a) Subsidies - Just about all forms of development are subsidized with public infrastructure. In Charlotte, I-485 subsidizes development outside of the city center. In Jax, I-295 does the exact same thing by making property visible and readily accessible. This is why Shad Khan wants taxpayers to tear down the Hart Bridge ramps to make Lot J readily accessible. Without us spending the $50 million to destroy a perfectly fine structure and redo the street in front of Lot J, there is no 300 unit apartment project at Lot J. However, although certainly subsidized, it's not TOD.
b) Lack of options - Lack of options for the developer or end user? Charlotte has stick frame apartments going up all over the place, not just the rail line. So I believe the 97% estimate is dramatically wrong. With that said, gaining control of your future through coordinating land use policy and density controls with your public investments (roads, sewer/water, transit, whatever, etc.) is a sound method of limited fiscally irresponsible land development patterns.
On the other hand, when you don't have policies in place to achieve a desired vision, the end user winds up with a lack of options in housing supply. You generally get a glut of whatever product the developer can make the most profit on. In the end, some balance should be desirable.
The development is not _caused_ by the rail development, it correlates with it.
Yes, in other words......from the article:
When discussing the merits of investing in mass transit, the seamless integration of supportive land use policies should be a central element in the decision making process. For example, with supportive land use policy, fixed transit has been proven to stimulate TOD, incrementally creating an environment to support the initial infrastructure investment and maximizing tax revenue in previously blighted and underutilized areas of the community.
