude Galligan:
Jude Galligan, Broker-Owner of RE/MAX Downtown Austin and publisher of Downtown Austin Blog (aka. "DAB"), is a veteran sales professional assisting buyers and sellers of downtown Austin lofts, condos, and real estate. A resident owner in downtown Austin and an active community stakeholder, Jude serves on the Board of Directors of the Downtown Austin Alliance (DAA) and the Downtown Austin Neighborhood Association (DANA).Contact Jude
It’s also worth adding that rail service isn’t sufficient either – it has to be high-quality rail service, i.e. fast, frequent, going to good destinations without transfers.
Commuter rail isn’t going to do it, in other words.
agreed. good destinations, along an urban rail line, should create more permanent stops.
I think apartment complexes often are built around bus stops. Take a drive along the 3/10 route in South Austin. Pretty much all the apartment complexes in the area are along that route. But that route is probably one of the best in Austin for getting people where they want to go.
I think the difference is that bus stops yield low-end investment. Trains high-end.
The bus stops likely followed the apartments in that example, Tim. (Many bus stops along the #3 have moved at least a couple times even just since I’ve been here).