Authors: Robert Hibberd*, University of Arizona - Geography & Development
Topics: Transportation Geography, Population Geography, Urban and Regional Planning
Keywords: redlining, transit, employment, demographics, housing
Session Type: Paper
Presentation File: No File Uploaded
Redlining practices that began in New Deal-era America led to disinvestment in poor and minority urban neighborhoods. Subsequent efforts at reinvestment have produced mixed results. Transit stations have attracted unprecedented investment and lending in these places. Transit Oriented Development has been known to significantly attract public economic development efforts and private investment. This paper seeks to evaluate economic development and reinvestment in redlined neighborhoods in various cities across the United States that have previously seen relatively intractable challenges in reinvestment efforts. Major conflicting theoretical trends, such as that between Environmental Justice and the implications of gentrification, have impeded a clear picture of the outcomes of transit expansion in poor neighborhoods. Results have varied across metropolitan areas and by transit system modes (e.g., commuter rail, light rail, streetcar) between ongoing inability to attract needed reinvestment and gentrification-driven displacement of poor residents. We employ an exploratory analysis of shifts over time of people, jobs, and land value using chi-square and location quotient-based evaluation of change, following up with hypothesis evaluation through principle components and spatial autoregressive modeling with historical context and policy document exploration to flesh out the outcomes of transit station construction and neighborhood land use change and intensification across the years spanning the timeline before, during, and after the Great Recession, 2002-2016. We hypothesize that station-area outcomes will vary by transit mode and age, metropolitan area, and demographic profile, and that neighborhoods in the greatest decline will have attracted the lowest level of investment.