Recently Created Resource Articles

Maintaining Diversity In America’s Transit-Rich Neighborhoods: Tools for Equitable Neighborhood Change

Fri, 01 Oct 2010 19:18:37 -0400

More than 3,000 transit-rich neighborhoods (TRNs) in U.S. metropolitan areas have fixed-guideway transit stations and hundreds more such neighborhoods could be created over the next decade if current plans for new transit systems and stations are realized. Americans are increasingly using transit and showing more interest in living in transit-rich neighborhoods. For neighborhood and equity advocates from Atlanta to Seattle and Minneapolis to Houston, however, this good news is tempered by a growing concern about gentrification and displacement. Will current neighborhood residents, many of them low income and/or
people of color, benefit from planned transit stations? Or will they be displaced by wealthier and less diverse residents lured not only by transit but also by the other amenities that come with transit-induced neighborhood revitalization?

Planners and policymakers would appear to face a Hobson’s choice if transit investment and expansion inevitably lead to gentrification and displacement: either make the transit investment and accept loss of neighborhood diversity as collateral damage, or avoid transit expansion projects serving diverse, lower-income neighborhoods and leave those residents with poor public transit or none at all.

This report is based on research that was designed to address this dilemma. We wanted to understand whether gentrification and displacement are actually occurring in transit-rich neighborhoods. To the extent that undesirable patterns of neighborhood change were found, we also wanted to understand the underlying mechanisms in order to propose policy tools that could be used to shape equitable neighborhood change in both old and new TRNs.

Our research found that transit investment frequently changes the surrounding neighborhood. While patterns of neighborhood change vary, the most predominant pattern is one in which housing becomes more expensive, neighborhood residents become wealthier and vehicle ownership becomes more common. And in some of the newly transitrich neighborhoods, the research reveals how a new transit station can set in motion a cycle of unintended consequences in which core transit users—such as renters and low income households—are priced out in favor of higher-income, carowning residents who are less likely to use public transit for commuting. We believe that the risk that transit investment could catalyze undesirable neighborhood change is substantial
enough that it needs to be managed whenever transit investments or improvements are being planned. We therefore present a toolkit of policy tools for shaping equitable neighborhood change in TRNs, tools that are increasingly available and in use across the country.

Defining Transit Areas of Influence

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:51:36 -0500

This Recommended Practice describes the spatial areas in which transit stops and stations typically have the greatest impact on land use and development and from which there is high potential to generate transit ridership. It provides guidance on delineating these areas for the purposes of influencing decisions about private and public investments and services.

Increased walking, biking, and other non-transit trips have multiple benefits, both locally and regionally. This Recommended Practice focuses on the area where transit can have the greatest influence on supporting shorter trips and non-auto trips in order to maximize the benefits that accrue to local communities and regions as a whole. By planning collaboratively for these transit areas of influence, transit agencies and local jurisdictions can maximize the benefits of transit investments and help these investments have a positive effect on surrounding communities. This document defines transit modes and uses these transit modes to define typical areas of influence. It then identifies factors that can limit or expand the typical area of influence. Finally, it identifies potential usage of the area of influence in planning and development practice.

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Vehicle Miles Traveled

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:33:43 -0400

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) commits California to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The transportation sector is the top GHG emitter in California, contributing roughly 40 percent of all California emissions. Poor fuel efficiency and high vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are primary contributors to transportation sector GHG emissions. Meeting California’s GHG emissions reduction goals requires reductions in both per-mile emissions and vehicle miles traveled. Fuel efficiency has been addressed historically by federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and California has passed its own legislation regulating GHG emissions from vehicles.

Vehicle miles traveled, however, have historically not received legislative attention, and have been growing at a much faster rate than population or the economy. There is consequently a “VMT gap” in the current regulatory structure for GHG emissions reductions envisioned under AB 32. This Article addresses how AB 32’s developing market-based GHG emissions reduction policy, allowing for carbon offsets, could interact with implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to support emissions reductions from transportation-related land use projects. Allowing carbon offsets for CEQA land use projects requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to acknowledge that the degree of GHG mitigation required for transportationrelated land use projects is discretionary under the CEQA process; otherwise, CARB would face the legal conundrum of allowing industry to claim offset credits for mitigation considered compulsory under a separate legal statute.

Carbon offsets for CEQA mitigation should be recognized as being additional to emissions reductions that would otherwise take place without offset investment dollars. This is because significant land use changes are necessary to meet California’s long-term GHG reduction goals and it should be a legal priority to facilitate these changes. This outcome would be most consistent with the existing CEQA regime and would increase incentives and funding available to implement GHG emissions reductions from land use-related projects.

Further, we recommend that a regional transportation authority (also known as a Metropolitan Planning Organization or MPO)—the same agency charged with modeling the impacts of future development plans on GHG emissions under recent legislation designed to address vehicle miles traveled (under SB 375)— facilitate quality offset projects and coordinate offset investment dollars for CEQA mitigation. We argue that such a carbon offset program under AB 32 will prove to be more significant than SB 375 in addressing vehicle miles traveled by promoting increased investments in transportation-related land use projects.

School Impact Analysis of GMU Forecasts for Tysons Corner to 2050

Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:20:00 -0500

There are 10 schools within the Tysons study area. At present, 4 schools are over capacity. In five years, 2 additional schools are projected to be over capacity for a total of 6 schools over capacity. Over the past two years, FCPS has experienced a significant increase in enrollment (5,000+ students) and anticipates a continuation of such growth.

In response to a request to evaluate the impact of the high household numbers contained in a GMU report, “Forecast for Tysons Corner to 2050,” on school facilities in the Tysons study area, the anticipated student yields are shown below. The anticipated student yields are based on the current County-wide student yield ratio for mid/high-rise units

Did the Hiawatha Light Rail Line Increase Single-Family Residential Property Values?

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:03:11 -0400

In 2001, the City of Minneapolis began construction on the Hiawatha Light Rail Line, one of the largest mass transit projects in the history of Minnesota. Opened in June 2004, this twelve-mile, seventeen-station line connects Minneapolis’s downtown with the Minneapolis- Saint Paul International Airport and the Mall of America. In addition to connecting major amenities, the Hiawatha Line runs through several of Minneapolis’s residential neighborhoods. To the extent that light rail increases accessibility and decreases transportation costs for nearby residents, such effects should be capitalized into local property markets.1 With this in mind, our paper examines the effect of the Hiawatha Light Rail Line on single-family residential property values between 1997 and 2006.

MTC Transit Connectivity Plan

Mon, 01 May 2006 17:53:49 -0400

The transit rider or the customer generally has one purpose in mind - getting from here to there on transit with the greatest ease and convenience possible. The customer’s ease of transferring from one transit system to another is “connectivity.” It is important to understand that connectivity is measured from the perspective of the customer. While the transit operators, the funding agencies, and others may have their views and measures of connectivity, the customer’s perception is the standard against which service quality should be determined.

Utah Transit Authority Light Rail Design Criteria

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:45:47 -0400

The material contained in the following chapters provides a uniform basis for project design of light rail transit (LRT) systems. These criteria serve as guidelines and do not substitute for engineering judgment and sound engineering practice. Exceptions may apply in special cases. Applications for exceptions to the criteria, deviation from the criteria, changes to the criteria, additions to the criteria, and other questions should be submitted in writing to the UTA Light Rail Transit Project Director and must be approved in writing before the modification is implemented. The basic goal of the project is to provide an improved public transportation system in a cost-effective, environmentally sensitive and socially responsible manner. Design of project elements will be based on a “design to cost” philosophy.

Safe Transit in Shared Use

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 17:33:54 -0400

During the last 30 years, due to the flexibility of light rail transit (LRT), new systems have been implemented, some of which include line segments that share tracks with freight operations regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). To operate on the general railroad system, these LRT systems have obtained waivers from FRA safety regulations by operating with temporal separation. The aim of this research study was to further develop concepts for temporal separation to enable shared use operations in additional locations with more frequent and more flexible operations of FRA-compliant and non-compliant services. Based on the operating concepts and technology that facilitate temporal separation on the NJ TRANSIT River LINE, this project prepared a design for expanding freight and passenger operations while maintaining separation of modes in a configuration that is very similar to designs that have already been accepted by FRA.

Market Opportunities Study Kalihi Neighborhood TOD Plan

Sun, 01 May 2011 17:25:51 -0400

The City and County of Honolulu (City) has initiated preparation of the Kalihi Neighborhood Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Plan for three stations along the planned new elevated transit line in Honolulu - Middle Street, Kalihi, and Kapalama. The purpose of the overall assignment is to promote transit oriented land uses and improve neighborhood quality and character of the areas around the transit stations.

The new 20-mile elevated rail system is planned to connect East Kapolei to Ala Moana Center and will consist of 21 stations. As a general rule, existing development in the Ewa area of the island is less intense than in the existing built areas of the “urban” stations that are the subject of this assignment. According to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the transit line will be built out in 2019, and by 2030 it is estimated that there will be approximately 116,000 annual boardings.

This report, prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. as a sub consultant to Dyett & Bhatia, assesses the potential market demand for a variety of residential and commercial land uses consistent with TOD principles and to identify the opportunities and constraints for development of those types of uses.

Measuring Urbanity One Block at a Time: The Neighborhood Transit Readiness Scorecard

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:17:01 -0400

This paper outlines a methodology that assesses urbanity in three dimensions (density, diversity, and design) and creates a combined scorecard that weights each dimension according to its influence on transit usage and walkability. Using no proprietary methods, this approach can be repeated by any individual or local government with GIS software and basic internet access. The resulting measurements can be used by communities to assess what types of investments and regulatory changes are necessary to create more transit and pedestrian-friendly communities.

Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:33:27 -0400

Foreward

TCRP Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations provides a process and spreadsheet-based tool for effectively planning for access to high capacity transit stations, including commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, bus rapid transit (BRT), and ferry. The report is accompanied by a CD that includes the station access planning spreadsheet tool that allows trade-off analyses among the various access modes (automobile, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit-oriented development) for different station types. The potential effectiveness of transit-oriented development opportunities to increase transit ridership is also assessed.

This report and accompanying materials are intended to aid the many groups involved in planning, developing, and improving access to high capacity transit stations, including public transportation and highway agencies, planners, developers, and affected citizens.

TCRP Report 153 addresses planning and design for access to high capacity transit stations, including guidelines for arranging and integrating various station design elements. The report

Provides a detailed eight-step planning process for effective station access planning;
Provides elements of successful station access planning and specific lessons learned from research case studies to improve the effectiveness of the planning process;
Sets forth a comprehensive station typology, provides information on station boarding and arrival volumes and access modes by station type, and provides guidance for establishing policy for station mode of access;
Presents techniques for estimated travel demand in terms of station boardings by mode and introduces the station access planning tool;
Discusses station arrangement and design, and provides broad objectives and considerations for improving station access;
Presents guidelines for enhancing pedestrian access to, from, and within station areas;
Offers guidance relating to bicycle access and parking;
Contains guidance for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of feeder transit access;
Covers park-and-ride locations and arrangements to stations; and
Discusses transit-oriented development and its relation to station access and parking.

The appendices to TCRP Report 153 provide detailed additional information and are available on the accompanying CD.

Appendix A summarizes the stakeholder interviews and literature review that formed a basis for the guidance provided in this report; the full literature review is available as
TCRP Web-Only Document 44: Literature Review for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations;
Appendix B provides an overview of existing analysis tools related to transit station access;
Appendix C presents a spreadsheet-based station analysis tool for assessing various station access alternatives and instructions for use and provides detailed instructions on using the tool;
Appendix D includes a summary of existing data related to transit access collected as part of the research project, including access mode share characteristics for select stations throughout the United States; and
Appendix E contains the project’s 11 case studies. The case studies illustrate the organizational elements for successful station access planning, and provide applications for elements of the eight-step planning process to specific stations at each of the eleven case study transit agencies.

The appendices and planning tool are available for download below.

Maintaining Diversity In America’s Transit-Rich Neighborhoods: Tools for Equitable Neighborhood Change

Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:44:45 -0400

More than 3,000 transit-rich neighborhoods (TRNs) in U.S. metropolitan areas have fixed-guideway transit stations and hundreds more such neighborhoods could be created over the next decade if current plans for new transit systems and stations are realized. Americans are increasingly using transit and showing more interest in living in transit-rich neighborhoods. For neighborhood and equity advocates from Atlanta to Seattle and Minneapolis to Houston, however, this good news is tempered by a growing concern about gentrification and displacement. Will current neighborhood residents, many of them low income and/or people of color, benefit from planned transit stations? Or will they be displaced by wealthier and less diverse residents lured not only by transit but also by the other amenities that come with transit-induced neighborhood revitalization?

Impact of Transit Oriented Development on Public Transportation Ridership

Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:42:26 -0400

Abstract

The purpose of Phase I of this study was to develop a research design to better establish the relationship between transit oriented development (TOD) and travel mode share. The initial hypothesis that good quality transit combined with good quality TOD would succeed in shifting travelers from single-occupant vehicle travel to transit was found to be an oversimplification. Good quality transit service is necessary and good quality TOD is likely helpful and important to shifting mode share but not sufficient. Other necessary factors include supporting elements of the larger urban spatial structure, disincentives to driving alone, favorable marketability of TOD for non-transportation reasons, and incentives to use transit. Research literature suggests that elements of urban form are perhaps not the most important determinants of travel behavior, specifically mode choice, number of trips taken and length of trips. However, urban form does appear to exert some kind of influence, and for that reason, it is worthwhile to further specify the relationship to ascertain how policy initiatives relating to TOD can support the goal to balance mode share in the direction of greater transit use. To better define the elements of TOD that shape travel behavior, this study describes a research design for the development of a panel survey, using recently developed cell phone technology, to track the same individuals and households over time. Using a pre-test post-test design, the survey data collected for a region in Florida would be a sound investment for improved travel forecasting, modeling and other uses.

10 Strategies For Attracting Investment Near Transit

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:16:28 -0400

Background

Over the next 25 years, the San Francisco Bay Area is projected to grow by an estimated 22 percent—adding around 1.6 million new residents. Land use and development professionals are engaged in a dialogue around how the region can accommodate this growth in a way that maintains the extraordinary quality-of-life that attracts people to live and work in the region. With an eye toward demographic shifts like an aging population and an increasing number of smaller and non-family households, planners and developers recognize the growing demand for homes and jobs in walkable, urban environments.

High land and housing costs in the core areas of the region, however, create continued development pressure in the outskirts of the region, leading to commute-times and household transportation costs that are among the highest in the nation. The high cost of housing and transportation is particularly felt by the region’s moderate- and lower-income families, who in some cities spend as much as much as 70 percent of their income on housing and transportation expenses.

By creating neighborhoods where people don’t have to rely on a car for all their trips, transit-oriented development (TOD) can play an important role in accommodating the Bay Area’s projected growth. Despite its many benefits, TOD is difficult to implement due to factors like higher land costs near transit, the complexity and cost of building compact infill projects, and community resistance to change.

Because of these challenges, building successful TOD requires effective partnerships between public and private sector players. It is particularly important that land use and development practitioners work together to ensure that community plans for TOD are both aggressive and realistic - pushing the market to maximize the potential benefits that TOD can bring but also staying grounded in the realities of market demand and economic feasibility.

It is for this reason that ULI San Francisco launched the TOD MarketPlace program in 2005. Leveraging the success of ULI’s national advisory panel model, the TOD MarketPlace seeks to unite land use decision makers and private sector development professionals towards investing in transit-oriented development opportunities in the Bay Area. The TOD MarketPlace program brings together teams of for-profit and non-profit developers, economists and urban designers to form Technical Assistance Panels (TAPs), which work with city representatives to evaluate transit-oriented development plans in the Bay Area. The panels develop targeted recommendations for maximizing community benefits related to public investments, and present their findings at an annual TOD MarketPlace conference. This conference, attended by 350 people in 2009, has become a seminal gathering for TOD-practitioners in the Bay Area. Over the five years of the program, technical assistance panels have worked on TOD plans in 28 cities. In 2010, the program was expanded statewide in order to examine the land use and development implications of California’s future high-speed rail system. Due to its success, the Bay Area’s TOD MarketPlace model is now being replicated by ULI District Councils in Denver, Los Angeles, and Orange County.

This report elevates the ten most common or compelling recommendations made by the ULI TOD TAPs over the program’s five years. While these recommendations were developed for specific communities in the Bay Area, there are many common lessons that can be applied in other U.S. regions aiming to implement transit-oriented development.

Getting There Together: Tools to Advocate for Inclusive Development Near Transit

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:40:09 -0400

What Does This Guide Do?

This guide is intended to provide Southern California housing advocates with an understanding of certain opportunities and legal tools for influencing affordable housing and land use polices at four distinct phases of sustainable transit planning and development: the regional, local, neighborhood, and project-specific levels. To address some of the risks that are specific to the Southern California region, and to capitalize on some of the opportunities that come with transit-oriented development, this guide specifically focuses on laws affecting affordable housing and regional and local planning, zoning, and land disposition policies. Additionally, although this guide discusses tools available throughout Southern California, it also specifically identifies opportunities in the City and County of Los Angeles.

The Half-Mile Circle: Does It Best Represent Transit Station Catchments?

Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:15:58 -0400

Abstract

One-half mile has become the accepted distance for gauging a transit station’s catchment area in the U.S. It is the de facto standard for planning TODs (transit oriented developments) in America. Planners and researchers use transit catchment areas not only to make predictions about transit ridership and the land use and socioeconomic impacts of transit, but also to prescribe regulations, such as the relaxation of restrictive zoning, or carve out TOD financial plans. This radius is loosely based on the distance that people are willing to walk to transit, but this same reasoning has been used to justify other transit catchment areas. Using station-level variables from 1,449 high-capacity American transit stations in 21 cities, we aim to identify whether there is clear benchmark between distance and ridership that provides a norm for station-area planning and prediction. For the purposes of predicting station-level transit ridership, we find that different catchment areas have little influence on a model’s predictive power. This suggests that transit agencies should use the easiest and most readily available data when estimating direct demand models. For prescribing land-use policy, by contrast, the evidence is less clear. Nevertheless, we find some support for using a quarter-mile catchment area for jobs around transit and a half-mile catchment for population. While these distances will likely vary from place to place and depending on the study purpose, they are a good starting point for considering transit-oriented policy or collecting labor-intensive data, such as surveys, about transit-adjacent firms or households.

Walk Urban: Demand, Constraints and Measurement of the Urban Pedestrian Environment

Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:58:26 -0400

Executive Summary

Walking is nature’s mode of transport. For many people in the developing world, it is the only form of transport. The globe’s rapid urbanization, particularly in low-to-middle income countries, stimulates a high demand for low cost, sustainable urban transport. A well-designed and maintained walking network can satisfy this demand, while contributing to poverty reduction, health benefits, and saved lives. However, the complexities associated with the pedestrian environment often prevent interventions that benefit walkers.

In order to identify needed walkability improvements, an urban area must be evaluated by some standard of measurement. Since walking trips are highly variable and pedestrian activity is not conducive to measurement, this mode is often neglected. By identifying macro-level indicators that appraise the urban provision for pedestrians, municipalities can begin to implement positive changes. The following five dimensions of the walking environment and their associated indicators can help cities make a top-level survey of their pedestrian conditions.

Accessibility/Mobility	Average walking trip time
Safety	Pedestrian fatalities/population
Security	Pedestrian - targeted crime rate; perception surveys
Legal Provision	Pedestrian rights
Public Expenditure	Percent of total urban infrastructure and maintenance funds spent on walking mode

While a few projects in various regions throughout the world have recently initiated pedestrian projects, there is a severe need to give more attention to the urban pedestrian environment. These indicators can assist development agencies, as well as municipal leaders, in understanding the extent of the need to address the walking mode. Further study in data collection methods for the five dimensions can make the establishment of these indicators a reality. Finally, investigating successful projects for the pedestrian environment and forging partnerships with multiple development networks can catalyze interest and effective action in the urban walking environment.

Walking Distance Research

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:36:33 -0400

The Fairfax County, VA, Planning Commission TOD Committee, established in May 2006, was a special committee of the Planning Commission which sponsored an open and visible process to gather input on a consensus vision and guidance on Fairfax County Transit-Oriented Development (TOD). The Committee's goal was to recommend language to the Board of Supervisors and County staff for use in a Policy Plan Amendment (STO7-CW-ICP) that provided a standardized definition and set of guiding principles for Transit-Oriented Development in Fairfax County.

As part of this work, the committee gathered a summary of Walking Distance Research as of that date. The list includes:

Qualitative Studies/Statements
TOD Manuals from Other Jurisdictions/Transit Agencies
Quantitative Studies

Walking and Urban Form: Modeling and Testing Parental Decisions about Children’s Travel

Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:43:25 -0400

Abstract

Over the past several years, the private vehicle has become the predominant mode of travel to school while walking and bicycling rates have decreased. Some suggest that this change in travel behavior contributes to negative health outcomes in children, including increased rates of 1) overweight/obesity through inactivity and 2) pedestrian and bicyclist fatality and injury. A series of recent policies and programs directly attribute the change in travel behavior to school to the urban form of communities. Limited research exists to support this hypothesis, however. The fundamental questions of whether and how urban form impacts a child’s trip to school must to be answered in order to develop effective interventions aimed at increasing rates of walking and bicycling activity and safety.

This research proposes a conceptual framework to examine the nature and shape of the relationships between urban form; interpersonal, demographic and social/cultural factors; parental decision-making and a child’s travel to school. Using parent survey data on children’s travel to school and urban design assessments from twelve elementary school neighborhoods, the relative influence of urban form on the mode choice to school was first determined. Results indicate that urban form elements such as street lights and street widths do affect the probability of a child walking or bicycling to school; however, the affect of these elements is modest compared to other influential variables such as the perceived convenience of driving, country of birth, family support of walking behavior, reported traffic conditions in the neighborhood and perceived distances between home and school.

A second analysis examined how urban form and children's travel behavior relate by testing the hypothesis of an indirect relationship. The findings show that parent's feelings of neighborhood safety, traffic safety and/or houshold transportation options do not intervene in the relationship between urban form and children's travel behavior. Socio-demographic characteristics and parent's attitudes toward travel, however, may modify the strength of the relationship between urban form and children's travel behavior.

The results of this study advance the discussion on relationships between urban form, transportation and health and inform policy and practice of the best targets for future planning interventions.

TransitRenewal 2012-2017

Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:47:17 -0400

Introduction

The 2011-2012 Sacramento Regional Transit Comprehensive Operational Analysis, commonly known as “TransitRenewal”, includes a review of existing market conditions and transit service and aims to position the RT network to sustainably meet future transit demand within the service area. Sustainability is the method of using a resource without depleting or damaging it for future use. Sustainable transit planning focuses on meeting transit needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet such needs1. TransitRenewal responds to changing economic circumstances and RT’s new financial realities. In 2010, RT implemented substantial service reductions which included discontinuing several bus routes, reducing service levels, and reducing spans. TransitRenewal responds to RT’s plan to regain previous FY 2010 service levels and intends to identify core areas of the RT system where investment will have a maximum benefit, and will guide RT to a more financially sustainable future.

Bus Rapid Transit and Development: Policies and Practices that Affect Development Around Transit

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:43:03 -0500

Foreword

The development of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems is relatively recent in the United States, but several systems are in operation and more are advancing. There is a need for a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between land use and BRT system development, particularly in comparison to other fixed-guideway modes such as heavy and light rail. While recognizing that existing land uses have an important and complex influence on the development costs and benefits of fixed-guideway projects, this research focuses primarily on the impact such projects have had on existing and future land uses and economic development, as well as the policies and practices that have been used by local governments that have the potential to affect development. Finally, additional note has been taken as to whether the benefits and incentives offered along transit corridors between Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) are equitable in cities where both modes operate.

Executive Summary

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is growing in popularity and gaining more attention as more cities look to develop new means of rapid transit. There is a need, however, for a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between land use and BRT system development, particularly in comparison to other fixed-guideway modes such as light rail (LRT). This research will discuss current or potential development impacts along BRT corridors in North America, and the policies and practices that have been implemented within each respective city that has the ability to affect development patterns around transit. To allow for further consideration in regard to equitable implementation and allocation of policies and incentives for development between BRT and LRT, the cities that were selected for discussion are those in which both modes operate.

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

Development along BRT corridors has often been encouraged through different land use policies or practices that have been established and adopted by local governing agencies or by other contributing organizations. It is therefore understood that a particular city’s approach to the transit culture has the ability to shape and determine whether or not development occurs and if it will be successful. These policies and the local climate may be more of an important factor than the issue of permanence of a transit system.

Significant development has occurred along the Boston Silver Line and, although some may question whether or not the development has occurred because of the BRT or because the areas were slated for redevelopment, this may not be the most important issue; what has been shown is that the city has included BRT in their policies and plans and labeled it as a rapid transit mode that is significant and capable of supporting both development and the resulting increased demand for transit ridership in those particular locations. The cities of Boston, Ottawa, and New York have each implemented parking mitigation measures in an effort to increase transit ridership and decrease congestion. Although these policies may not have been directly implemented in an effort to encourage transit oriented development, they have the potential to result in an increased demand in transit and greater density development around transit stations.

When evaluating policies that encourage economic development and whether or not they are equally applied to both BRT and LRT, the research has found the following:

• In Baltimore, the establishment of Maryland Base Realignment and Closing (BRAC) zones supports rail development. Bus Rapid Transit has not been included in any incentive programs or policies. BRT begins operation.

• Along the Orange Line in Los Angeles, transit oriented development has not been significant, yet a great deal of development has occurred at the North Hollywood station, where both rail and BRT stations are located. There are many incentives available to developers but public demand and developer appeal will determine which areas are developed in the future.

• In New York City, there are no specific incentives for BRT or LRT; future plans and development seem to favor mass transit in general. Environmental impacts may become a deciding factor of which system utilizes the possible benefits.

• There are no specific incentive programs or incentives for corridor based development in Pittsburgh, but the passage of the Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID) Act laid the foundation for TODs to be implemented. The legislation has no specific qualifier that would exclude BRT or LRT.

Future amendments, resolutions, and policies could improve incentive based BRT development and truly differentiate it from LRT. As it stands today, there are no noticeable differences between the incentives offered by the studied cities for BRTs and LRTs. The development around mass transit corridors seems to be dependent upon public support and developer interest with various factors determining the interest in the corridor development.

Foreword

Executive Summary

Summary of Findings and Recommendations

When evaluating policies that encourage economic development and whether or not they are equally applied to both BRT and LRT, the research has found the following:

In Baltimore, the establishment of Maryland Base Realignment and Closing (BRAC) zones supports rail development. Bus Rapid Transit has not been included in any incentive programs or policies. BRT begins operation.
Along the Orange Line in Los Angeles, transit oriented development has not been significant, yet a great deal of development has occurred at the North Hollywood station, where both rail and BRT stations are located. There are many incentives available to developers but public demand and developer appeal will determine which areas are developed in the future.
In New York City, there are no specific incentives for BRT or LRT; future plans and development seem to favor mass transit in general. Environmental impacts may become a deciding factor of which system utilizes the possible benefits.
There are no specific incentive programs or incentives for corridor based development in Pittsburgh, but the passage of the Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID) Act laid the foundation for TODs to be implemented. The legislation has no specific qualifier that would exclude BRT or LRT.

Walking, Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area

Thu, 03 Apr 2003 13:47:35 -0500

Introduction

Urban planners and public health advocates alike decry sprawl for prodding Americans to drive their cars from anywhere to everywhere. Car-dependent cities and suburbs, critics charge, spawn a sedentary lifestyle and associated health problems like obesity, adding as much as $76 billion annually to U.S. medical expenses by one estimate. Eight-lane thoroughfares, serpentine roads, incomplete sidewalk networks, far-flung retail plazas, campus-style business parks, and other distinguishing traits of contemporary America are said to conspire against walking and bicycling. However, are their influences serious enough to warrant radical changes in how we design communities of the future?

Numerous studies have examined the effects of built environments on motorized travel, however far less attention has been given to impacts on walking and bicycling. Probing effects on non-motorized transport (NMT) requires a different analytical approach. For one, walk and bicycle trips are usually shorter than those by car or public transit, requiring a finer analytical resolution. Geographic Information System (GIS) tools help in this regard, especially if one knows the longitudinal-latitudinal coordinates of trip origins and destinations. Additionally, choice models of motorized travel normally include comparative highway travel times of competing modes in their utility specifications. This is because trip durations often vary substantially between the private car and public transit. For NMT, and especially walking, speeds tend to be so much slower than by car, train, or bus that travel-time differentials are meaningless. Because people of a similar age usually walk at comparable speeds and given that pedestrians perceive trip-making mainly in spatial terms, distance is a more suitable measure of impedance.

As important to the question of model specification is the inclusion of factors that represent potential barriers to walking or cycling. Besides distance, these include steep slopes, nightfall, precipitation, and less-secure environs. Failure to include such factors can compromise the internal and construct validity of the research. For example, curvilinear and cul-de-sac street layouts that discourage walking are particularly common in hilly terrain. Ignoring topography means that associated variables, like road designs, that are included in a predictive model end up absorbing the influences of this omitted but relevant variable. Assigning health benefits to built environments necessitate a valid model specification that nets out impedance factors like the presence of a steep terrain.

In this study, the influences of urban designs, land-use diversity, and density patterns on the choice to walk or bicycle, vis-à-vis other factors, are examined using year 2000 data for the San Francisco Bay Area. The work builds upon other research that has applied the “3D” principle (density, diversity, and design) to associate travel choices with built environments. The paper closes with discussions on the public health and urban planning implications of the research findings.

The Odds On TODs: Transit-Oriented Development As A Congestion-Reduction Strategy In The San Francisco Bay Area

Mon, 21 May 2001 15:04:46 -0400

Abstract

Transit-oriented development, which clusters high-density, mixed-use development around transit stations, has been proposed as a way to reduce automobile travel in the San Francisco Bay Area and elsewhere. This paper relates research on neighborhood characteristics and vehicle travel to specific Bay Area characteristics. The analysis shows that, even using optimistic assumptions about travel behavior, redeveloping the area around most of the existing rail transit stations, coordinating similar development around feeder bus routes, and clustering close to one-fifth of the region’s population in these areas would reduce vehicle miles traveled in the Bay Area by just 5%. If current trends continue, this would offset only three years of growth in vehicle miles traveled. Thus, transit-oriented development is unlikely to have a significant impact on regional vehicle miles traveled and traffic congestion. Although transit-oriented development may have other worthwhile benefits, it is inappropriate as the cornerstone of the Bay Area’s congestion management strategy.

Research On Factors Relating To Density And Climate Change

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:20:24 -0400

Executive Summary

The consensus of the scientific community is that human activity has contributed substantially to climate change through increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Given the potential impacts of a continuation of these trends, this conclusion suggests that significant action is warranted to reduce GHG emissions to avoid the worst possible consequences. One proposed course of action is to increase residential density, primarily on the grounds that it will reduce vehicle miles traveled, a measure that is closely related to the GHG emissions from driving.

Much of the vast volume of research conducted on the topic of residential density and its relationship to travel shows that there is a link between residential density and the number of vehicle miles traveled. However, the relationship is complex and characterized by inter-relationships that researchers are still in the process of disentangling. On the surface, there is a clear correlation between residential density and GHG emissions. Causation is far murkier, and this review of nearly 200 studies demonstrates that this relationship is affected by a complex set of interactions between density and at least a dozen factors, such as socioeconomic characteristics of residents, the availability of public transit, neighborhood accessibility to jobs and services, and the time and cost of various forms of transit. Although newly emerging research approaches are beginning to clarify the relationships, they are relatively untested.

This review of literature on residential density and its relationship to climate change—largely via its relationship to travel behavior—is intended to help inform this aspect of the debate on climate change by summarizing and synthesizing the literature in several key areas, discussed below.

Density is thought to influence travel behavior along several different pathways. The mode used for work travel – private auto, walking, biking, or public transit – is influenced by density at both home and work. People take non-work trips, which comprise the large majority of both trips and VMT, in order to engage in activities such as personal business, shopping, socializing, and recreation. Travel is an important part of the decision to engage in these activities, and density influences these decisions in at least three ways. Density affects the quality of the travel experience (particularly for walking), the distance required to access activities, and the price of travel, both in terms of time and money.

The research on the relationship between density and travel is virtually unanimous: after controlling for socioeconomic factors, density directly influences VMT and mode choice. However, the weight of the evidence suggests that the effect of density on travel behavior is modest (roughly 5 percent reductions in VMT and vehicle trips with a doubling of density). In comparison, large increases in regional accessibility (accessibility to regional centers), are found to have a much larger impact on travel behavior – roughly 20 percent reductions in VMT.

Based on the modest impacts on VMT of increasing density—and the difficulty of achieving that added density—several researchers suggest that it is not an effective policy tool. But some research suggests that doubling density in combination with other policies, including those that affect land-use diversity, neighborhood design, access to transit, and accessibility, could have more significant impacts on travel behavior – such as reductions in VMT on the order of 25 to 30 percent. It is important to note, however, that VMT savings will be slow to develop because of the durability of the housing stock.

Self selection is an important methodological issue that affects all studies of the relationship between travel behavior and the built environment. Researchers long assumed that characteristics of the built environment, such as density, the mix of land uses, transit availability, and neighborhood design, have a causal impact on travel behavior, the source of a significant share of the nation’s GHG emissions. More recently, researchers have re-considered the direction of causality and acknowledge that land use patterns may facilitate travel behavior but not cause it, because household decisions about residential location—and all the characteristics of this location—are simultaneous with decisions about travel behavior. That is, people who dislike driving may self-select to live in walkable neighborhoods with convenient access to transit, while people who like driving may be more likely to select neighborhoods with good auto accessibility.

An important unresolved question then is the extent to which estimates of impacts on travel behavior are affected by self selection. The weight of the evidence suggests that self selection and the built environment both have independent effects on travel behavior, but there is little research on the magnitude of the effect of each factor. Regardless, studies that ignore the impact of self selection are likely to overestimate the impact of the built environment on travel behavior. One method for correcting for self selection is to include variables in models of travel behavior that capture people’s predispositions to drive or take transit. Most studies that include these variables find that they explain a great deal of the variation in travel behavior, and suggest personality/attitudes toward driving and transit may be more important than characteristics of the built environment. However, research on this topic is in its infancy.

The size of the potential impact of changes in the built environment may depend in part on whether there is unmet demand for the high-density, walkable neighborhoods that are associated with lower auto ownership and VMT. If there is – perhaps because of local zoning restrictions that tend to encourage low density residential development – then neighborhood choices that better match consumers’ preferences could indeed result in sizeable reductions in VMT. Given this, some researchers suggest that policy makers should allow for a wide range of neighborhood types.

In addition to research on the relationship between density and travel behavior, other studies included in this review of the literature examine the influence of New Urbanism-type street patterns, demographics and income, and transit availability. The literature demonstrates that several other factors also have important impacts on travel behavior. These include trends toward business decentralization, increases in the number of two-worker households, increases in travel for non-work purposes, and increases in commercial truck traffic.

Studies that consider New Urbanism-type street patterns generally find that they have only weak or no impact on auto use. They have more impact on walking and bicycling, as does pedestrian-oriented design.

Demographic and other characteristics such as income, race/ethnicity, and immigrant status affect the degree to which residential density influences travel behavior. Other aspects of the local context – such as the local economy and geography – also affect the relationship between residential density and travel behavior. With so many factors influencing travel behavior it is clear that there is no onesize-fits-all strategy for changing travel behavior.

The general consensus of the literature is that transit availability has a negative—but marginal— impact on VMT. In general, cities with increases in transit use over the past few decades have higher population densities and are more centralized. This is consistent with findings that higher employment and population densities at trip destination increase the likelihood of using non-driving modes. Indeed, several researchers find that density at the destination is more important than at origin in predicting mode choice for work trips.

This suggests that densely developed monocentric cities with centralized employment are the best candidates for fixed rail transit. However, as discussed below, cities increasingly do not fit this description. Bus transit provides better flexibility in connecting jobs and workers than fixed-rail transit, but research consistently finds that it is more difficult to attract riders to buses than to rail transit. Given the small impacts of transit availability on travel behavior, most researchers conclude that massive investments in new rail lines would be required to substantially increase rail transit ridership and VMT.

There are at least three primary factors affecting the relationship between residential density and the climate (via travel behavior). One of these is the trend toward decentralization of employment from city centers. Less than a quarter of jobs are now located in the central business district, compared with nearly half located more than 10 miles from downtown. The trend, which started over half a century ago, indicates that the traditional view of the monocentric city is a poor approximation for the reality of most American cities. Importantly, it weakens the ability of public transit – particularly fixed rail systems – to meet travel needs, and reinforces the need for auto ownership and neighborhoods that accommodate autos.

A second factor is the increasing number of households with two workers who often commute to different locations. The literature is mixed on the implications of this trend, although there is consensus on one point: the research clearly demonstrates that households do not primarily select their residential location in order to minimize their commutes.

A third factor is the recent increase in non-work trips. Understanding trends in non-work trips is important because unlike work trips, non-work trips are often discretionary, and therefore may be more influenced by the built environment, pricing, and other factors designed to reduce auto trips and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, non-work trips may be less influenced by public transit options because they often involve multiple destinations and are thus less well suited to public transit than work trips.

Trends over the past decade also indicate that commercial truck traffic is increasing its share of total VMT, and that this trend is likely to continue in the next decade.

In addition to unresolved questions about the role of self selection, other important questions are left unanswered by the current research on the connection between residential density and the climate. Among others, how difficult would it be to achieve residential densities that are double their current levels across a metro area – that make Atlanta look more like Boston? Experience from Portland, Oregon, an area known for its urban growth boundary, suggests that sizeable increases in density takes decades – at least 30 years. Given that the built environment is long lived, this result is not surprising.

Few studies include the impact of travel cost—either in terms of time or money—on travel behavior, but those that do conclude that pricing may play a more important role in explaining travel behavior than characteristics of the built environment. They conclude that changes in policies that affect the monetary or time cost of car ownership and use—such as increases in gas taxes or the price or availability of parking and the supply of roads—are more effective in changing travel behavior than any other policy. If policy makers find these types of economic incentives to be unpalatable, policies that lead to large-scale changes in land-use are a distant second-best alternative.

Gentrification Trends in New Transit-Oriented Communities: Evidence from 14 Cities That Expanded and Built Rail Transit Systems

Mon, 01 Jan 2007 15:18:56 -0500

Introduction

Over 25 billion dollars were spent between 1970 and 2000 in many major cities in the United States on the construction of new rail transit lines. Billions more have been spent on maintaining and improving existing rail transit lines. While the supply of rail transit has increased, the fraction of metropolitan area workers commuting using public transit has declined from 12% in 1970 to 6% in 2000 (Baum-Snow and Kahn 2005).

Rising incomes and suburbanization of jobs and people explain a large fraction of this decline (Glaeser and Kahn 2004). In 1990 in Boston, 36 percent of workers who lived and worked in the center city commuted on public transit, compared to 5 percent of workers who lived and worked in the suburbs.

Proponents of rail transit investment argue that this transit mode promotes environmental sustainability and helps to strengthen center city economic viability. In this paper, I examine how community demographics evolve in new transport oriented communities. These are communities that are now close to new “Walk and Ride” stations and new “Park and Ride” stations. The supply of such locations has increased over time. This paper examines the consequences of transit expansions in fourteen of the sixteen major cities that expanded and built rail transit systems between 1970 and 2000.4 Across the fourteen major cities studied in this paper, 1,351 census tracts that were far from a rail transit station in 1970 are within one mile of a rail transit station in the year 2000.

This massive investment in rail transit construction and expansion allows me to study the consequences of local public goods improvements for communities nearby new stations. Using GIS software, I calculate each tract’s centroid’s distance to the closest rail transit station in each census year. Transit expansions reduce a census tract’s distance to the closest station. My census tract level panel data set covers fourteen major metropolitan areas over the years 1970 to 2000.

I first examine what observable attributes of communities predict being “treated” with increased access to rail transit. Such descriptive facts are useful for considering the political economy of who demands increased access to transit. In the second of the half of the empirical work, I examine how key community outcomes such as average home prices and the share of the community who are college graduates change in treated tracts versus in control tracts. My control group is census tracts in the same metropolitan area with similar observable attributes that have not experienced increased proximity to rail transit.

By documenting how large transportation infrastructure investments affect population sorting and home price capitalization within multiple cities, this paper builds on two real estate literatures. The first literature examines rail transit access capitalization into real estate prices; for a study of Chicago see McMillen and McDonald (2004) and for a study of London see Gibbons and Machin (2005). This paper also contributes to the literature estimating the demand for living in “new urban” communities (see Tu and Eppli 1999 and Coulson and Lahr 2005).

I document evidence of heterogeneous treatment effects both within cities and across cities. Within the same metropolitan area, communities treated with a new Walk and Ride station are more likely to gentrify than communities treated with a new Park and Ride station.5 Across the fourteen city sample, two cities that stand out in terms of overall gentrification effects are Boston and Washington D.C. Public transit expansions may not gentrify every community they reach. Glaeser, Kahn and Rappaport (2007) argue that public transit stations often act as a poverty magnet. The urban poor are less likely to own cars and thus place a greater value on rail access. In some metropolitan areas such as Atlanta and Los Angeles, for example, I find that the share of college graduates living in communities near new Park and Ride stations declines relative to trends in control tracts. This could partially explain why so many rich suburban communities (such as Georgetown in Washington D.C) fear the extension of public transit into their community (Altshuler and Luberoff 2003, Bowes and Ihlandfelt 2001).

SB375 Impact Analysis Report

Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:47:04 -0400

Introduction

Purpose

This report summarizes the findings from a ULI panel that was formed to assess the economic implications of the California Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), and associated implementation recommendations. As the basis of this inquiry, the panel was charged with reviewing available empirical data and studies pertaining to SB 375 and the impacts of the kinds of development that full implementation is likely to produce, especially compact and transit-oriented development. Drawing on this research and its own substantial professional experience, the ULI panel then convened to review and discuss the economic impacts of SB 375 on the state’s economy and make recommendations that would help deliver on the bill’s goals of regional connectivity, policy alignment, efficient provision of infrastructure, and improved environmental quality.

SB 375

SB 375 was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger on September 30, 2008. This bill links land use decisions to transportation funding decisions in a way that is unprecedented in California. The vehicle for this coordination is a new regional land use plan called a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). The result is expected to be more rational and coordinated regulation and public funding, which in turn should accelerate the pace at which development consistent with these plans can proceed.

SB 375 requires Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) to include the SCSs and be internally consistent, and thereby better align transportation, housing, and land use planning as part of plans to reduce transportation emissions. Regions have broad freedom to design SCSs that align those plans and reduce emissions. The SCSs are expected to respond to SB 375 by:

Promoting compact development patterns located near transit;
Coordinating between the location of employment and housing;
Supporting transit use;
Concentrating economic activities into existing communities; and
ncorporating a mix of housing types.

This, in turn, is expected to produce:

Shorter commutes, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, and congestion relief;
Reduced greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions and air pollution;
Less fossil fuel consumption;
Greater conservation of farmlands and habitat;
Opportunities for more housing choices for all economic segments of the population including anticipated population and employment growth;
Reduced infrastructure costs;
Higher quality of life; and
Greater certainty for the development community.

Urban Densities and Transit: A Multi-dimensional Perspective

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:34:28 -0400

Abstract

It is broadly accepted that fairly dense urban development is an essential feature of a successful public transit system. However going beyond this generality to specific guidelines on where, when, and by how much to increase urban densities is never easy. This paper investigates the relationship between transit and urban densities in the United States from multiple perspectives. While empirical evidence suggests that recent-generation rail investments in the U.S. have in many instances conferred net social benefits, considerable skepticism remains, particularly among the more vocal critics of American transit policy. All sides agree that increasing urban densities will place public transit on firmer financial footing. Our analysis suggests that light-rail systems need around 30 people per gross acre around stations and heavy rail systems need 50 percent higher densities than this to place them in the top one-quarter of cost-effective rail investments in the U.S. The ridership gains from such increases, our research showed, would be substantial, especially when jobs are concentrated within a quarter-mile of a station and housing within a half-mile. For smaller cities, such densities are likely politically unacceptable, however, as suggested by the reactions of stakeholders in Stockton, California to photo-simulations of higher densities along proposed BRT corridors.

Urban Growth and Decline: The Role of Population Density at the City Core

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:10:30 -0500

In recent decades, some cities have seen their urban centers lose population density, as residents spread farther out to suburbs and exurbs. Others have kept populous downtowns even as their environs have grown. Population density in general has economic advantages, so one might wonder whether a loss of density, which may be a symptom of negative economic shocks, could amplify those shocks. This paper looks at four decades of census data and show that growing cities have maintained dense urban centers, while shrinking cities have not. There are reasons to think that loss of population density at the core of the city could be particularly damaging to productivity. If this is the case, there could be productivity gains from policies aimed at reversing that trend.

Discussion Paper On The Evaluation Of Economic Development

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:27:11 -0400

Introduction

In the interest of receiving robust public input and comment on the topic, this document is intended to present one possible method for evaluating the potential economic development impacts of projects applying for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5309 New Starts funds. After receiving feedback on how it might evaluate economic development impacts of New Starts projects , FTA intends to prepare proposed policy guidance at some point in the future that would be published for notice and comment before any particular approach is finalized.

For the purposes of the economic development criterion, FTA defines economic development as the extent to which a proposed New Starts project is likely to contribute to additional, transit-supportive development within the new station areas to be constructed as part of the project. In 2005, FTA initiated a study of the economic development impacts of transit investments with the objective of developing a quantitative measure of the economic development impacts of transit to determine whether or not it could be reliably included in the evaluation of major transit capital investments. That study developed and evaluated two approaches to estimating the economic development impacts of major transit capital investments:

Forecasting economic benefits at a regional scale using regional economic models; and
Attempting to predict station area development impacts based on proximity to rail stations.

These two methods appear to be unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. The use of regional economic models was found to be relatively expensive and produced widely divergent results between the two case studies that were not easily explained. The second approach of using rail station proximity to forecast station area development was also unsatisfactory because the analysis found a statistically significant development impact where no impact was expected or observable and failed to find any significant impact in areas where most observers would agree an economic development impact has occurred.

In order to guide future research in this area, FTA convened a panel of experts in late 2007 to consider the potential methodologies available to measure the economic development benefits of transit. The panel suggested two main methods to achieve FTA’s goal: 1) to use hedonic models to estimate the land value impacts of major transit investments, and 2) to use integrated transportation/land-use models to forecast changes in land-use patterns that result from transportation investments and the benefits associated with those changes. FTA has two ongoing research projects on the use of integrated transportation/land-use models and has sponsored two Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) projects (H-39 and SH-12) to study the impact of transit on economic development. The TCRP studies are ongoing.

The panel also reviewed a number of other economic development methodologies (see the report on FTA’s website at http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Econ_Dev_Expert_Panel_Report.pdf) including a qualitative assessment approach such as the one described later in this discussion paper. FTA is considering using this qualitative assessment approach as an interim evaluation methodology until the results of these ongoing research efforts are available; an approach supported by the expert panel.

Approach to the Economic Development Criterion

The approach described in this discussion paper is not a modeling approach and does not rest on forecasts of economic development. Rather, it describes a method based on an assessment of the key conditions that FTA believes contribute to and facilitate the economic development impacts of transit projects.

The method envisioned by FTA is based on a review of the academic and professional literature on the impact of transportation projects on economic development. The basic underlying relationship between economic development and transportation is accessibility. When a transportation project improves the accessibility of a parcel of land, the value of that parcel increases along with its development potential. However, several studies have shown that additional development does not occur simply as a result of more accessibility, but also depends on the availability of developable land, local policies, and local economic conditions.

The economic development criterion described here incorporates elements of the previous land use criterion, including land use plans, policies, and implementation support activities that may lead to additional transit-supportive development, as well as indicators of regional economic health and local development activity. At a conceptual level the economic development assessment is the product of two considerations:

The total additional transit-supportive development that can be expected to occur in station areas; and
The contribution of the New Starts transit project to achieving this development.

The first consideration, total expected development, is dependent upon three specific factors:

The developability of land in station areas;
Land use plans and policies encouraging transit-supportive development; and
The economic climate for development.

The second consideration, the contribution of the New Starts project, is further dependent upon two factors:

The accessibility benefits of the project; and
The permanence of the transit investment.

This yields a total of five factors to be assessed, as numbered above which are consistent with the five factors cited in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on New Starts issued on August 3rd, 2007.1. Readers may wish to review the NPRM and related comments on FTA’s website2. In FTA’s conceptual approach, the last two factors would not require project sponsors to generate or submit additional information but would be based on information already routinely submitted to FTA as part of the New Starts evaluation and rating process. The accessibility benefits of a project can be assessed based on the user benefits that accrue to those who live or are destined to zones near the proposed stations. This measure as well as other potential measures of accessibility can be derived from each project sponsor’s submission of information on their travel forecasts and will not require any additional work. The permanence of the investment can be measured by the average useful life of the investment weighted by the cost of each major project element. This information is routinely provided on the Standardized Cost Category worksheets currently submitted by each project sponsor. These factors will not be addressed further in this discussion paper. The subjects of this discussion paper are the potential submission requirements for factors 1, 2, and 3 and their evaluation.

Overview of Potential Measures

The potential developability measure would attempt to determine the extent to which additional development could be accommodated in the proposed station areas. Evaluation factors might include the amount of vacant land available for development in station areas measured by the number and size of vacant and developable parcels. In addition, transit projects that significantly increase land values may spur re-development of underutilized parcels. The existence of underutilized land in station areas might be identified by a particularly low ratio of improvement value to land value. Often, structural barriers inhibit additional development; therefore the analysis of developability might include an assessment of barriers such as environmental issues, inadequate infrastructure, zoning or regulations, or a preponderance of small/non-contiguous parcels.

The evaluation of transit-supportive plans and policies would indicate whether local governments were actively promoting high density transit supportive land uses. This factor is similar to portions of the existing land use criterion and would evaluate local policies that promote pedestrian movements, promote mixed uses adjacent to transit, limit parking, and provide high, transit supportive matter-of-right residential and commercial densities in station areas.

The evaluation of economic climate would attempt to assess the economic health of the region and corridor as an indicator of the extent to which economic conditions are likely to support additional growth in station areas. This measure would, by necessity, rely on a variety of measures dictated by the availability and quality of local data sources. Economic indicators might include forecasts of metropolitan area growth, historical data on the growth of corridor and regional property values, trends in commercial floorspace asking rents in the corridor, median prices for owner-occupied housing units in the corridor and region, average corridor and regional land values, commercial floorspace vacancy rates, and the existence of development subsidies and tax policies to promote additional development and their associated costs. In corridors with a significant amount of vacant or underutilized land, the project sponsor would need to assess the reasons for the lack of development and the degree to which those factors hindering development would persist after the proposed project is constructed.

Assessment Method

The overall approach to assessing a project and assigning an economic development rating would be somewhat different than for the current land use criterion. For land use, contractors selected by FTA review land use materials submitted by the project sponsor, prepared an assessment report, and assigned preliminary ratings. In contrast to that approach, for the economic development criterion contractors would assemble and analyze information provided by the project sponsor in more detail than for the land use criterion and would not assign preliminary ratings. They would then prepare a summary report to FTA, and a panel of FTA experts would assign ratings for all projects. (For some metrics that can be described with quantitative information, the consultant could assign “benchmark” ratings of “high,” “medium,” or “low” to assist FTA in assigning an overall rating; however, no particular weighting scheme is provided for combining the individual factors or metrics.) This process can therefore be described in three steps, as follows:

The project sponsor assembles supporting information and provides this information to FTA and its contractors. The narrative template for providing this information is referred to as Template A-1.
FTA contractors review the information, conduct additional analysis, and place it in a consistent summary format. The document template in which the contractors should provide this summary information is referred to as Template B-1. It is accompanied by two spreadsheets (available from FTA but not included here due to their size and format), referred to as Template B-2 and Template B-3, that provide calculation aids for the reviewer.
FTA staff review the information assembled by the contractors and assign a rating based on this information.

The economic development criterion envisioned here is similar to the previous land use criterion in that it focuses on land use plans, policies, and development within a ½ mile radius of proposed new stations associated with the New Starts project. Existing station areas are not considered, nor are any broader impacts that may occur beyond the immediate station areas.

The remainder of this discussion paper describes the potential approach to assessing and rating each factor. For each factor, the paper describes 1) the information that would be provided by the project sponsor; and 2) the analysis and reporting tasks for FTA’s consultants.

Notes:

1 Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 149, 43328-43377; http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_5615.html

2 http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&d=FTA-2007-0033-0002

Walking to the station: The effects of street connectivity on walkability and access to transit

Sat, 25 Dec 2010 15:00:32 -0500

Summary

This thesis analyzes an on-board transit survey conducted by the Atlanta Regional Commission in order to determine how far urban density, mixed land-uses, and street network connectivity are related to different walking behaviors, namely transit walk-mode shares and walking distances to/from stations. The data are drawn from all the stations of Atlanta’s rapid transit network (MARTA).

Allowing for quite a bit of noise in the data, some of the findings confirm for the case of Atlanta what a review of existing literature would lead one to expect: mixed land-use and denser street networks are associated with higher proportion of riders traveling to/from the station “walking” (noise in the data does not allow to fully distinguish with certainty walking as the sole mode of access to/from the station from walking combined with the use of bus services).

The thesis also explores questions that have not been previously covered systematically in the literature. First, does urban form (including street configuration and connectivity as well as land-use patterns) affect the distance transit patrons are willing to walk? Findings suggest that street networks with denser intersections and more linear alignments of road segments support greater walking distance thresholds. Second, does the location of the station relative to the street hierarchy of the surrounding area affect the proportion of patrons walking or the distance walked? The thesis answers this question negatively. If the surrounding area, at a one mile radius, is a transit friendly urban form, the location of the station within the street hierarchy does not have a major impact on walk mode share and the distance walked. In light with the various conclusions presented in this thesis, the finding regarding the association between street connectivity and distances walked appears to be the most critical.

The research findings have several implications. They confirm that urban form (including density, land-use and street network configuration) affects the proportions of patrons walking to/from the station. Thus, they also confirm that transit oriented policies are better supported by urban development policies and zoning and subdivision regulations that encourage transit-friendly urban forms. More specifically, they suggest that the scale at which urban form has an impact on pedestrian travel is of the order of a mile radius, rather than a few blocks around the station. Findings also suggest that transit oriented policies are compatible with policies aimed at the enhancement of health and the reduction of obesity through daily physical activity (walking to/from the station can contribute a significant part of the daily activity recommended by Healthy Living Guidelines). Finally findings augment the knowledge-base that supports transit oriented development by emphasizing the contribution of the spatial structure of the street network, over and above the impact of sidewalk provision and design and pedestrian safety.

Understanding Transit Ridership Demand for a Multi-Destination, Multimodal Transit Network in an American Metropolitan Area: Lessons for Increasing Choice Ridership While Maintaining Transit Dependent Ridership

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 12:27:17 -0500

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

There is a growing body of evidence, including earlier Mineta Transportation Institute-sponsored research, showing that multi-destination transit systems are far more effective in attracting passengers and more efficient in use of resources to carry each passenger than central business district (CBD)-focused systems. At the same time, however, evidence is beginning to show that multi-destination transit systems appeal largely to transit-dependent riders (also called captive riders), whose demand for transit service appears to be highly elastic with respect to the shortening of transit travel time between origin and destination. Given the interest in using transit investments to lure people from their automobiles in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion, it is imperative that the appeal of such systems to choice riders (also called discretionary riders) also be understood. However, this issue remains as yet relatively unexplored.

In this study, we examine the Atlanta region’s transit system, and we derive lessons that can be applied to transit systems elsewhere that would like to increase ridership among choice and transit-dependent riders by better serving increasingly dispersed travel destinations through a multi-destination transit network. Atlanta provides an opportunity to explore the consequences of a multi-destination transit network for bus patrons (largely transit-dependent riders) and rail patrons (who disproportionately illustrate choice rider characteristics). This study is an extension of earlier work by the authors on the determinants of transit ridership demand for an overwhelmingly transit-dependent rider population in Broward County, Florida, whose transit agency (Broward County Transit, BCT) operates a bus-only multi-destination transit system. Atlanta provides an opportunity to extend this work to a metropolitan area with a much larger, multimodal, multi-destination transit system (Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, MARTA) and to explore differences in the determinants of transit rider demand for different groups of transit riders.

DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY

The method used in this research is to specify and estimate several statistical models that predict bus and rail transit work trips (the dependent variable) from one part of a metropolitan area (traffic analysis zone or TAZ) to another. In other words, we develop statistical equations that allow us to explain the influence of different types of variables on transit ridership. Explanatory variables include describing demographic and land use characteristics in zones where trips begin and end, as well as those describing the general cost of making the trip in terms of travel time. Our resulting models fall within a category of models known as direct demand models. The models use travel time estimates from the Atlanta regional transportation demand model runs for 2002, but the models used in this study are not sub-models of the models used by the ARC.

In this study, we employ two sets of models. For one set of models, the dependent variable consists of transit users who identified themselves as “bus or trolley bus” riders in the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP). For the other set of models, the dependent variable consists of transit users who identified themselves as “subway or elevated” riders in the 2000 CTPP. Many respondents undoubtedly used a combination of bus and rail modes to complete their trips, but the 2000 CTPP did not give such transit users a box to check. Multimodal respondents were forced to identify themselves as either “bus or trolley bus” or “subway or elevated” riders. Therefore, we treat the former group as (self-identified) bus riders and the latter group as (self-identified) rail riders, although many riders in either category undoubtedly use multiple modes for their trips. The explanatory variables used in the models include socioeconomic variables from the 2000 CTPP, land use variables defined by the local metropolitan planning organization (MPO), and variables that measure transit service quality (broken into three components: in-vehicle, out-of-vehicle, and transfer time) obtained from the travel time skims of the regional travel demand model.

RESULTS

Bus riders were overwhelmingly transit-dependent riders, and rail riders included a disproportionate number of choice riders. By and large, rail riders tend to come from zones with high levels of vehicle access and bus riders from zones with low levels of vehicle access. The model results highlight important similarities as well as differences between the two rider groups. In terms of similarities, both bus and rail trips are produced in larger numbers in zones with higher populations and higher population densities, and attracted to destinations with larger numbers of jobs, but generally not areas with the highest densities of employment. Both bus and rail riders are also generally quite sensitive to in-vehicle travel time and transfer time.

In terms of differences between bus and rail riders, bus riders tend to come from zones with lower income, lower vehicle access (as noted above), and higher minority populations. While rail riders also disproportionately come from minority zones, they come from zones with high levels of vehicle access and the income variable is not significant, except in the cases of rail riders destined to more dispersed destinations, who tend to come from zones with lower incomes, but also relatively high levels of vehicle access. Bus riders do not place the same importance on out-of-vehicle travel time to transit as do rail riders, suggesting that bus stops are distributed in such a way that most patrons can easily access the stops to board a bus and then exit the vehicle to reach their final destination. Rail riders, on the other hand, do place a premium on out-of-vehicle travel time, suggesting that they have difficulty with access to the stations and/or reaching their final destinations. This is not surprising given the small number of rail stations and their spatial distribution relative to the patterns of population and employment in Atlanta.

The results for the land-use variables also reveal important differences between bus and rail riders as well as insights into the importance of transit-oriented development (TOD). Bus riders in Atlanta are not influenced by the presence of a transit-oriented development at either the origin or destination. The CBD does not emerge as a statistically significant destination for bus riders; indeed, lower density employment clusters emerge as important destinations for these riders. For rail riders, on the other hand, the CBD does emerge as an important travel destination, and two of Atlanta’s TODs (Midtown and North Avenue) emerge as important contributors to rail patronage, in excess of what would otherwise be predicted by the employment levels or densities of these zones.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Transit commuters who consider themselves bus riders seem to want a grid of routes connecting the region’s employment centers with faster, more direct, and more frequent service. Shelters, good pedestrian connections and other amenities at transfer points are also implied as being important to these largely transit-dependent riders. With such amenities, many more transit-dependent riders will use transit, presumably relying less on friends and relatives for chauffeured auto rides. Many of these riders appear to use trains to speedily move from one part of the region to the other, relying on buses at one or both ends of the trip, so good transfer connections between buses and trains will also increase ridership of transit-dependent riders.

Transit commuters who consider themselves rail riders, who primarily access transit by automobile, want trains to take them to major employment destinations, including the CBD and some TODs. Serving more of these riders, who are more likely to be choice riders than their bus rider counterparts, will require extending lines into job-rich corridors and developing stations and station environments in those corridors with those qualities typical of the TODs like North Avenue and Midtown. The more that can be done with a network of several regional rapid transit lines, the greater the number of choice riders using transit in the Atlanta region. If a transfer to a bus is required to complete the trip, the service will attract lower status workers who none-the-less will live in auto-oriented environments and will make use of autos to access the system. Are these choice riders, as well? The model results suggest that many of them are choice riders. Their numbers would increase in a more expansive regional network of regional rapid transit lines that had excellent bus transfers to jobs within one to two miles of stations.

A grid of local buses tied into such a regional rapid transit system would greatly increase the number of transit-dependent riders, as well, because it would enable them to reach additional employment opportunities that are presently difficult or impossible for them to reach by transit. These results derive from a study of Atlanta, Georgia, but given their consistency with lessons derived from other locales, they provide important policy guidance to transit agencies seeking to increase ridership by both rider groups.

Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact

Sat, 01 Jan 2005 14:49:47 -0500

Introduction

America’s changing population is creating demand for new types of homes, offices, and retail outlets. Better solutions are needed to the challenges created by changing demographics, dwindling natural areas, smog and public health issues, shrinking municipal budgets, and traffic congestion. Communities that answer these challenges will develop into great places to live.

America will add roughly 43 million new residents—that’s 2.7 million new residents per year—between now and 2020.1 America is not only growing but also undergoing dramatic demographic changes. The traditional two-parent household with children is now less than a quarter of the population and getting proportionally smaller. Single-parent households, single-person households, empty nesters, and couples without children make up the new majority of American households, and they have quite different real estate needs.2 These groups are more likely to choose higher-density housing in mixed-density communities that offer vibrant neighborhoods over single-family houses far from the community core.

The fact is that continuing the sprawling, low-density haphazard development pattern of the past 40 years is unsustainable, financially and otherwise. It will exacerbate many of the problems sprawl has already created—dwindling natural areas and working farms, increasingly longer commutes, debilitating traffic congestion, and harmful smog and water pollution. Local officials now realize that paying for basic infrastructure—roadways and schools, libraries, fire, police, and sewer services —spread over large and sprawling distances is inefficient and expensive.

Most public leaders want to create vibrant, economically strong communities where citizens can enjoy a high quality of life in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner, but many are not sure how to achieve it. Planning for growth is a comprehensive and complicated process that requires leaders to employ a variety of tools to balance diverse community interests. Arguably, no tool is more important than increasing the density of existing and new communities, which includes support for infill development, the rehabilitation and reuse of existing structures, and denser new development. Indeed, well-designed and well-integrated higher-density development makes successful planning for growth possible.

Density refers not only to high-rise buildings. The definition of density depends on the context in which it is used. In this publication, higher density simply means new residential and commercial development at a density that is higher than what is typically found in the existing community. Thus, in a sprawling area with single-family detached houses on one-acre lots, single-family houses on one-fourth or one-eighth acre are considered higher density. In more densely populated areas with single-family houses on small lots, townhouses and apartments are considered higher-density development. For many suburban communities, the popular mixed-use town centers being developed around the country are considered higher-density development.

Most land use professionals and community leaders now agree that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses could be the antidote to sprawl when implemented regionally. And across the country, the general public is becoming more informed and engaged in making the tough land use choices that need to be made while understanding the consequences of continuing to grow as we have in the past. Many have also come to appreciate the “place-making” benefits of density and the relationship between higher-density development and land preservation. Media coverage of the topic of growth and development has also evolved. Past media coverage of growth and development issues was often limited to the heated conflicts between developers and community residents. Many in the media are now presenting more thoughtful and balanced coverage, and several editorial boards support higher-density developments in their communities as an antidote to regional sprawl.

Yet despite the growing awareness of the complexity of the issue and growing support for higher-density development as an answer to sprawl, many still have questions and fears related to higher-density development. How will it change the neighborhood? Will it make traffic worse? What will happen to property values? And what about crime? Ample evidence—documented throughout this publication—suggests that well-designed higher-density development, properly integrated into an existing community, can become a significant community asset that adds to the quality of life and property values for existing residents while addressing the needs of a growing and changing population.

Many people’s perception of higher-density development does not mesh with the reality. Studies show that when surveyed about higher-density development, those interviewed hold a negative view. But when shown images of higher-density versus lower-density development, people often change their perceptions and prefer higher density.3 In a recent study by the National Association of Realtors® and Smart Growth America, six in ten prospective homebuyers, when asked to choose between two communities, chose the neighborhood that offered a shorter commute, sidewalks, and amenities like shops, restaurants, libraries, schools, and public transportation within walking distance. They preferred this option over the one with longer commutes and larger lots but limited options for walking.4 The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.5 Such contradictions point to widespread misconceptions about the nature of higher-density development and sprawl. Several of these misconceptions are so prevalent as to be considered myths.

To some degree, these myths are the result of memories people have of the veryhigh-density urban public housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s that have been subsequently deemed a failure. Somehow, the concept of density became associated with the negative imagery and social problems of depressed urban areas. The reality Myth and Fact is that complex interrelated factors such as the high concentration of poverty and poor educational and employment opportunities combined to doom the public housing projects. Even very-high-density housing can be practical, safe, and desirable. For example, the mixed-income apartments and condominiums or luxury high rises in New York and Chicago—some of the safest and most expensive housing in the country—prove that density does not equal an unsafe environment.

The purpose of this publication is to dispel the many myths surrounding higher-density development and to create a new understanding of density that goes beyond simplistic negative connotations that overestimate its impact and underestimate its value. Elected officials, concerned citizens, and community leaders can use this publication to support well-designed and well-planned density that creates great places and great communities that people love. With the anticipated population growth and continuing demographic and lifestyle changes, consensus is building that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses will be both necessary and desirable.

Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact is the sixth in a series of Urban Land Institute myth and fact booklets. The series is intended to clarify misconceptions surrounding growth and development. Other topics covered have included transportation, smart growth, urban infill housing, environment and development, and mixed-income housing.

Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact examines widespread misconceptions related to higher-density development and seeks to dispel them with relevant facts and information. Although the benefits of higher-density development are often understated, so are the detrimental effects of low-density development. The advantages and drawbacks of higher-density development are compared throughout this publication with the alternative of low-density development. In the process, misconceptions regarding low-density development are also addressed.

A Framework For Transit Oriented Development In Florida

Tue, 01 Mar 2011 19:45:53 -0500

Introduction

Why develop this framework and how can it be used?

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), in partnership with the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), developed A Framework for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in Florida to address how TOD can be a part of transforming Florida's existing auto-oriented, largely suburban patterns of development into more compact, livable patterns that support walking, biking, transit, and shorter-length auto trips. This effort was initiated as local governments in Florida increasingly encountered TOD concepts and projects characterized as "TOD" for adoption in their comprehensive plans, land development codes, and development review processes. A working group composed of agency and local government representatives was formed to develop Floridaspecifc TOD design guidelines and implementation strategies. FDOT held a series of ten workshops across the state to present draft TOD materials. In response to input received during those workshops, the scope of the effort was expanded to also address broader transit planning, interagency coordination, and TOD implementation issues.

The purpose of this framework is to provide planners, developers, elected offcials, and the general public with a Florida-specifc resource for TOD and transit planning. As a framework document, it does not provide a how-to guide but rather illustrates the key considerations and questions to be addressed when embarking on TOD and transit planning in the Florida context.

The framework includes TOD place types that address land use and urban design considerations for transit station areas. Presented with both qualitative and quantitative information, they can help planners and developers assess how transit-ready existing development patterns are and help guide decision making in the direction of creating more compact and transit supportive development patterns in the future. Additionally, the framework is intended to assist local governments in defning TOD areas as part of their local government comprehensive plans and to implement recommended development standards for TODs to better support local transit services.

Notably, TOD and transit planning and implementation are at an early stage in the Sun Belt compared to other parts of the nation with long-established transit systems. While guidance and best practices in TOD are readily available, data and analysis pertinent to the implementation of newer transit systems into communities with existing suburban type of development patterns are still being compiled. Retroftting these places for transit provides a host of new considerations relative to expectations on transit ridership, phasing of TOD,redevelopment and economic development potential. Active research related to redevelopment is underway by the Transit Cooperative Research Program and Reconnecting America's Center for TOD, and other organizations. Guidance for TOD and transit planning in Florida will continue to evolve as research is completed, more case studies and best practices emerge, and more experience is gained implementing TOD in Florida.

Livable Portland: Land Use and Transportation Initiatives November

Mon, 01 Nov 2010 16:28:17 -0400

Preface

More than $8 billion of new development has occurred in light rail station areas. A study of MAX Blue Line light rail station areas found that development occurring after light rail investment has an average development density or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.65 more than the average FAR for development outside of station areas. This means that for every 1,000 square feet of land area developed, station area taxlots realized an additional 650 square feet of building area. The rate of development within Blue Line station areas was 69 percent higher than elsewhere within a one-mile corridor extending along the light rail alignment. Low and moderate value lots within Blue Line station areas redeveloped at twice the redevelopment rate reported for low value lots outside of station areas.

Even as transit has become an amenity with value to a growing market segment, we continue to be mindful of the critical assistance transit can provide low income households. Through its joint development program, TriMet has made land available for more than 350 affordable housing units. Furthermore, according to AAA the average cost of car ownership in the U.S. in 2009 was $8,487 per year based on 15,000 miles of driving and gas priced at $2.60 a gallon. Even after deducting the cost of a TriMet annual transit pass, eliminating that car could free up $627 a month for rent, a mortgage, education, quality childcare, retirement savings or other household choices.

Applied across our region, savings on transportation costs are substantial. Residents of the Portland region on average travel four miles less each day than those in comparable cities in the United States. That means the region drives 2.9 billion fewer miles and saves $1.1 billion in travel costs (fuel, vehicle wear and tear, insurance, permits, etc.) annually. The value in annual travel time savings is estimated to be $1.6 billion.

TriMet is, of course, just one member of a team. The 1.7 million residents of this region, tens of thousands of businesses, thousands of neighborhood, business, and community groups, one nationally unique elected regional government, and 26 city and county jurisdictions have contributed to these successes. We sometimes disagree about details but we all share the same general vision of a livable, prosperous region surrounded by viable farms, forests and recreational opportunities.

This publication tracks the evolution of our light rail system, describes the land use planning efforts that support vibrant station areas and illustrates our approach with selected transit-oriented developments and self-guided tours. Through these pages you will see how partnerships among regional agencies, local governments, private sector investors and citizen activists have shaped this place. We try to learn from our own experiences, and we want to share with you what we can to help your region pursue its own vision. We hope the examples in this book will help.

Forming Partnerships to Promote Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development

Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:06:20 -0500

Abstract: This Recommended Practice guides transit agencies in partnering with businesses and community entities to promote transit-oriented development (TOD) and joint development (JD).

Summary: Numerous transit agencies have worked since the 1970s to encourage transit-oriented development and to pursue joint development programs or individual joint development projects. Generally, these projects refer to the same type of transit-supportive development; the distinction lies in who is sponsoring and who is involved in the project. The guidance provided in this document draws on that experience and provides a range of practices and techniques to consider. The practices and examples presented in this document are organized into three main sections: guidelines for defining internal agency policies and processes for pursuing joint development and transit-oriented development; guidelines for joint-development processes and partnerships; and guidelines for achieving public support to establish a shared vision for transit-oriented development.

Scope and purpose: This Recommended Practice includes guidelines to assist transit agencies in defining policies and practices for advancing, supporting and implementing transit-oriented development and joint development. Successful projects require partnerships with real estate developers, local governments and citizens. This Recommended Practice is for both transit agencies seeking to form partnerships, and for individuals, organizations or local government staff and elected officials seeking to partner with transit agencies on transit-oriented development or joint development.

Summary of Recommendations:

Follow signal recommended principles for successful partnerships
Properly vet the legal framework that governs your agency
Focus on internal coordination efforts to establish a multidisciplinary team charged with pursuing JD/TOD opportunities
Planning for TOD during system planning can enhance ratings in FTA New Stats cri-teria submittal
Maintain realistic expectation to achieve ultimate goals
Have a thorough understanding of all ap-plicable state and federal regulations
Educate stakeholders to understand that TOD will be part of the community’s future

Economic Value of Walkability

Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:31:37 -0500

Conclusions

Conventional transportation planning practices treat walking as a minor transport mode and recognize only modest benefits from improved walkability and increased walking activity. This results from evaluation practices that undercount nonmotorized travel and undervalue walking benefits.

From other perspectives it is clear that walking is a critical component of the transport system, and that improved walkability and increased walking can provide significant benefits to society. Improved walkability increases accessibility, provides consumer and public cost savings, increases community livability, improves public health and supports strategic economic development, land use and equity objectives. A variety of methods can be used to evaluate these impacts.

Conventional planning practices may conclude that walking currently receives a fair and efficient share of transportation resources. However, this reflects an undercounting of walking trips, an undervaluation of walking benefits, and undervaluation of motor vehicle costs. More comprehensive evaluation indicates that walking receives less than its appropriate share of transportation resources, and that walkability improvements can provide a high economic return on investment.

Greater appreciation of the full benefits of walking could change planning priorities. It would justify devoting more government funding to walking facilities and programs, shifting road space from traffic and parking lanes to sidewalks and paths, policies to create more walkable land use patterns, and greater efforts to manage motor vehicle traffic to improve walking safety and comfort. These shifts support and are supported by other transport and land use management reforms that improve transportation options, reduce automobile dependency and create more accessible land use.

Mapping Susceptibility to Gentrification: The Early Warning Toolkit

Sat, 01 Aug 2009 15:47:32 -0400

The Bay Area is one of the most expensive and challenging housing markets in the country.1 On average, local households spend 48% of their income on housing, compared to 29% for the country as a whole, and just 12% can afford the median priced home.2 A quarter of Bay Area renters meet HUD’s definition of severely housing burdened, dedicating more than 50 percent of their income to housing.3

Anticipated growth will place even more pressure on the region’s housing market. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects an additional 1.9 million people and 1.6 million jobs by 2035.4 Meanwhile, new funding for transit approved by Bay Area voters will add 100 new stations, many in already built-up areas, to the region’s existing 300 rapid transit stations and transit corridors.5

Although the planned new transit facilities will help to accommodate much of the population growth, they also present a challenge. Researchers generally agree that new transit investment will bring higher property values to the surrounding area (except in the immediate vicinity of the transit station).6 This could spur a process of gentrification, which will be beneficial to some – but not to those who cannot bear rent increases and are forced to leave the neighborhood.

This report was prepared for ABAG as part of its Development without Displacement project funded by an environmental justice grant from CalTrans. This project is meant to increase regional and local understanding of gentrification and displacement, and in particular increase awareness of equitable development policies that jurisdictions can use to capture the benefits of new growth for their current residents. The purpose of this report is to create an early warning toolkit to help communities identify whether their neighborhood is susceptible to gentrification as reinvestment occurs. This in turn suggests potential for displacement — but does not necessarily predict it. In order to understand future displacement potential more fully, a jurisdiction would need to combine the toolkit with an assessment of its existing affordable housing policies and stock, as well as the effects of any proposed redevelopment plan.

Introduction

The Bay Area is one of the most expensive and challenging housing markets in the country. On average, local households spend 48% of their income on housing, compared to 29% for the country as a whole, and just 12% can afford the median priced home. A quarter of Bay Area renters meet HUD’s definition of severely housing burdened, dedicating more than 50 percent of their income to housing.

Anticipated growth will place even more pressure on the region’s housing market. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects an additional 1.9 million people and 1.6 million jobs by 2035. Meanwhile, new funding for transit approved by Bay Area voters will add 100 new stations, many in already built-up areas, to the region’s existing 300 rapid transit stations and transit corridors.

Although the planned new transit facilities will help to accommodate much of the population growth, they also present a challenge. Researchers generally agree that new transit investment will bring higher property values to the surrounding area (except in the immediate vicinity of the transit station). This could spur a process of gentrification, which will be beneficial to some – but not to those who cannot bear rent increases and are forced to leave the neighborhood.

District of Columbia Streetcar Land Use Study, Phase One

Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:14:35 -0500

Letter To Residents

The District of Columbia is committed to bringing a streetcar system to the city to improve transit services available to residents and create walkable, vibrant communities. In the spring of 2010, the DC Office of Planning (OP) initiated a land planning study to ensure that the city and its residents gain the greatest possible benefits from the new system, and that the overarching vision and goals for the District are furthered by the new system.

Goals of the DC Streetcar system:

Link neighborhoods with a modern, convenient and attractive transportation alternative.
Provide quality service to retain and grow transit ridership.
Offer a broader range of transit options for District residents.
Reduce short inner-city auto trips, parking demand, traffic congestion and air pollution.
Connect people to jobs and services with frequent, affordable, reliable transit service.
Encourage economic development and affordable housing options along streetcar corridors.

The Streetcar Land Use Study provides an assessment of the citywide benefits of the system in terms of access to jobs and schools, quality of life, transportation costs for households, job growth, and real estate impacts. The study also considers potential challenges to the introduction of streetcar service such as the impact on historic and cultural resources, housing costs and small business retention. The report examines the benefits and challenges along each proposed corridor and proposes adjustments to phasing and small segments to maximize mobility and economic development benefits of the investment.

In the months ahead, the Streetcar Land Use Study will provide an initial foundation of analysis that OP, DDOT and other involved agencies will use to make recommendations regarding the District’s streetcar system. Future elements of the Streetcar Land Use Study will examine specific land use recommendations at the corridor and neighborhood level including zoning, retail and residential uses, streetscape and urban design. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) will lead the system design, financing, construction and operation of the streetcar, and DDOT is moving forward with the initial phase of the streetcar system with construction of the H Street/Benning Road line. As DDOT completes system planning for each corridor, extensive public outreach to local residents and businesses will take place. The findings supported in this study will further the dialogue between communities and District agencies as we continue planning for future lines.

Harriet Tregoning Director, Office of Planning

Bicycling And Walking In The United States: 2012 Benchmarking Report

Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:13:15 -0500

Executive Summary

What isn't counted,doesn't count.

Government officials working to promote bicycling and walking need data to evaluate their efforts. In order to improve something, there must be a means to measure it. The Alliance for Biking & Walking's Benchmarking Project is an ongoing effort to collect and analyze data on bicycling and walkingin all 50 states and the 51 largest cities. This is the third biennial Benchmarking Report. The first report was published in 2007, the second in 2010, and the nextreport is scheduled for January 2014.

Objectives

(1) Promote Data Collection and Availability

The Benchmarking Project aims to collect data from secondary sources (existing databases) and to conduct surveysof city and state officials to obtaindata not collected by another nationalsource. A number of government and national data sources are collected and illustrated in this report. Through state and city biennial surveys, this project makes new data available in a standardized format that otherwise does not exist.

(2) Measure Progress and Evaluate Results

The Benchmarking Project aims to provide data to government officials andadvocates in an accessible format that helps them measure their progress toward increasing bicycling and walking and evaluate the results of their efforts. Because the Benchmarking Project is ongoing, cities and states can measure their progress over time and will see the impacts of their efforts. By providing a consistent and objective tool for evaluation, organizations, states, and cities can determine what works and what doesn't. Successful models can be emulated and failed models reevaluated.

(3) Support Efforts to Increase Bicycling and Walking

This project will ultimately support the efforts of government officials and bicycle and pedestrian advocacyorganizations to increase bicycling and walking in their communities. Byproviding a means for cities and states to compare themselves to one another, this report will highlight successes, encourage communities making progress, and make communities aware of areas where more effort is needed. By highlighting the top states and cities, otherstates and cities will gain inspirationand best practice models. This report is intended to help states and communities set goals, plan strategies, and evaluate results.

Data Collection

This report focuses on 50 states and the 51 largest U.S. cities. Most bicycling and walking is in urban areas, and because of short trip distances, the most potential for increasing bicycling and walking is in cities. Whenever possible, theAlliance collected data for this report directly from uniform government data sources. Researchers collected data that were not readily accessible from national sources through two surveys for cities and states. In October 2010, the Benchmarking Project team reached out to 50 states and 51 cities, utilizingthe staff of cities, state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and advocacy organizations to provide data for city and state surveys. The surveys complementedexisting government data sources to create a comprehensive reserve of data that evaluates multiple factors that affect bicycling and walking in cities and states.

Results

Levels of Bicycling and Walking

From 1990 to 2009, the percent of commuters who bicycle to work increased from 0.4% to 0.6% while the percent of commuters who walk to work decreased from 3.9% to 2.9%. According to the 2009 American Community Survey (ACS), 3.4% of commuters nationwide are bicyclists (0.55%) or pedestrians (2.86%). Residents of major U.S. cities are 1.7 times more likely to walk or bicycle to work than the national average. According to the 2009 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) 1.0% of all trips are by bicycle and 10.5% of all trips are by foot nationwide. It is difficult to determine bicycling and walkingmode share for all trips at the state and city levels because of small sample sizes of NHTS.

Bicycle and pedestrian commuters are generally distributed proportionately among ethnic groups in the U.S., according to the 2009 ACS. Greater disparities are found among genders. According to the 2009 NHTS, 49% of walking trips are men and 51% are female, yet among bicycle trips, 76% are male and only 24% are female. A look at age reveals that while walking is generally distributed proportionately among age groups, youth under age 16 make up 39% of bicycle trips. This age group accounts for just 21% of the population.

Safety

In 2009, 4,092 pedestrians and 630 bicyclists were killed in traffic. This is down significantly from 2005 when 4,892 pedestrians and 786 bicyclists were traffic fatality victims. While overall numbers of bicycle and pedestrian fatalities are declining, pedestrians and bicyclists are still at a disproportionate risk for being a victim of a traffic fatality. Although just 10.5% of trips in the U.S. are by foot and 1.0% are by bicycle, 11.7% of traffic fatalities are pedestrians and 1.8% are bicyclists. In major U.S. cities, 12.7% oftrips are by foot and 1.1% are by bicycle, yet 26.9% of traffic fatalities are pedestrians and 3.1% are bicyclists.

According to the 2007-2009 Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the 2009 NHTS, seniors are the most vulnerable age group. While adults over 65 make up 10% of walking trips and 6% of bicycling trips, they account for 19% of pedestrian fatalities and 10% of bicyclist fatalities.

Policies and Provisions

A number of policies and provisions are represented in this report including funding and staffing levels, infrastructure, written policies, and bike-transit integration. This report marks a significant increase in planning for bicycling and walking over the last two years. Many states and cities have adopted new plans and goals to increase bicycling and walking and reduce fatalities. Overall, states and cities still rankpoorly for funding bicycling and walking at a rate proportionate to active transportation levels.

Funding for Bicycling and Walking

2010 data from the Federal Highway Administration reveal that states spend just 1.6% of their federal transportation dollars on bicycling and walking. This amounts to just $2.17 per capita for bicycling and walking. About 40% of these dedicated bicycle and pedestrian dollars are from the Transportation Enhancement (TE) program. The majority of TE funding (48%) goes toward building bicycle and pedestrian facilities and to bicycle and pedestrian education.

Planning and Legislation

Since the 2010 Benchmarking Report, there has been a 63% increase in the number of states that have published goals to increase bicycling and walking, and a 27% increase in the number of states that have published goals to reduce bicycle and pedestrian fatalities.

2011 League of American Bicyclist data on state legislation reveal that most states have basic bicyclists' rights legislation such as allowing bicyclists to legally ride two-abreast, signal right turns with their right hand, and to take a full traffic lane in the presence of a side path or bike lane. Twenty-one states have 3-foot passing laws that require motorists to pass bicyclists at a safe distance of at least three feet (up from 14 as of the 2010 Benchmarking Report).

A survey of other policies found that 19 (of the 51 largest) U.S. cities and 26 states have adopted complete streets policies that require streets be built to accommodate all potential road users. Nearly half of states report having a bicycle and pedestrian advisory committee. And 38 states report having a publicly available bicycle map.

Cities were surveyed on a number of planning and policy initiatives. Forty-one cities report having a bicycle master plan, and 21 have a pedestrian master plan. Over half of cities have bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees.

Infrastructure

City surveys examined current and planned bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in order to benchmark the progress communities are making. Specifically, cities reported miles of bike lanes, bicycle routes, and multi-use paths. On average, cities have 1.8 miles of bicycle facilities (bike lanes, multiuse paths, and signed bicycle routes) per square mile—a 29% increase since the 2010 Benchmarking Report.

While implementation of innovative facilities such as bicycle boulevards and colored bike lanes is low, surveys indicated that there are new projects currently being implemented or in the process of approval. The number of cities that report having implemented innovative facilities has increased significantly in the last two years. Seventy-three percent of cities now report having implemented sharrows, or shared lane markings.

Bike-Transit Integration

Bike-transit integration has proved to be a vital aspect of effective bicycle systems. The report analyzes responses from city and state surveys, as well as American Public Transportation Association (APTA) data, to see how well cities are integrating bicycle systems with transit. Forty-four cities report that 100% of their bus fleet have bicycle racks, a 19% increase over the past two years. Major U.S. cities report an average of 2.5 bicycle parking spaces at bus stops for every 10,000 residents.

Education and Encouragement

Education and encouragement programs at the state and city level are effective ways to inform the public and promote bicycling and walking. Information from state and city surveys and the National Center for Safe Routes to School illustrates the growth in bicycle and pedestrian education in communities. National Walk and Bike to School Day is a popular encouragement activity with growing school participation nationwide.

Thirty-eight cities report having youth bicycle education courses and 41 have adult courses. Youth education is a vital area of outreach because it has the potential to influence the habits of the next generation. The number of youth who participate in bicycle education courses in cities increased by 31% from two years ago. Surveys indicate a 40%increase in adult participation levels for bicycle educational courses over the last two years.

League of American Bicyclists' data indicate that almost all states (49) have information on bicycling in their statedriver's manual, yet just 32 states have questions on bicycling on their state driver's exam. The majority of states (38) have a "Share the Road" or similar public safety campaign. Seventeen states report sponsoring a statewide ride to promote bicycling or physical activity.

The Alliance also collected data on professional education regarding bicycling and walking. Overall, these efforts are growing among states, but there is still great room for improvement. Only 20 states have bicycle enforcement as a police academy requirement. And, just 25 states report having hosted a statewide bicycle and pedestrian conference.

Cities were also surveyed on encouragement activities including presence of and participation levels in Bike to Work Day events, open street/ciclovia initiatives, and city-sponsored bicycle rides. Bike to Work Day is the most common encouragement event with 43 cities participating with an average of oneparticipant for every 286 adults. Thirty-two cities sponsor rides to promote bicycling or physical activity with an average of one participant for every 350 residents. Twenty-one cities have open street (car-free or ciclovia) initiatives with an average of one participant for every 37 residents.

Cycling and Walking Advocacy

Advocacy organizations have the potential to influence bicycling and walking in the communities they serve by advocating for and winning new policies, funding, infrastructure, and programs. The number of Alliance state and local bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations has been increasing steadily since the Alliance was founded in 1996. This report measures organization capacity of Alliance member organizations and sets standards for membership, revenue, staffing, and media exposure. Results from Alliance organization surveys vary widely because of the great variation in maturity and operations of these organizations as well as the communities they serve. Some organizations in this report are decades old while others were founded not long before these surveys were collected.

Surveys indicate that organizations serving cities earn significantly more per capita than their statewide counterparts. Local organizations earn an average of $0.15 per resident served while statewide organizations earn just $0.03 per resident. In general, organization revenue is diversified, coming from membership and donations, events, fees, grants, contracts, and the bicycle industry. Local Alliance organizations also have much higher per capita membership levels averaging one member per 1,522 residents. Statewide organizations have an average of one memberper 4,975 residents. Similarly, statewide organizations operate with an average of 0.4 full-time-equivalent staff (FTE) per million residents served. Organizations serving cities average 2.2 FTE staff per million residents.

Factors Influencing Bicycling and Walking

Analysis in this report shows several positive relationships between bicycling and walking rates and safety, advocacy capacity, density, and car ownership. While weather does not appear to be afactor that directly influences bicycling levels, density, advocacy capacity, and car ownership are a few factors that appear to influence bicycling and walking trips.

ACS and FARS data indicate a positive correlation between bicycling and walking levels and safety. In line with previous studies, an increase in walking and bicycling levels is strongly related to increased bicyclist and pedestrian safety.

Public Health Benefits

To see how bicycling and walking influence public health, the Alliance compared public health data to bicycling and walking levels. Data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and ACS reflect a direct relationship between levels of bicycling and walking and several public health indicators. Data suggest that the risk for such health problems as obesity, diabetes, asthma, and hypertension will decrease with more bicycling and walking. States with lower bicycling and walking levels on average have higher levels of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. States with higher levels of bicycling and walking also have a greater percentage of adults who meet the recommended 30-plus minutes of daily physical activity. This suggests that increasing bicycling and walking can help achieve public health goals of increasing physical activity and lowering rates of overweight and obesity.

Economic Benefits

To see how bicycling and walking influence the economic strength of communities, the Alliance surveyed numerous studies and data sources. Evidence suggests that bicycling and walkingprojects create 11-14 jobs per $1 million spent, compared to just 7 jobs created per $1 million spent with highway projects. Surveys show that facilities for bicycling and walking attract tourists, event participants, and business. In addition bicycling and walking are affordable investments that save commuters money and in turn equate to more money available for local economies.

Studies that have performed cost/benefit analysis on bicycling and walking facilities have found that these facilities have significant benefit for public health, traffic congestion, and air quality. The cost benefit ratio of Portland, OR's bicycle investments, looking at just health and fuel savings, ranged from 3.8-to-1 to 1.3-to-1.

Conclusions

While many state and local communities are making sufficient efforts to promote bicycling and walking, much more work needs to be done. Barriers in staffing and funding remain a consistent limitation to promoting bicycling and walking. Bicycling and walking make up 11.5% of all trips, and 13.5% of traffic fatalities, and yet receive just 1.6% of federal transportation dollars.

The proven environmental, economic, and personal health benefits that bicycling and walking offer are evidence that increasing bicycling and walking levels are in the public good, yet a much greater investment is needed throughout the U.S. This Benchmarking Report identifies which cities and statesare leading the way and provides links to resources (Appendix 5) from these communities.

The Alliance recommends that government officials and advocates take the time to evaluate their efforts to promote bicycling and walking. This report can be used by communities to see how they measure up, to identify role models, and to set new goals. Continued benchmarking and improvements in the availability of data will strengthen the report in the coming years, and lend a better understanding of the factors that influence bicycling and walking. Ultimately, by providing a tool for communities to consistently measure progress, evaluate results, and set new targets, this report will advance efforts for a more bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly America.

Housing + Transportation Affordability in Washington, DC

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:01:19 -0400

Introduction to H+T

Significance of Transportation Costs and the Lack of Transparency

Today, the real estate market knows how to incorporate the value of land into the price of the home—based on its location and proximity to jobs and amenities—but there is less clarity about how the accompanying transportation costs also contribute to the desirability of a location. In most cases, the very same features that make the land and home more attractive, and likely more expensive per square foot, also make the transportation costs lower. Being close to jobs and commuter transit options reduces the expenses associated with daily commuting. And being within walking distance of an urban or suburban downtown or neighborhood shopping district allows a family to replace some of their daily auto trips with more walking trips. Walking, bicycling, taking transit, or using car sharing instead of driving a private automobile reduces gasoline and auto maintenance costs, and may even allow a family to get by with one less automobile.

By contrast, places where single-family homes are more “affordable” are often found in outlying areas where land is cheaper. However, the lack of amenities and access to necessities common in these neighborhoods often results in households having transportation costs that are much higher and can often outweigh the savings on housing costs. In many of the areas where households “drive to qualify” for affordable housing, transportation costs can exceed 32% of household income, making it, at times, a greater burden than housing. Conversely, for some communities where households benefit from less automobile dependency, transportation can represent as little as 10% of household income.

This information gap on location efficiency, which is measured here as the cost of transportation associated with each place, leads to unexpected financial burdens and time constraints for households, poor location decisions by developers, and missed and misplaced opportunities for municipalities. Furthermore, it leads to misinformed criticisms of the cost of building transit, since these critiques do not fully account for the benefits or take into account the hidden costs associated with sprawl and auto dependency. Not only are the high costs of transportation hidden, but so are the low costs, and therefore so is the inherent value of more convenient in-town urban, inner-suburban, and other urbanizing locations. Consequently, many of these convenient but undervalued areas suffer from disinvestment and lack the ability to attract new investment and redevelopment.

Expanding the Definition of Affordability

From an affordability perspective, the lack of transparency in transportation costs puts households at significant financial risk. Traditionally, a home is deemed affordable if its costs consume no more than 30% of a household’s income. This measure, however, ignores transportation costs—typically a household’s second largest expenditure2 —which are largely a function of the area in which a household chooses to locate. This report proposes expanding the definition of housing affordability to include transportation costs to better reflect the true cost of households’ location choices. Based on data from 337 metro areas, ranging from large cities with extensive transit (such as the New York metro area) to small metro areas with extremely limited transit options (such as Fort Wayne, IN), CNT has found 15% of the Area Median Income (AMI) to be an attainable goal for transportation affordability.

By combining this 15% level with the 30% housing affordability standard, this report recommends a new view of affordability, one defined as H+T costs consuming no more than 45% of household income.

Considering housing and transportation costs in conjunction changes the picture of affordability significantly. Many areas in which low home prices make the area appear affordable are no longer so attractive when transportation costs are added to the equation. Conversely, areas in which housing prices may seem out of reach for many households can actually become more affordable when high levels of location efficiency allow households to experience significantly lower transportation costs.

Transportation Costs Vary by Location

The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) has developed a unique tool, the Housing + Transportation (H+T®) Affordability Index, which has so far been applied to all 337 metro areas in the United States.

The transportation cost model, the T in the H+T Index, describes the relationship between independent neighborhood and household characteristics and three dependent variables: auto ownership, auto use, and transit use. Building off of years of research on location efficiency, the transportation cost model considers factors such as household density, average block size, transit access, job access and journey to work time and explains how they influence transportation behavior (see fig. 3).

These three factors of transportation behavior—auto ownership, auto use, and transit use—estimated at the neighborhood level, are combined to illuminate the cost of transportation associated with that location.

Neighborhood Variables

Six neighborhood characteristics are utilized in the transportation model to predict transportation behavior, as measured through auto ownership, auto use, and transit use. Household density (both residential and gross measures), average block size, transit access (as measured in the Transit Connectivity Index developed by CNT), job access, and average work commute time have all been found to be determining factors of transportation behavior. (The specific definitions of each measurement can be found in the Detailed Methods section.)

Household Variables

Three household characteristics have also been found to be significant indicators of transportation behavior: household income, household size, and the number of commuters per household. However, in the transportation model, these three variables are fixed at regional average values. Therefore, by holding these characteristics constant and examining transportation costs for the “typical household,” this report focuses on and highlights the variation resulting from the built environment, or neighborhood characteristics. (See the Detailed Methods section for further explanation.)

Total Transportation Costs

The transportation model results with values estimating average auto ownership, auto use, and transit use, to which cost components are multiplied to estimate total household transportation costs. Auto ownership costs, for the purposes of this research, are defined as depreciation, finance charges, insurance, license, registration, and taxes (state fees). Auto use costs are composed of gas, maintenance, and repairs. Transit costs factor the average cost of transit use per household using a regional average price as derived from the National Transit Database. (See details in the Cost Components section of the Detailed Methods.)

Lynx Rail Design Manual

Thu, 01 Jan 1998 17:18:31 -0500

This Rail Design Manual provides guidelines for the preparation, design, and promotion of development around the proposed LYNX Rail Program. This manual will focus on four items:

1) Urban design principles and guidelines;
2) Alignment decision making process;
3) Station planning and design; and,
4) Station area design and implementation

Particular attention is paid to design decisions affecting the way the alignment and station locations are selected in order for them to fit into the community.

LY X has developed this planning manual to assist the development community and local jurisdictions to successfully prepare for and implement the LYNX Rail Program. This manual is the third element or the LYNX Mobility Design and Customer Amenities Manual
series.

The planning process identified in this manual should be carried through with enthusiasm and cooperation among local jurisdictions, the private development community, neighborhood groups, and LYNX. The LYNX Rail Design Manual will become a template ror assisting the communities immediately served by the first phase or rail development as well as act as a guide for other communities served by rail transit in the distant future.

Central Okanagan Smart Transit Plan Transit-Supportive Guidelines

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:53:06 -0400

Decades of uncoordinated land use and transportation planning have produced a common pattern of growth across North America – one of urban sprawl. Environmentally, economically and socially unsustainable, sprawl requires almost total dependence on the automobile and renders public transit ineffective. Out of synch with land use, transit has been a consistent money loser due to low ridership and poor service levels.

A more sustainable and transit-supportive pattern of urban development, ‘Smart Growth’, is now available to both public and private sectors alike. Involving the reintegration of transportation and land use planning through the process of Integrated Community Planning (ICP), Smart Growth promotes the development of ‘complete communities’ – emphasizing mixed land uses, compact built forms and walkable, multi-modal streets. ICP also promotes ‘Smart Transit’, involving transit technology and systems better matched to land use patterns and the needs of transit users.

ICP is the central premise of this set of Transit-Supportive Guidelines. However, mutually supportive transit infrastructure, land use patterns and built form cannot be achieved without close cooperation between transportation engineers, planners and urban designers. These disciplines can no longer be carried out independently, otherwise sprawl development and automobile dependence will continue.

These Transit-Supportive Guidelines were developed in conjunction with the Central Okanagan Smart Transit Plan through special funding provided by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. While the Guidelines are intended to be applicable more to medium-size cities where conventional bus transit systems are in operation, reference is made to successful transit-supportive applications in larger
municipalities, which can also serve as preferred growth patterns for mid-size cities.

The Urban Future of Work

Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:46:58 -0500

High unemployment rates and slow employment growth continue to threaten our economy. Once-successful sectors are in decline. Even the workplace itself is in transition. New technologies and ways of working have disrupted everything from the speed of a typical product cycle to the amount of real estate a company needs.

But as our economy changes, the emerging story is also a positive one. While many formerly robust industries are struggling, the Bay
Area’s innovative knowledge services sector is growing quickly, led by companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter. And while technology allows us to work remotely, the role of the office is becoming even more important. Companies are finding that they need the vibrancy and density of an urban-style environment in order to collaborate, innovate and stay competitive.

How can we capitalize on the Bay Area’s successful knowledge services sector and its trend toward density and interaction to strengthen our region’s economy?

In this SPUR report, we make the case that there is a strong link between density and job growth. In fact, we believe that locating jobs closer to transit, and closer to one another, will be key to the Bay Area’s long term economic growth. We recommend 20 strategies for increasing density, strengthening the regional economy and promoting job growth.

TCRP 129: Local and Regional Funding Mechanisms for Public Transportation

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:12:37 -0400

It has been more than 20 years since significant research has been conducted on local and regional (i.e., non-federal and non-state) funding for public transportation. No information is available that describes funding mechanisms from local and regional sources beyond the revenue amounts reported in the NTD for key categories of transit operating and capital funds. Without this information, communities and public transportation agencies spend considerable time and money identifying and considering the funding options available. Research is needed on funding mechanisms to allow local governments and transit agencies to consider and pursue appropriate funding for current and future public transportation services. The research results should describe a broad range of funding mechanisms and provide sufficient information to allow investigation and comparison of funding options and to implement the funding mechanisms.

The objectives of this research were to develop (1) a handbook that identifies and describes potential local and regional funding mechanisms for public transportation services in urban and rural areas; discusses the pros and cons of each type of mechanism; and provides broad guidance on implementation and (2) a searchable database resource that allows examination by type of funding mechanism, key characteristics of each mechanism, and characteristics of the public transportation entities. This research did not include passenger fare or advertising revenues.

Honolulu High Capacity Transit Project Urban Design Guidelines

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:00:00 -0400

The coming of high-capacity transit (HCT) to Honolulu represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to capture the community building and people moving benefits of this major investment in Honolulu’s future. HCT represents the largest new transportation infrastructure project on O’ahu since the construction of the interstate highway system. HCT will provide an entirely new way to travel and experience the island. It will introduce numerous physical elements of engineered and architecturally designed transportation infrastructure. The application of sound urban design principles will help to:

• Maximize the performance of this transit investment.
• Enhance the livability of the communities it serves.
• Create long term value, and
• Sensitively integrate HCT into O’ahu.

Everyone involved with the HCT project should understand how, and give priority, to the creation of a well designed, unique system that fits with the character of the surrounding island community. Applying good urban design practice to the HCT project is essential, as quality of place and quality of life are inseparable.

The Transit-Oriented Global Centers for Competitiveness and Livability: State Strategies and Market Responses in Asia

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:47:38 -0500

This dissertation examines Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo as three transit-oriented global center models, wherein entrepreneurial city-states have largely integrated rail transit investments with urban regeneration projects to guide postindustrial agglomeration and spur economic development in target locations. For each of the three Asian cases, I classify types of joint development packages on the basis of built environment attributes and estimate the impacts of rail transit investments and joint development packages on market location shifts and land price changes over the last decade. The empirical findings suggest that mixed-use redevelopment projects and urban amenity improvements around terminal stations largely shift the competitive advantages of knowledge-based businesses and the lifestyle preferences of highly skilled professionals towards central locations. The hedonic price models, however, reveal that the synergetic effects of rail transit investments and urban regeneration projects are highly redistributive over the rail transit networks as well as within each station catchment area, especially where urban districts are already well-developed and development regulations are generously relaxed for commercial profits.

Transit & Land Use Planning

Mon, 19 Nov 2001 15:30:09 -0500

North American municipal and regional planning authorities are pursuing urban growth management strategies that preserve or improve urban “livability”. In the Lower Mainland, concerns about air quality and traffic congestion are central themes in regional planning, such as the GVRD Creating Our Future program, and the Transport 2021 project. Growing communities throughout BC share similar concerns. These studies identify a larger role for public transit as a key strategy for achieving a reduction in the number of automobile trips and an improved urban environment. Achieving higher transit ridership is a challenge in an automobile oriented society, and transit agencies should not bear this responsibility alone.

Mobility Planning and Barrier-Free Access for People with Disabilities in Dresden

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:51:54 -0500

The topic of barrier-free access is of great importance in Dresden. Dresden has a population of over 508,000 inhabitants, more than 60,000 of whom have a disability. Demographic changes and an increase in the number of older people mean the number of people with disabilities continues to increase.

According to Section 3 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, no one may be discriminated against because of a disability. Another aspect of particular importance is fulfilling the requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which came into force in the Federal Republic of Germany on 26 March 2009. The aim is for people with disabilities to participate independently in society, using the public transport environment, public buildings and facilities in the usual way, without outside help or any particular difficulty.

Transit Sustainability Guidelines: Framework for Approaching Sustainability and Overview of Best Practices

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:37:23 -0400

This Recommended Practice introduces guidelines for designing and operating sustainable transit that both reduces a community’s environmental footprint from transportation and enhances its quality of life by making travel more enjoyable, affordable and timely.

Designing and operating sustainable transit requires a new way of thinking. For the transit industry to achieve true sustainability, it must take a holistic approach toward what a transit agency can and should contribute. Improving transit systems’ performance and integrating transit with community development is more vital to sustainability than simply reducing the environmental footprint of agency facilities. A transit system can consist of the greenest of earth-friendly, energy-efficient facilities and fleet, but it does little good if it is not used. An empty bus cannot be a sustainable bus. If transit doesn't succeed in integrating with and serving the community, it can be an environmental and economic burden and even a scar on the landscape. These guidelines cover a wide spectrum of sustainability in regard to transit.

Federal Barriers to Local Housing and Transportation Coordination

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:33:40 -0400

This report includes a synopsis of the history of barriers to local coordination of housing and transportation resulting from HUD and DOT statutes and regulations, a summary of efforts to date to identify barriers within each agency’s programs, and a description of efforts underway to address these
barriers. We conclude the report with a list of provisions in HUD and DOT statutes and regulations, grouped into four categories. These categories correspond to key areas where improved coordination would better support local strategies to plan and implement sustainable communities:

Location‐efficient, Mixed‐use Development
Affordability and Access to High‐Opportunity Locations
Local Planning Coordination
Streamlined Access to Federal Funding

Congress is uniquely positioned to address these barriers and identify solutions needed to eliminate many of the barriers given its jurisdiction over DOT and HUD appropriations and authorizations. Doing so will allow the agencies to continue to support local and regional innovation and continue to advance the six livability principles adopted by DOT, HUD and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

Does Dense Make Sense?

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:21:02 -0400

Boulder has a residential population density greater than Denver – and is 40% more dense than peer cities like Palo Alto, California and Madison, Wisconsin. Still, there are calls by some for much greater density in Boulder. The public debate about increasing Boulder’s density has been emotional and rife with misinformation. A comprehensive analysis of the facts surrounding density and growth in Boulder is desperately needed. This PLAN-Boulder County report examines density and growth from four important aspects: regional transportation, greenhouse gas generation, adequate public services, and affordable housing.

Cities of Opportunity

Sun, 01 May 2011 17:49:54 -0400

When the first edition of Cities of Opportunity was developed, we made a decision to rank cities only in their 10 indicator categories and to forego showing overall rankings to avoid the misperception of a contest. That risk seemed especially significant in 2007, when the media cast New York and London in a death match for global capital market kingship.

In hindsight, the New York versus London tug of war seems a figment of the about-to-burst bubble, a comparison that deserved headline attention only through the looking glass of irrational exuberance. And a curious reader, then and now, might be expected to ask, quite commonsensically, ‘who does win?’

This fourth edition of Cities of Opportunity for the first time shows an overall ranking. But which city wins is far from our message or motivation. If anything, we honor the admonition of Walt Whitman, a 19th century editor of The Brooklyn Eagle: “Be curious, not judgmental.”

Space Race Map Function Test

Tue, 10 Nov 1987 17:21:00 -0500

National Map HTML Test

New York Metro Region
NY	Second Avenue Subway Phase I	NYMTA	Heavy Rail	4867	MTA
NY	LIRR East Side Access	NYMTA	Heavy Rail	7386	MTA
NY	7 Line Extension	NYMTA	Heavy Rail	2100	MTA
NY	Passaic Bergen Commuter	NJ Transit	Commuter Rail	164	NJ Transit
NY	34th Street Transitway	NYC DOT	BRT	28	NY DOT
NY	Nostrand/Rogers Avenue	NYC DOT	BRT	40	NY DOT
NJ	Northern Branch Project	NJ Transit	Light Rail (LRT)	866	NJ Transit
NJ	Lackawanna Cutoff Phase 1	NJ Transit	Commuter Rail	-	NJ Transit
NJ	Lackawanna Cutoff Total	NJ Transit	Commuter Rail	551	NJ Transit
NJ	MOM Line	NJ Transit	Commuter Rail	-	NJ Transit
NJ	Union County Light Rail	NJ Transit	Light Rail (LRT)	500	NJTPA
NY	Staten Island North Shore	NYMTA	Unknown	-	MTA
NY	Lower Manhattan Jamaica JFK	NYMTA	Unknown	-	MTA
NY/NJ	West of Hudson Regional Access	NYMTA	Unknown	-	MTA
NY	Hylan Boulevard	NYC DOT	BRT	-	NY DOT
NY	Second Avenue Subway All Phases	NYMTA	Heavy Rail	12133	MTA
NJ	Hudson Bergen To Jersey City Rt 440	NJ Transit	Light Rail (LRT)	171	NJTPA

Los Angeles Metro Region
CA	Orange Line Extension	LACMTA	BRT	216	LACMTA
CA	Expo Line Phase I	LACMTA	Light Rail (LRT)	862	LACMTA
CA	Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase I (to Azusa)	LACMTA	Light Rail (LRT)	690	LACMTA
CA	Expo Line Phase II	LACMTA	Light Rail (LRT)	1300	LACMTA
CA	Crenshaw/LAX	LACMTA	Light Rail (LRT)	1400	LACMTA
CA	Perris Valley Line	RCTC	Commuter Rail	233	FTA
CA	E Street BRT Corridor	Omnitrans	BRT	192	FTA
CA	Westside Subway Extension	LACMTA	Heavy Rail	6000
CA	Regional Connector	LACMTA	Light Rail (LRT)	1366	LACMTA
CA	West Santa Ana Transit Corridor	LACMTA	Light Rail (LRT)	649	LACMTA
CA	Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2 (to Montclair)	LACMTA	Light Rail (LRT)	450	LACMTA
CA	Gold Line Eastside Transit Corridor Phase II	LACMTA	Light Rail (LRT)	1800	LACMTA
CA	Metro Green Line South Bay Extension	LACMTA	Light Rail (LRT)	555	LACMTA
CA	Wilshire BRT	LACMTA	BRT	32	LACMTA
CA	Downtown LA Streetcar	LACMTA	Streetcar	100	LA Streetcar
CA	Redlands Rail Line	SANBAG	Commuter Rail	240	SANDAG
CA	Aerial Tram San Bernardino to Big Bear	SCAG	Cog Rail or Cable Car	380	SCAG
CA	Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 3 (to Ontario Airport)	SANDAG	Light Rail (LRT)	300	SANDAG
CA	San Fernando Valley Corridors Phase 1	LACMTA	Rapid Bus	13	LACMTA
CA	San Fernando Valley Corridors Phase 2	LACMTA	Rapid Bus	158	LACMTA
CA	Green Line to LAX	LACMTA	Light Rail (LRT)	-	LACMTA
CA	Sepulveda Pass Transit Corridor	LACMTA	Heavy Rail/BRT	2468	LACMTA
CA	Foothill Blvd East	SANBAG	BRT	215	SANDAG
CA	Hold Avenue/4th Street	SANBAG	BRT	208	SANDAG
CA	Euclid Avenue to Corona	SANBAG	BRT	180	SANDAG
CA	San Bernadino Avenue	SANBAG	BRT	119	SANDAG
CA	Foothill Blvd West	SANBAG	BRT	166	SANDAG
CA	Grand/Edison Avenues	SANBAG	BRT	179	SANDAG
CA	Sierra Avenues	SANBAG	BRT	79	SANDAG
CA	Riverside Avenues	SANBAG	BRT	174	SANDAG
CA	Haven Avenues	SANBAG	BRT	110	SANDAG
CA	Harbor Blvd. BRT (Fullerton to Costa Mesa)	OCTA	BRT	4	OCTA
CA	Westminster/17th BRT (Santa Ana to Long Beach)	OCTA	BRT	2	OCTA
CA	28-Mile BRT (Brea Mall to Irvine Transportation Center)	OCTA	BRT	4	OCTA
CA	La Palma BRT	OCTA	BRT	-	SCAG
CA	Beach Blvd. BRT	OCTA	BRT	-	SCAG
CA	Edinger BRT	OCTA	BRT	-	SCAG
CA	Katella BRT	OCTA	BRT	-	SCAG
CA	Anaheim Rapid Connection	OCTA	Unknown	757	SCAG
CA	Santa Ana and Garden Grove Fixed Guideway	OCTA	Unknown	144	SCAG

Chicago Metro Region
IL	Red Line Extension (South)	CTA	Heavy Rail	1093	CTA
IL	Orange Line Extension	CTA	Heavy Rail	445	CTA
IL	Yellow Line Extension	CTA	Heavy Rail	263	CTA
IL	UP Northwest Upgrade	Metra	Commuter Rail	531	Metra
IL	Metra BNSF Extension	Metra	Commuter Rail	-	CMAP
IL	Circle Line (Phase II; south)	CTA	Heavy Rail/BRT	1000	CTA
IL	STAR Line	Metra	Commuter Rail	2737	Metra
IL	Southeast Service Corridor	Metra	Commuter Rail	778	Metra
IL	Circle Line (Phase III; north)	CTA	Heavy Rail/BRT	-	CMAP
IL	Jeffrey Boulevard BRT pilot	CTA	BRT	-	CTA
IL	Chicago Avenue BRT pilot	CTA	BRT	-	CTA
IL	Halsted Street BRTpilot	CTA	BRT	-	CTA
IL	79th Street BRTpilot	CTA	BRT	-	CTA
IL	Central Area Transitway	CTA	BRT	-	CMAP
IL	CTA Blue Line West Extension	CTA	Heavy Rail	-	CMAP
IL	CTA Brown Line Extension	CTA	Heavy Rail	-	CMAP
IL	DuPage "J" Line	Dupage Co.	BRT	-	RTA
IL	Express Airoport Train Service	CTA/Chicago	Heavy Rail	-	CMAP
IL	Inner Circumferential Rail Service	Metra	Commuter Rail	-	CMAP
IL	Metra Heritage Corridor	Metra	Commuter Rail	-	CMAP
IL	Metra Electric Extension	Metra	Commuter Rail	-	CMAP
IL	Metra Milwaukee District North Extension	Metra	Commuter Rail	-	CMAP
IL	Metra Milwaukee District North Improvements	Metra	Commuter Rail	-	CMAP
IL	Metra Milwaukee District West Extension	Metra	Commuter Rail	-	CMAP
IL	Metra Rock Island Extension	Metra	Commuter Rail	-	CMAP
IL	Metra SW Service Extension & Full Service	Metra	Commuter Rail	-	CMAP
IL	O'Hare to Schaumburg Transit Service	IDOT	CR/BRT	-	CMAP
IL	Mid-City Transitway	CTA	Heavy Rail/BRT	-	CMAP
IL	South Lakefront Corridor	CTA	CR/LRT	160	CMAP

Sustainable Transport in Freiburg: Lessons from Germany’s Environmental Capital

Fri, 28 Jan 2011 15:44:25 -0500

Abstract

This article examines changes in transport and land-use policies in Germany over the last 40 years that have encouraged more walking, bicycling and public transport use. It focuses on a case study of policy changes in the city of Freiburg, where over the last three decades, the number of bicycle trips tripled, public transport ridership doubled, and the share of trips by automobile declined from 38% to 32%. Since 1990, motorization rates have leveled-off and per-capita CO2 emissions from transport have fallen—despite strong economic growth. The analysis identifies policies that are transferable to car-oriented countries around the world.

Promoting Public Transportation: Comparison of Passengers and Policies in Germany and the United States

Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:20:01 -0500

Introduction

It is often suggested that the United States adopt policies similar to those of European countries to increase public transportation ridership and sustainability of the transport system. On the basis of two national travel surveys, socioeconomic and geographic characteristics of public transportation riders in Germany and the United States are compared, and the differences in public transportation policies in the two countries are analyzed. Dissimilar policies can help account for variability in ridership not explained by socioeconomic and geographic differences. In both countries, public transportation ridership increases with population density and metropolitan area size and decreases with rising income, car ownership, and household distance from a public transportation stop. However, supported by better policies, German public transportation systems can attract more riders from all groups of society. For example, Germans living in households with more cars than drivers make three times as many of their trips by public transportation than does the average American. Even Germans in rural areas use public transportation more often than do Americans in metropolitan areas. Compared with Germany, public transportation in the United States is limited to dense areas in large urban regions, is centered around buses (65% of trips), and mainly attracts poorer residents who have less access to a vehicle and live close to a public transportation stop. Compared with the United States, public transportation systems in Germany are characterized by a longer history and more efficient use of government subsidies, higher levels and better quality of public transportation supply, better regional integration of public transportation services, more multimodal coordination, and more favorable land use and restrictive automobile policies discouraging car use. Improving public transportation service in the United States could help augment the appeal of public transportation and increase ridership among all societal groups in all spatial development patterns.

Making Public Transport Financially Sustainable

Thu, 01 Jul 2010 15:05:35 -0400

Abstract

Over the past two decades, Germany has improved the quality of its public transport services and attracted more passengers while increasing productivity, reducing costs, and cutting subsidies. Public transport systems reduced their costs through organizational restructuring and outsourcing to newly founded subsidiaries; cutting employee benefits and freezing salaries; increasing work hours, using part-time employees, expanding job tasks, and encouraging retirement of older employees; cooperation with other agencies to share employees, vehicles, and facilities; cutting underutilized routes and services; and buying new vehicles with lower maintenance costs and greater passenger capacity per driver. Revenues were increased through fare hikes for single tickets while maintaining deep discounts for monthly, semester, and annual tickets; and raising passenger volumes by improved quality of service, and full regional coordination of timetables, fares, and services. Those efforts by public transport agencies were enhanced by the increasing costs and restrictions on car use in German cities. Although the financial performance of German public transport has greatly improved, there are concerns of inequitable burdens on labor, since many of the cost reduction measures involved reducing wages or benefits of workers.

Transit-Oriented And Joint Development: Case Studies And Legal Issues

Mon, 01 Aug 2011 13:35:37 -0400

Introduction

The purpose of this digest is provide an update to The Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit-Oriented Development (TCRP LRD 12). When TCRP LRD 12 was published in early 1999, only a handful of transit-oriented development (TOD) and transit-based joint development statutory and regulatory programs existed in the United States; those that did exist were, at that juncture, new and relatively untested. Since then, the field has filled with a number of new TOD and joint development programs, policies, and built projects, along with a robust academic and professional literature. Cumulatively, these sources demonstrate a wide range of legal devices geared, directly and indirectly, toward promoting and building TOD and joint development projects.

This digest attempts to trace these developments, beginning with an overview of the significant literature since the late 1990s. The literature summary is followed by a comprehensive survey of recently adopted federal, state, and regional statutory and regulatory programs promoting or facilitating TOD and joint development and a review of related case law. The digest’s third section provides detailed case studies from Portland, Oregon; Oakland, California; Chicago, Illinois; Plano, Texas; and Morristown, New Jersey. These case studies, while illustrating important legal issues, demonstrate that TOD success extends beyond laws, financial mechanisms, and public–private contracts. The report concludes that these constructs, while instrumental to the success of TOD and joint development, are indicative of a more basic foundation at the root of every successful project—leadership from the public, nonprofit, and private sectors.

We expect significant changes over the next decade for TOD in America. Recent studies indicate that over the next couple of decades the country will need to build several thousand new TODs to keep up with demand, which is a stark contrast to the several hundred present at the beginning of the 21st century.

Tax-Increment Financing: The Need for Increased Transparency and Accountability in Local Economic Development Subsidies

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:23:48 -0400

Executive Summary

Local and state governments use various tools to encourage development in economically challenged areas. Tax-increment financing (TIF) has been a leading tool used for this purpose. TIF allows cities and towns to borrow against an area’s future tax revenues in order to invest in immediate projects or encourage present development. When used properly and sparingly, TIF can promote enduring growth and stronger communities. When used improperly, however, TIF can waste taxpayer resources or channel money to politically favored special interests.

To protect the public interst, governments should impose strong safeguards that ensure that TIF projectsare implemented through a transparent, accountable process with clear and compelling goals.

Governments must use care in choosing when to use tax-increment financing. The public can benefit from subsidies that bring lasting economic development to declining or stagnant areas. However, tax-increment financing can be wasted on projects that:

Fail to achieve public goals: By definition, TIF diverts money from schools, parks, and other important services. TIF projects certainly won’t be justifiable if they are used to sup.port projects that fail to bring the hoped-for investment or harm the community in other ways.
Enrich special interests at the public’s expense: Poorly designed TIF programs can give government officials a tool to lavish subsidies on favored or well-connected develop.ers—regardless of the project’s public benefits.
Encourage development in areas where it is least needed: TIF is intended to spur redevelopment of areas in difficult economic straits, but the tool has also been used to fuel development of previously undeveloped areas. Fort Worth, Texas, for example, used TIF to lure the big box sporting goods chain Cabela’s to a tract of prime, newly developed land that was declared “blighted” due to the presence of a stream and lake on the property.

The process of awarding tax-increment financing often takes place without sufficient public awareness and input—creating the opportunity for favoritism and corruption.

TIF often lacks transparency: The public often lacks the tools to evalu.ate whether a particular TIF project makes sense. In some states, TIF budgets are not published for public review..quire the completion and publication of growth forecasts that would enable the public to evaluate the costs and benefits of TIF subsidies.
TIF often lacks accountability: TIF ..ployment, land value, and tax revenue among them. Many TIF laws do not, however, require follow-up reporting that would enable the public to deter.mine if the goals of the project were realized.
TIF can create “slush funds” that lack public oversight and accountability: In some jurisdictions, TIF revenue can be spent at the discretion of mayors or other public officials. ..rate budget overseen by the mayor, and not even shared in full with the city council. Funds may be allocated to political allies or pet projects—or may continue to be used for projects inside a TIF district long after the project originally intended to receive the TIF funds was completed.

To prevent these problems, states and municipalities should adopt strong rules governing the use of TIF districts and similar development subsidies. In short, rules should ensure that TIF's are targeted, transparent, accountable, and democratically governed.

TIF districts must be targeted and temporary. TIF should only be used in service of a specific develop.ment strategy and only in cases where evidence shows that it is likely to succeed. TIFs should not become an all-purpose tool to woo developers. TIF should only be targeted toward areas in special need of development, for projects that are unlikely to occur without public intervention, and with a defined time limit at which point the property’s tax revenue will once again be used for general public purposes.
Subsidy recipients must be held accountable for meeting goals. TIF agreements should include measur.able targets for success, and regular performance reviews should measure progress towards those benchmarks. Where possible, municipalities should retain the ability to demand return of some or all of the money used to subsidize private investors in the event that development promises are not fulfilled.
Information on TIF must be transparent. Because TIF has long-term implications for a jurisdiction’s finances and ability to provide public services, the decision to create a TIF .est level of transparency and public participation. In addition, jurisdic.tions should supply detailed, ongoing information about the finances and performance of TIF projects via the Internet, following “Transparency 2.0” standards of budget and spending disclosure. (See page 17).
Citizens must have the tools to evaluate the benefits and tradeoffs of TIF. Governments should account for the costs of TIF districts as part of a jurisdiction’s overall budget--enabling the public and decision-makers to evaluate the trade-offs involved in tax-increment financing and the impacts of other public services.

Model Design Manual for Living Streets

Tue, 11 Oct 2011 20:45:06 -0400

Context

A growing number of communities are discovering the value of their streets as important public spaces for many aspects of daily life. People want streets that are safe to cross or walk along, offer places to meet people, link healthy neighborhoods, and have a vibrant mix of retail. More people are enjoying the value of farmers’ markets, street festivals, and gathering places. And more people want to be able to walk and ride bicycles in their neighborhoods.

People from a wide variety of backgrounds are forming partnerships with schools, health agencies, neighborhood associations, environmental organizations, and other groups in asking their city councils to create streets and neighborhoods that fit this vision.

As a result, an increasing number of cities are looking to modify the way they design their streets. They are often stifled by standards and guidelines that prevent them from making the changes they seek. Some want to modify their standards and manuals, but don’t know how, or don’t have the resources. This manual presents an opportunity to these communities to design their streets for health, safety, livability, sustainability, and more. It also provides a template that can be adopted to replace existing manuals. The sponsors of this manual make it freely available to any community that wants to use all or any part of it. This manual may be modified, customized, or expanded upon at the pleasure of the end user. We hope that by making it widely available, many more communities will fulfill their dreams in making and remaking their streets valuable public space that serves many needs.

The manual is available at www.modelstreetdesignmanual.com as a Word document and an InDesign package in order to facilitate creation of new versions of the manual.

Download the manual at www.modelstreetdesignmanual.com

Creating and Maintaining Sustainable Communities

Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:42:50 -0400

Reconnecting America today released four training modules created for and funded by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) that illustrate various principles of creating and maintaining sustainable communities. The modules created by Reconnecting America’s LINK (Leadership¸ Innovation, Networks, Knowledge) Team were presented at three APTA conferences with the goal of educating practitioners, public transit agencies, elected officials and other decision-makers.

“The modules are applicable to a diversity of regions. We developed these modules to be flexible and adaptable to a variety of transit modes” said Catherine Cox Blair, Program Director of LINK.

According to Reconnecting America President and CEO John Robert Smith, “These modules are a significant step in educating a broader audience about the importance of transit-oriented development in building sustainable communities.”

“APTA is pleased to have worked with Reconnecting America to develop useful and informative modules for our members,” said APTA President William Millar. “These will help advance understanding in this important area.

These modules are also available on the APTA website.

Below are slideshows with speaker notes from each module:

Try this link

Measuring the Impact of Light Rail Systems on Single Family Home Values: A Hedonic Approach with GIS Application

Tue, 01 Jul 1997 16:09:56 -0400

Abstract

In theory, proximity to a light rail (LRT) may have two different effects on residential property values. On the one hand, accessibility (proximity to the LRT stations) may increase property values. On the other hand, nuisance effects (proximity to the LRT line and stations) may decrease property values. Existing empirical studies are inconclusive, and failure to separate the effects of accessibility from the nuisance effects may explain some of the ambiguity. This paper examines the impact of the light-rail system (MAX) in Portland, Oregon, on single-family home values using distance to rail stations as a proxy for accessibility and distance to the line itself as a proxy for nuisance effects. Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques are employed to create spatial-related variables and merge data from various sources. The study results confirm our hypothesis that the light rail has both a positive effect (accessibility effect) and a negative effect (nuisance effect) on single-family home values. The positive effect dominates the negative effect, which implies a declining price gradient as one moves away from LRT stations for several hundred meters. Without controlling for the nuisance effect of the distance to the rail line, the estimated coefficients on distance from stations appear to be biased and would underestimate the accessibility effect. The finding of an independent nuisance effect suggests that previous hedonic models may have reached contradictory results because the nuisance effect differs with different types of rail or other local characteristics.

The Impact of Railway Stations on Residential and Commercial Property Value: A Meta-analysis

Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:34:34 -0400

Railway stations function as nodes in transport networks and places in an urban environment. They have accessibility and environmental impacts, which contribute to property value. The literature on the effects of railway stations on property value is mixed in its finding in respect to the impact magnitude and direction, ranging from a negative to an insignificant or a positive impact. This paper attempts to explain the variation in the findings by meta-analytical procedures. Generally the variations are attributed to the nature of data, particular spatial characteristics, temporal effects and methodology.

Railway station proximity is addressed from two spatial considerations: a local station effect measuring the effect for properties with in 1/4 mile range and a global station effect measuring the effect of coming 250 m closer to the station.We find that the effect of railway stations on commercial property value mainly takes place at short distances. Commercial properties within 1/4 mile rang are 12.2% more expensive than residential properties. Where the price gap between the railway station zone and the rest is about 4.2% for the average residence, it is about 16.4% for the average commercial property.

At longer distances the effect on residential property values dominate. We find that for every 250 m a residence is located closer to a station its price is 2.3% higher than commercial properties. Commuter railway stations have a consistently higher positive impact on the property value compared to light and heavy railway/Metro stations. The inclusion of other accessibility variables (such as highways) in the models reduces the level of reported railway station impact.

A Full Copy of this Article Can be Found at Springer's Website.

The Impact of Transit Corridors on Residential Property Values

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:24:50 -0400

Most of the literature on transit corridors, such as superhighways and tunnels, focuses on the positive externality of transit access (e.g., interstate access, transit station) and fails to isolate the negative externality of the corridor itself. This empirical study examines two situations: one with both access benefits and negatives, and another without the access benefit. The findings reveal that proximity to the transit corridor alone without direct access conveys a negative impact on nearby housing values.

Large Scale Redevelopment Initiatives, Housing Values, and Gentrification: The Case of the Atlanta Beltline

Tue, 01 Jan 2008 14:02:13 -0500

This paper examines the impacts on residential property values of municipal-led planning for a large-scale, multi-use land development project called the Atlanta Beltline, which involves the production, over a 25 year period, of a wide array of greenspace, light rail transit, and related privately-owned real estate developments. The paper considers the impacts on homes within the target development area as well as in nearby locations, with a particular emphasis on the portion of the Beltline adjacent to substantial low-income populations.

Unlike many analyses of state-led development initiatives, the analysis here focuses on impacts that occur as a result of the early planning for the ultimate project – and the public knowledge of such planning – rather than on impacts that follow formal state intervention or actual physical redevelopment. Given the long timelines involved in large-scale projects, and the possibility that land speculators and others may drive up land values well before the formal adoption of state subsidies or the breaking of ground on actual redevelopment projects, it is important to analyze price changes from the point of initial public and investor awareness.

Public Transit’s Impact on Housing Costs: A Review of the Literature

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:54:40 -0400

Building and expanding a fixed rail public transit system is a considerable undertaking for any metropolitan region. Investments on this scale, which can run in the billions of dollars, certainly reshape how people move throughout a region, but their impacts do not end at the turnstile. For residents and businesses that place importance on accessibility, such investments can also essentially redistribute the value of location within a region, making a place more or less desirable than before simply because of its proximity to the transit system. And as we know, a residential location’s value is best reflected in how much people are willing to pay to live there.

This brief summarizes research exploring the ways in which public transit has been shown to influence housing costs for owners and renters in the United States

Land Use Impacts of Bus Rapid Transit: Effects of BRT Station Proximity on Property Values along the Pittsburgh Martin Luther King, Jr. East Busway

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:40:21 -0500

The development of bus rapid transit (BRT) systems is relatively recent in the United States; however, several systems are operating and many more are being planned. A more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between land use and BRT is needed, particularly in comparison to other fixed-guideway modes. This report documents an effort to quantify the impacts of BRT stations on the values of surrounding single-family homes.

The hypothesis is that BRT stations have an impact on property value that is commensurate with rail transit projects considering the level and permanence of services and facilities. To test this hypothesis, a hedonic regression model was used to estimate the impact of distance to a BRT station on the fair market value of single-family homes. Because many BRT systems operating in the United States may be too new to find evidence of capitalization into property values, data from Pittsburgh’s East Busway, one of the oldest operating BRT systems in the country, was used. Decreasing marginal effects were found: moving from 101 to 100 feet from a station increases property value approximately $19.00, while moving from 1001 to 1000 feet increases property value approximately $2.75. Another way to interpret this result is to say that a property 1,000 feet away from a station is valued approximately $9,745 less than a property 100 feet away, all else constant (this figure is determined by summing the marginal effects for each foot of distance).

The results shown in this report are only valid for the data used in Pittsburgh’s case. As more BRT systems continue operating in the United States for more years, this method should be applied to other cities and other types of properties to gain a better understanding of the general property value and land use impacts of proximity to BRT.

Transit Revitalization Investment Districts: Opportunities and Challenges for Implementation

Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:34:55 -0400

Introduction

This report provides an evaluation of planning and implementation efforts undertaken based on the Pennsylvania Transit Revitalization Investment District (TRID) Act. This innovative law, passed in 2004, has been cited nationally as a model for fostering transit-oriented development (TOD). TRID is intended to achieve a variety of goals including:

Encouraging TOD and economic development;
Fostering collaboration between multiple entities;
Promoting the use of value capture mechanisms, public-private partnerships, and other innovative financing methods to spur infrastructure investment;
Incorporating community involvement in planning; and
Generating increased revenue and ridership for transit agencies.

The TRID legislation enables the use of a district-based tax increment financing mechanism to capture increases in property values to pay for needed improvements. It is distinct from tax-increment financing (TIF) because unlike TIF, it does not require that there be a finding of “blight” in the area where it is used. It also differs from other district-based TIF strategies around the country in its explicit emphases on transit and TOD and the comprehensive, community-based planning that is required for successful TOD implementation.

Twelve TRID planning processes have been initiated statewide using funds from the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), and others are in the early stages of planning using other state and local sources. However, thus far no TRID financing district has been created. This report aims to assess TRID’s strengths and offer some reasons as to why the tool has not yet been used for implementation financing. Using a case study approach, we evaluate TRID efforts to date and offer recommendations to help assist with future efforts. Findings from the case studies were supplemented by interviews with TRID practitioners from around the Commonwealth. Section 1 provides a brief overview of the legislation, and Section 2 provides four case studies of TRID planning efforts in Marcus Hook, Lower Merion Township (Bryn Mawr), Dormont/Mt. Lebanon, and Pittsburgh’s East Liberty neighborhood. A summary of findings about TRID successes and challenges, as well as a discussion of potential ways to overcome implementation barriers, are provided in Section 3.

TRID Overview

Goals

The TRID statute outlines a series of goals related to advancing TOD in the Commonwealth:

Promote local, county and regional economic development and revitalization activities through private sector investment, reinvestment and joint development activities in conjunction with public transportation improvements.
Encourage multi-municipal, cooperative approaches to generate new investment, reinvestment and revitalization through transit-oriented development around rail transit stations and along public transportation corridors.
Increase overall ridership on public transportation systems, including AMTRAK, while generating additional revenues for current and expanded services, capital improvements and related ongoing maintenance.
Encourage and support municipal and multi-municipal comprehensive plan implementation, including consistency of plans at the local, county and regional levels.
Stimulate public-private partnerships created by prospective development opportunities around, within or adjacent to the transit system, station areas and transit system components.
Establish appropriate mechanisms to capture the real estate taxation and other values added by joint development activities for reinvestment in the transit system and local communities.
Encourage greater community involvement in TRID location, design and implementation and resulting investment activities.
Promote flexible, cooperative, coordinated and enhanced support for innovative, intermodal solutions in TRID development and implementation activities by municipal officials, public agencies, nonprofit organizations and the private sector.
Support TRID implementation by maximizing use of existing Federal and State laws and programs that are consistent with the purposes of this act.

TRID is unique in that it is explicitly intended to expand the role of transit agencies in local value capture strategies. In addition to the increased ridership generated by new development near transit stops, it can also generate revenues to support transit service, capital improvements, and maintenance.

Key Provisions

Below is a summary of key provisions of the legislation.

Eligible TRID locations are defined by distance from a transit stop or station (at least 1/8 mile, but no more than ½ mile), and may include vacant, underutilized or potentially redevelopable land. Specific boundaries can be tailored to local circumstances based on property boundaries or other factors, when authorized by the jurisdiction and the transit agency, and supported by a TRID study.
TRIDs are designated by municipalities or counties, in cooperation with transit agencies, transportation authorities, and/or AMTRAK. The TRID may encompass an existing or planned station. The municipality or municipalities enter into an agreement with the transit agency, which defines the activities and commitments of each party to the TRID.
TRID plans are required, and must consider the need for capital improvements to transit-related facilities and adjacent public infrastructure as well as opportunities for private sector real estate development. The plan must also include a financial plan, including discussion of funding sources, a proposed amortization schedule where applicable and estimated future maintenance requirements.
DCED provides a 75% match for TRID planning efforts and related implementation activities, up to $75,000 per project. Municipalities undertaking a TRID planning study are also entitled to receive priority consideration for planning and implementation grants and technical assistance from DCED, working in partnership with the pertinent county planning agency or agencies and other State agencies with grant or loan programs that may be applicable to TRID. In addition, Commonwealth agencies are directed to provide State resources, programs and new capital investments that will assist local governments, transportation authorities and transit agencies to implement TRIDs.
Transit agencies may purchase and improve property within a TRID, consistent with existing authority and limitations on transit agencies to condemn and acquire land for public transportation purposes. A transit agency may not be the primary real estate developer, but it can purchase property, make improvements, and work with the local jurisdiction(s) to offer it for sale for uses consistent with the plan. Alternatively, they can advertise the presence of development opportunities within the plan area.
While a management entity must be designated to manage and facilitate implementation, municipalities retain policy and oversight responsibilities over the budgetary and programmatic actions of the entity. Neighborhood improvement districts or business improvement districts may act as the managing entity for implementation activities.
Value capture areas are coterminous with TRID boundaries, within which taxing entities can share incremental tax increases generated by new real estate investment in the TRID. The tax revenues are dedicated to specific improvements designated in the TRID planning study.
Community involvement is required during the planning and establishment of a TRID, including at least one public meeting to explain TRID and alternative implementation approaches, and another to review the proposed joint development plan and its related public improvements prior to implementation.

TOD 201- Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit: Increasing Affordability With Location Efficiency

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:48:29 -0500

Why This Book?

The Importance of Locating Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit

There is a growing consensus that communities that provide housing for a mix of in-income housing – whether provided within a single project or a neighborhood – makes it possible for people of all incomes to live in safe neighborhoods near well-funded schools and good city services, with greater access to a wider variety of jobs and opportunities. Providing housing for a mix of incomes also allows families to continue living in the same community, even as children grow up and look for their own apartments or homes, and parents grow older and want to down-size their living arrangements.

The socio-economic diversity that mixed-income housing provides for also enhances community stability and sustainability, and ensures that low-income households are not isolated in concentrations of poverty. Just as important, we are beginning to understand that the mixing and mingling of people from diverse backgrounds and experiences promotes innovation by increasing the opportunities for people to share and combine ideas from different perspectives and traditions. Mixed-income housing also helps stretch the limited resources available to address the affordable housing shortage. The inclustions of market-rate units can reduce the subsidies required to build the affordable units, and help ensure there will be high-quality design and construction.

These are just some of the reasons that housing policy in the U.S. has increasingly focused on mixed-income housing. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOPE VI program devoted $4.5 billion over 10 years to demolish and redevelop distressed public housing projects as mixed-income developments, helping to demonstrate its viability and benefits (www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/ph/hope6). But while providing for a mix of incomes in walkable neighborhoods near mix of incomes in communities in general is good, providing for a mix of incomes in walkable neighborhoods near transit is even better because it lowers

transit is even better – for all of the reasons shown in the illustration to the right: Most importantly, in addition to the savings realized because housing is affordably priced, families living near transit can also own fewer cars - or no cars – and drive them less, which means significant savings on transportation costs.

However, we must act now to ensure that the housing built in these locations provides for a mix of incomes or a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will be lost. Changing demographics and concern about traffic has boosted demand for housing near transit and the supply is not keeping up with the increased demand. Because of this, and because developing in these locations is more time-consuming, difficult and expensive, most new housing is being built for the high end of the market, and many of the low-income residents who already live in these locations are being forced out. The first half of this book makes the case for the importance of locating mixed-income housing near transit in order to increase affordability, and explain why the increased demand for housing in walkable neighborhoods near transit is making this so difficult. The second half discusses some of the strategies that are proving successful in addressing this problem and ensuring that housing near transit is affordable for all Americans.

Revisiting Factors Associated with the Success of Ballot Initiatives with a Substantial Rail Transit Component

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:14:15 -0400

Executive Summary

This report presents the replication of an MTI study conducted in 2001 by Peter Haas and Richard Werbel.1 That research, itself a continuation of an earlier project completed in 2000,2 included an analysis of transportation tax elections in 11 urban areas across the nation and culminated in the identification of 17 community-level factors with potential impact on the success of ballot measures for sales tax increases to fund transportation packages with substantial rail components. Many of the 17 factors identified in the research were moderately to strongly associated with electoral success and failure of transit tax initiatives. Among the key findings from the original (2001) report were:

Passing transit initiatives in communities featuring transit agencies of questionable reputations, in those fielding credible opposition, or those lacking a traffic congestion “crisis” is extremely difficult;
Achieving consensus support from business community leaders, elected officials, and environmental groups is potentially problematic, but may be crucial in fundraising for and promotion of the final transit package;
Support for transportation-related tax increases from business community and key elected officials is apparently linked to their close involvement in development of the package; and
Attracting campaign funds in excess of $1 million seems essential to effectively promoting transit initiatives.

Closely following the approach of the 2001 study, this updated research employs in-depth analysis of transportation tax elections in eight communities, representing a variety of urban settings across the United States. Unlike the 2001 study which was somewhat exploratory in nature, this report presents a more direct analysis of each of the 17 factors, denoting whether a condition is present, absent or inconclusively present in each case. Whereas the total number of cases is insignificant for purposes of statistical inference, these findings do represent the population of this type of election in the past decade and may be applicable to communities of similar land use patterns, socioeconomic dispersal, political climate and other like environmental factors. Most important, this replication enables a careful reconsideration of the applicability of conclusions of a decade ago to the present day.

The eight cases studies included in this report represent a variety of circumstances, ranging from approval of a starter rail line, to supplementing an existing tax, to affirming public desire that a general excise tax fund a light rail system, to voting against repeal of an existing sales tax.

Maricopa, AZ (November 2, 2004): Success

At the height of a population boom and associated increased congestion, under conditions that conformed almost perfectly to successful transit outcomes identified in the 2001 study, Maricopa County approved with 57 percent voter support to renewal of a ½ cent sales tax to fund an extension of light rail, new bus services and new highway construction, representing up to $14.3 billion in revenue generated over a 20-year period. Campaigners were able to successfully blend multimedia tactics in soliciting support for the proposal, raising $4 million in contrast to (possibly record) unusually large amount of opposition funding (in excess of $2 million).

Seattle (November 6, 2007): Failure

The 2006 Washington State Legislature required the King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties’ Regional Transit Investment District (RTID) to work in partnership with Sound Transit (RTA) beginning in June 2006 to jointly submit a comprehensive transportation and highway plan to voters in the November 2007 election. Sound Transit primarily developed plans for 50 miles of new light rail services and park-and-ride facilities. RTID focused on 186 miles of highway expansions, including HOV lanes and improvements to the pivotal 520 floating bridge connecting Seattle and Medina. The resulting package, nicknamed “Roads and Transit,” amassed a base cost of $18 billion in 2006 dollars, nearly $10.8 billion of this for Sound Transit’s Link Light Rail. The projects would be funded by a combined 6/10 of a cent sales tax increase and each automobile owner within the Sound Transit District would pay an increased vehicle excise tax of $80 for every $10,000 of his or her car’s value for a projected period of 20 years. The remaining financing relied on state and federal government grants, and did not account for $1.5 billion of the projected cost. Questionable past transit financing decisions and key voices of well-funded, well-organized opposition (including the environmental community) seemed to contribute to the measure’s 45 percent to 55 percent defeat.

Charlotte, Mecklenburg County (November 6, 2007): Success

This measure was a repeal vote of a voter-passed 1998 initiative. MTI’s 2001 study detailed Charlotte’s 1998 vote in favor of a ½ cent sales tax increase to fund the “2025 Transit/Land Use Plan.” Underperformance of tax revenues, construction delays and cost-overruns associated with Charlotte’s first light rail line (LYNX Blue or South Corridor Line) led an individual critic of light rail with the financial means to fund a petition drive repealing the ½ cent increase, which would have effectively ended Charlotte’s indefinite plans for expanded light rail, bus rapid transit, commuter rail and street car services. The signatures were accepted and the repeal measure approved for the November ballot in spring of 2007. In response, the Charlotte City Council and Chamber of Commerce launched an aggressive campaign protecting the light rail system, which was set to commence operation Thanksgiving weekend, November 2007, regardless the result of the vote. Citizens of Charlotte voted against the repeal (and for light rail) 70 percent to 30 percent.

City and County of Honolulu (November 4, 2008): Success

This measure was an affirmation vote of a previously enacted excise tax. In August 2005, the council of the City and County of Honolulu exercised its authority to increase the General Excise Tax (GET) on Oahu by .5 percent for the dedicated purpose of funding a new transit system. Prolonged dispute as to what form the system should take, coupled with “steel wheel” champion Mayor Mufi Hannemann’s failure to win reelection outright (in a runoff system), prompted the mayor and council to place a Charter Amendment on the November ballot affirming public support for an elevated 20-mile light rail system to be funded by the tax increase. On November 4, 2008, citizens of Honolulu agreed to the 16-year (sunset-limited) GET increase being devoted to a “steel wheel” system with 53 percent of the vote. Honolulu demonstrates how multi-level governmental cooperation in cultivation may help lead to public support for a new light rail system.

Los Angeles County (November 4, 2008): Success

Measure R funds a comprehensive, 30-year plan for congestion relief in Los Angeles County. A marquee project to be funded by the ½ cent sales tax increase and championed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, is a “Subway to the Sea” connecting downtown Los Angeles and coastal Santa Monica. Projected to raise $40 billion over its 30-year lifespan, Measure R will also fund extensions of light rail service to East Los Angeles, and new light rail lines to West and South L.A. In drafting this enormous proposal, Los Angeles Metro officials appealed to bus riding and automobile constituencies by dedicating 20 percent of revenues to highway construction and 20 percent to bus operations and maintenance. The series of 14 proposed projects garnered support in West Los Angeles particularly, and was able to secure 67.93 percent in favor, exceeding California’s two-thirds threshold.

Kansas City, MO (November 4, 2008): Failure

After approving an infeasible citizen-led initiative in 2006, the people of Kansas City voted to defeat a proposed . cent sales tax increase to fund a 14-mile starter light rail line. The tax would have generated approximately $815 million over a 25-year period, with remaining financing relying on federal matching grants. While the brand-new line would have connected downtown activity centers and the proposal detailed origin and terminus points, the route was yet to be specified. Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser lent the measure his avid support only after conceding that no consensus could be achieved for a more broadly-based (and expensive) transportation plan. Lukewarm support came from the business community, leading to a poorly funded pro-rail campaign that relied largely on novel ploys (such as use of social media websites and direct contact via text message). This lack of spirited coalition of pro-rail advocates allowed substantially funded opposition forces to fill the news vacuum with messages of lingering uncertainty as to the wisdom of the plan.

St. Louis County (November 4, 2008): Failure

Facing a $45 million deficit, St. Louis County proposed Measure M, a ½ cent countywide sales tax increase, to meet this operations shortfall and fund future (unspecified) extensions of Metrolink light rail services by generating $80 million annually over a 20-year period. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama drew tremendous crowds to polling places across the country, particularly among young people and minorities. In St. Louis County, the Measure M campaign assumed support of the African American community for a measure protecting bus services, and did not target this decidedly pro-Obama group. Many predominantly African American precincts of St. Louis County featured wait times of two to four hours, and Measure M, which appeared at the end of a long ballot featuring “competing” sales tax initiatives was defeated 48.5 percent to 51.5 percent.

Santa Clara County (November 4, 2008): Success

MTI’s 2001 study featured Santa Clara County’s improbable passage of Measure A in 2000, a 30-year extension of a ½ cent transit-dedicated sales tax increase set to expire in 2006. The 2000 vote featured $6 billion in projects, including the highly anticipated Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) heavy rail extension to San Jose. Measure A “included more than $1 billion in rail operating costs, but according to VTA staff, another sales tax to cover operating costs for the life of the tax would probably be needed in 2112 or 2114.”3 In 2008, the VTA board proposed a . cent supplemental sales tax increase to generate a dedicated revenue stream sufficient to fulfill the bulk of VTA’s obligation to BART for the operation, maintenance and future capital reserve of the system. On November 4, 2008, the tax increase was very narrowly approved with 66.78 percent of the vote, California requiring a two-thirds majority.

General Trends

General trends observed in these case studies were highly consistent with the following findings from the 2001 study:

The importance of consensus amongst the business, elected and environmental communities, and accompanying depth of financial support
The difficulty of passing an initiative without well-funded, effective use of multimedia
The importance of utilizing experienced campaign consultants

Again, while limited inference can be drawn from this set of case studies, factors or conditions that seemed to decrease in prominence included:

The effectiveness of presenting a multimodal package
The perception of benefits of a package being distributed throughout the voting district
The experience gained in recent transit elections
The credibility of the transit agency

Further, this compilation includes an exploration of “rebound” elections – those instances in which a failed measure is quickly followed by a successful one – and the factors that seem linked to achieving success in such instances. Four of the eight cases studied were part of a pair of ballot measures offered in rapid succession. While this is again reflective of a small study sample, additional factors that may be of possible importance in this more differentiated context include:

Assured financing may enhance voter confidence in the deliverability of proposals;
Specified routes may increase perceptions of individual benefits;
The bleak reality of tangible service cuts may trump other factors; and
The effectiveness of a region’s predominant newspaper in portraying an initiative in a positive or negative light

These findings suggest that a number of variables not included in the primary analysis may be particularly relevant to the success or failure of transit measures and should not be discredited by transportation planners and campaign entities.

Understanding the Impacts of Transitways: How Light-Rail Transit Improves Job Access for Low-Wage Workers

Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:20:00 -0500

Project Fast Facts

The number of low-wage jobs accessible by 30 minutes of transit travel in morning peak hours increased by 14,000 jobs in light-rail station areas and by 4,000 jobs in areas with direct light-rail bus connections after the addition of the Hiawatha line and related transit network upgrades.
After light-rail construction, low-wage workers are locating near station areas. Hiawatha and related transit upgrades are estimated to have drawn 907 low-wage workers into the Hiawatha station areas. Out of the 907 relocated workers, 78 percent moved to areas near the Cedar-Riverside, Franklin Avenue, and Lake Street-Midtown stations.
The number of low-wage jobs has increased near station areas. Hiawatha and related transit upgrades are estimated to have brought more than 5,000 low-wage jobs into areas near downtown Minneapolis and suburban Bloomington light-rail stations.

Advancing Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Oriented Corridors in California’s Central Valley

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 12:13:57 -0400

Project Overview

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has gained attention as a potentially cost-effective form of highcapacity public transportation. This is particularly the case in small to medium-size cities that do not have high enough densities or serious enough peak-period traffic congestion to justify fairly expensive fixed-guideway transit investments. BRT is widely embraced for providing potential rail-like services at a fraction of the cost (Wright, 2011). This study explores possibilities for advancing BRT systems and associated higher density land development in the Central Valley of California. It uses photo-simulations and stakeholder reactions to visual images to gauge public attitudes toward what would be a fairly radical transformation of urban environments in traditionally car-oriented settings. Due to the comparatively low development densities found in the Central Valley relative to California’s larger metropolitan areas, the kinds of transformations that would be needed to economically justify higher quality BRT services will likely require more than better and more frequent bus services. What will also be needed to complement and perhaps even offset the traditionally negative connotations of higher densities are more amenities, in the form of street trees, attractive landscaping, street furniture, improved building facades, bike lanes, and the like. By eliciting views and responses from local stakeholder interests about BRT service design and surrounding development patterns, the work sought to provide a platform for stimulating open public dialogue on factors that could be vital to successful project implementation. We chose the city of Stockton as a case context. This was in good part because Stockton has an existing BRT-like service in place. Extending this to a higher-quality dedicated-lane service matched by higher accompanying urban densities was viewed as less of a stretch in Stockton than other Central Valley cities that we considered. To investigate the possibility of a BRTbased transit-oriented corridor in Stockton, photo-simulations were created for two locations: one downtown and the other in a more residential setting. For each location, three levels of density matched by enhanced amenity packages were photo-simulated and presented to local stakeholders, along with background information on assumed costs and possible ridership impacts. Participants were asked to express what they liked and did not like about the BRT scenarios that were presented. This analysis built upon prior work using photo-simulations to gauge public sentiments toward TODs in California by Cervero and Bosselmann (1998). Besides visually simulating BRT-related transformations that could take place in Stockton, estimates of costs related to various improvements were compiled, as were estimates of ridership increases based on the higher densities of each transit-oriented corridor. The results presented in this paper are just a first step toward designing and implementing a sustainable transportation program for fast-growing, medium-size cities of California where BRT investments could function as a backbone investment toward reshaping community growth.

GIS Analysis of Population and Employment Centers in Metro Denver Served by RTD’s FasTracks

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:54:36 -0500

Abstract

The Denver regional transit provider, RTD is involved in one of the most ambitious passenger rail expansion projects in the country. Known as FasTracks, the project will add 122 miles of rail and 18 miles of BRT to Metro Denver. Given the scrutiny RTD has faced over budget shortfalls and the likelihood of raising taxes to complete the project on time, this paper used a GIS analysis to determine just how well Metro Denver residents and employees would be served by FasTracks. GIS was also used to determine which corridors and stations would serve the most people, and which high density areas will not be served by FasTracks. Using population data from transportation analysis zones and half mile and one mile buffers around each station, it was found that 30% of residents and 69% of employees within Metro Denver will be within one mile of a FasTracks station, while only 9% of land area falls within a mile of a station. These results indicate that FasTracks will serve residents relatively well and employees very well. Additionally it was found that of the unfunded corridors, the Northwest Corridor to Boulder and Longmont would serve the most residents and employees. A more anecdotal approach was used to identify four high density corridors that will not be served by FasTracks. Future studies could use this same GIS analysis to determine how significantly rail transit along each of these four corridors would improve resident and employee access to high quality transit in Metro Denver.

TOD 204: Planning for TOD at the Regional Scale

Fri, 29 Jul 2011 20:44:00 -0400

Why This Book?

The importance of Planning for TOD at the regional Scale

Transit-Oriented Development, or TOD, is typically understood to be a mix of housing, retail and/or commercial development and amenities — referred to as “mixed-use development” — in a walkable neighborhood with high-quality public transportation. To learn the basics of TOD, see the first book in this series, TOD 101: Why TOD and Why Now?

Building successful TOD requires thinking beyond the individual station and understanding the role each neighborhood and station area plays in the regional network of transit-oriented places. It also requires an understanding of the real estate market, major employment centers, and travel patterns in the region. Regional planning for successful TOD projects is really about the coordination of existing plans for growth, transit, housing and jobs, as well as programs and policies at all levels of government.

Coordinating all these TOD actors is difficult, especially when a decision that works well for one conflicts with the goals of another. Local governments often have competing priorities for TOD projects along transit corridors, and conflicts can arise over decisions about who should lead the TOD planning process and who has authority over implementation. Land use authority, for example, typically resides with local governments, but also plays an important role in determining whether a region will increase transit ridership, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and improve job access.

Regional TOD planning can help identify common goals and facilitate coordination among regional agencies, transit agencies, cities, counties, towns, community residents and other TOD stakeholders. Coordination and collaboration will enhance the likelihood of successful TOD by allowing stakeholders to achieve multiple goals, including high transit ridership, improved connections between people and jobs, and flourishing transit-oriented neighborhoods.

Successful TOD provides these benefits:

reduced automobile trips and greenhouse gas emissions;
increased transit ridership and transit agency revenues;
the potential to increase land and property values near transit;
improved access to jobs for household of all incomes;
reduced infrastructure costs for cities and counties, compared to what is required to support sprawling growth;
reduced transportation costs for residents;
improved public health due to increased walking and biking;
creation of a sense of community and place.

Downtown Carrollton Rail Station Master Plan Phase Two

Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:02:48 -0400

Executive Summary

The Downtown Carrollton Rail Station Master Plan is intended to achieve an integrated vision for a transit-oriented community built around a key transit hub serving Carrollton and the Metroplex. The City of Carrollton’s primary goal for the project is to set the design framework for the transit hub integrating multi-modal, multi-agency transit service with a new urban center and gateway to the City of Carrollton. The ultimate success of the project is measured by the ability to meet this goal and individual objectives of a diverse set of stakeholders while also validating the fnancial feasibility of the project.

The future downtown transportation hub will improve local and regional access and strengthen linkages between transportation, land use and economic development. The project is also an opportunity for Carrollton to create the vision for a new symbolic center of the City. This vision will be achieved through a proposed 76 acre “walkable” / pedestrian-friendly development centered on the transit facilities and surrounded by new, high-quality residential and commercial mixed uses. The master plan provides a development and infrastructure framework within the existing downtown context in support of this vision. This framework includes sidewalks, streets, public plazas, open spaces, gateways and related infrastructure designed to “set the stage” for future development. The master plan also addresses development of a signature “Transit Hall” and “Transit Plaza” as the connecting elements between all transit components and the community.

The Master Plan has been developed in two phases. Phase One, covered in a previous report, focused on early development of key issues of overlaying passenger service with the existing freight operations of the Cotton Belt and BNSF corridors and integration of Denton County Transit Authority (DCTA) and Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) stations. Phase Two, the subject of this report, includes conceptual project development of the transportation components (passenger corridor alignment, track work and passenger transportation hub referred to as the “station complex”), a framework for civic/open spaces and transit-related, mixed-use development within a general ¼-mile radius of the station.

The Master Plan also addresses the cost of public infrastructure and private development components of the project. Total public infrastructure costs for the ultimate development plan is $63 million. The proposed private development costs are $518 million within three development phases for a total project cost of $581 million in 2008 dollars. The private development budget is based on a building program and phasing plan established by a market study provided by the City. Based on the development plan, a Total Development Budget and Developer Pro Forma will be created for all phases of the development. The Pro Forma illustrates the necessary gap fnancing and funding mechanisms to achieve f nancial feasibility for the entire project. Available local, state and federal funding programs suitable for transit-oriented development are identif ed to supplement the available Tax Increment Financing (TIF) alternatives already established.

Land Development at Selected Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Stations

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:30:17 -0400

Background

More than a year-and-a-half ago, the most recent phase of the Hudson Bergen Light Rail (HBLR) line was completed. Opened in 2000, this 20.6-mile long, 23-station route was developed in multiple phases through a creative design/build/operate and maintain (DBOM) contract. A product of intensive planning, public participation and political cooperation, the HBLR is a testament to the value of investment in new transportation infrastructure. Not only has ridership been growing, but land development has been

intensifying at stations along the line at a scale beyond that which road network alone could have borne. Acres and acres of old, abandoned rail yards, piers, and industrial sites along the route have been transformed into compact residential, office and retail developments in pedestrian, transit-friendly environments. The project has become a showcase of “smart growth.”

New transportation options have been opened for thousands of people in northern New Jersey through the multiple connections provided by the HBLR’s linkages. The HBLR serves as the north-south transit connector within Hudson County, complementing PATH’s role as northern New Jersey’s east-west transit distributor. The HBLR provides connections to the PATH service into New York City and Newark, suburban commuter rail at Hoboken, ferry service at many points, bus stops at most stations, a half-dozen park and ride lots, and an elevator connecting west Hoboken with the Jersey City Heights neighborhood. The proximity of housing and offices to stations – within walking distance – allows residents to leave the car at home for work, shopping and entertainment trips.

During the summer and fall of 2005, under grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NJ TRANSIT, the Voorhees Transportation Center (VTC) at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University, studied the development around the HBLR’s Essex Street – Jersey Avenue Station corridor in Jersey City and its 9th Street Station in Hoboken. At that time the land development impacts of the HBLR were just beginning to be recognized, and these two case studies were chosen because of the considerable amount of construction activity underway in each location. The description of these outcomes and potential for economic expansion along the line was published by Reconnecting America in June 2006 and for the first time brought national attention to the development momentum that was gathering along the line.

The purpose of this report is to continue to monitor and document the development progress at HBLR stations. To that end, we have updated the activity in the two locations studied previously; and, we have investigated three more station areas: 34th Street station in Bayonne, Port Imperial station in Weehawken, and Bergenline Avenue station in Union City. These case studies were selected for their development potential: In Bayonne, the redevelopment of the former Military Ocean Terminal (MOTBY) is slated to contain 6,000 new residential units; the Port Imperial planned community is well under way with over 3,000 new residential units already constructed; and, Union City, a longtime immigrant community, densely populated with households of very modest means, is contributing significant ridership.

Findings

The growth along the HBLR line has continued at a steady pace. The 10,000+ new units that we have documented at the five station areas is conservatively estimated at $5.3 billion. These developments represent new riders, new ratables, new business creation and investment, new employment opportunities, environmental improvement and a fresh, engaging sense of place in station areas.

HBLR
Total TOD Housing units Built or Under Construction*
Major Projects
	# of Units	Estimated Sale Value/unit	Total Estimated Sales Value
Hoboken 9th Street	2,230	$400,000	$892,000,000
Essex Street-Jersey Avenue	4,265	$550,000	$2,345,750,000
34th St Station, Bayonne	450	$400,000	$180,000,000
Port Imperial	3,142	$600,000	$1,885,200,000
Bergenline Ave.	52	$300,000	$15,600,000
Total	10,139		$5,318,550,000

*Since 2000, the opening of the HBLR

The completion of many of the major projects, such as Liberty Harbor North and The Peninsula at Bayonne Harbor, will take years to complete. The cycles of the housing and office markets will have to be expected and endured. Nevertheless, the movement is forward looking. HBLR has set in motion a dynamic process that will continue, aided by demographics, environmental concerns and desire for a better live-work travel balance. The following is a summary of the effects that the HBLR has had on the Gold Coast of New Jersey, either directly or indirectly:

Development Outcomes
- Smart Growth is taking place: Large quantities of underutilized land around rail stations are being reclaimed for productive use and being replaced by compact, pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use developments with convenient access to public transportation at a scale beyond that which the local road network could borne
- Development demand is broad-based: housing, office, hotels, retail and recreational facilities are all being created
- An impressive amount of new housing units is being created within walking distance of transit stations studied; housing value for those areas studied in this report is estimated conservatively at $5.3 billion
- Property values and ratables have grown exponentially
- • Solid return on transit investment is unquestionable
- • BUT given the cyclical nature of housing and office markets, full development will take many years to be realized, and expectations should be set accordingly
Transportation Outcomes
- Transit ridership increasing steadily – both weekday and weekend
- Quality of travel greatly enhanced:
  - Reduction in commuting time and use of auto
  - Expanded access to shopping, recreation and entertainment venues
  - North-south transit distributor role, complementing PATH’s role as the east-west transit distributor
  - Convenient links to the Northeast Corridor and Newark Liberty International Airport
  - New connections: North Hudson to Newport shopping mall; Staten Island buses to Bayonne
Community Outcomes
- Line serves as an important asset to communities of all income levels
- Line has lifted expectations of municipalities, residents and businesses leading to improvement of public and private properties

Therefore, in light of these important findings, we strongly hope that resources can be found to:

Continue to monitor the stations selected in this study
Support study of other station areas in the Waterfront’s commercial areas, such as Newport and Harsimus Cove
Expand the station study to West Side Avenue, MLK Boulevard, and Garfield Avenue in Jersey City, and 2nd Street in Hoboken
Support further study of the potential for new development in Jersey City Heights and southeast Union City
Consider a more encompassing study of Bayonne to include the existing neighborhoods west of Route 440, and adjacent to the 22nd and 45th Street stations and the coming 8th Street station

Station Area Planning for High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail

Wed, 01 Jun 2011 14:29:26 -0400

Overview

This station area planning document is a reference tool for State transportation departments and local and regional jurisdictions working in partnership with transportation agencies implementing high-speed and intercity passenger rail (HSIPR) projects. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) encourages dialogue with Federal, State, regional, and local partners on ways to better integrate passenger transport and land use. FRA has included topics, concepts, and ideas to assist local jurisdictions and others accomplish successful station area planning and achieve an optimal integration of the station in its context — to ensure ridership growth and capture livability, sustainability, and economic benefits. Rail stations will differ depending on their location — downtown, airport transfer, suburban, and small town. While every station area is unique and should reflect local context, culture and climate, some common principles apply to the creation of forms and public spaces regardless of location. This document offers three such principles along with recommended strategies for the creation of places that invite people to stay and enjoy, and that enhance the economy and sustainability of the region.

This document is organized around the following station area planning principles:

LOCATION:
- Optimize the station location.
TRANSPORTATION:
- Maximize station connections with other transportation modes.
DEVELOPMENT:
- Shape it through urban design;
- Focus infill development around the station.

These principles and related strategies draw upon transit-oriented development (TOD) concepts. Through compact development and enhanced transit, walkways and bikeways, TOD can increase access, or the ease of connection between places at the scale of the station area. This in turn enables the transport network to increase access for passengers at the scale of the city. Better access to a number of focus areas attracts development and can help to stem sprawl. For Federal Transit Administration publications on TOD, see this webpage.

Capital Solutions for Equitable Transit-Oriented Development

Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:05:19 -0500

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco held conference entitlted Capital Solutions for Equitable Transit-Oriented Development. The purpose of this conference was to examine the practical realities of financing equitable transit-oriented development (TOD) projects and presenting best practices for equitable TOD financing to the Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) sector.

Reconnecting America Chief of Staff Allison Brooks moderated a panel discussion about What policies would support financing for equitable TOD? Joining Brooks were Scott Bernstein, president of the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and Radhika Fox, director for federal policy at Policylink.

Below are videos from the session:

Allison Brooks

Scott Bernstein

Radhika Fox

More about the conference

Scott Bernstein

President

Center for Neighborhood Technology

Implementation Strategies for Successful Bus TOD Projects

Sun, 01 Jun 2008 17:58:14 -0400

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a particular category of smart growth and New Urbanism. In the U.S., over 90% of TOD projects are rail TOD (RTOD) projects. In contrast, bus TOD (BTOD) is a minor player, and is therefore lightly researched.

This paper summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of BTOD relative to RTOD, and proposes three categories of implementation strategies to make BTOD more successful: adaptive transit strategies; adaptive land use strategies; and other supporting strategies.

Adaptive transit intends to make bus transit more conducive to BTOD in terms of improving bus transit operating performance, enhancing its external image, and better serving bus riders. This can be achieved through implementing a set of macro-, intermediate-, and micro-level bus transit planning measures. BRT technology is the hope for future BTOD.

On the land use side, it is essential to better coordinate bus transit planning and land use planning to ensure that transit-supportive land uses are created in the vicinity of bus stations. To engage more participation from private developers and the general public, public/private partnership and community outreach must be strengthened.

A successful BTOD project also needs strong supports from political leaders. Any government funding will help speed up the BTOD development process. Therefore, the other supporting strategies should also be implemented concurrently.

On the case study side, the TOD best practices in Virginia are highlighted. TOD is gaining its importance and popularity in Virginia right now. This paper briefly introduces two prominent TOD projects in Arlington County (the Columbia Pike Streetcar Project and the Rosslyn-Ballston Metro Corridor Project) and one Richmond TOD plan prepared by the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU).

Cleveland Transit Oriented Development Guidelines

Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:48:12 -0500

In a proactive planning effort, the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is developing guidelines for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) projects within their service area. The ultimate goal of these guidelines is to promote vibrant and livable station areas that benefit RTA customers and the surrounding community, as well as promote the use of RTA as a primary means of transportation.

These guidelines are intended to serve as an important step in an evolving process for proactive planning around RTA stations resulting in TOD projects that support the goals of the community. The guidelines establish an avenue for public involvement in the planning process, allowing citizens, decision makers, developers, and the RTA to collaborate on community objectives, understand the planning tools available to meet those objectives (including zoning and joint development opportunities), and develop ownership from all stakeholders in TOD projects.

This report presents generally accepted definitions for TOD and joint-development TOD. If you are involved in a TOD project at a RTA station, taking these guidelines into consideration can help create very successful communities.

Job Sprawl Revisited: The Changing Geography of Metropolitan Employment

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:41:57 -0400

The movement of people and jobs away from city centers into increasingly distant suburbs represents a long-standing trend in metropolitan America.1 The ongoing decentralization of population and employment has implications for the overall health and productivity of metro areas across the country. While “people sprawl” has been well-recognized and documented, this paper focuses specifically on “job sprawl,” exploring recent trends in the spatial distribution of employment in 98 of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas and how those trends differ across major industries.

Jobs may decentralize within a metro area for a variety of reasons, and can signal very different development patterns. But whether decentralization occurs due to the emergence of secondary downtowns in a booming region or because of diffuse, low-density sprawl in distressed metro areas, the changing location of employment is inextricably linked to a range of policy issues critical to a metro area’s success.2 From transportation to workforce development to regional innovation and the provision of social services, the spatial distribution of a metro area’s jobs can ultimately influence its economic productivity, environmental sustainability, and social inclusion and equity. To help frame the analysis presented in this paper, the following section provides a brief overview of the research literature that explores the potential implications of job sprawl.

Connecting the West Corridor Communities: An Implementation Strategy for TOD along the Denver Region’s West Corridor

Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Executive Summary

Light rail in the West Corridor presents an incredible opportunity for transit-oriented development to leverage market momentum for new investment and community building. A focus on TOD will support growth near new transit stations, enhance access to opportunity, preserve and enhance the supply of a range of housing choices, reduce the combined costs of housing and transportation, and support walking and biking to stations. However, implementing TOD along the West Corridor will not be a quick or simple process. The overall economic conditions in the country are vastly impacting the pace and magnitude of private sector development activity everywhere. This macro-level challenge, combined with some micro-market conditions along the West Corridor, where residential home values are relatively low and the potential value increases related to transit have not yet been realized, indicates that in the near term, most implementation activity in the West Corridor will fall to public agencies.

Fortunately, four public partners in the West Corridor – the Cities of Denver and Lakewood, the Denver Housing Authority and Metro West Housing Solutions – recognize the opportunity for TOD and necessity of a corridor-wide partnership. The West Corridor Working Group (WCWG) coalesced around the objective to create a TOD implementation strategy for the corridor. These public agencies will be the leading public-sector agencies to initiate TOD activities in the corridor. By laying the foundation now through activities such as adopting appropriate policies and investing in high value catalytic projects, the WCWG can ensure that over time and as the market matures, the overall value of new private investment will ultimately surpass the public investment.

This report, funded by the West Corridor Working Group, provides a comprehensive summary of relevant information for TOD and strategies for implementing successful in the West Corridor. The Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD) examined the fourteen station area plans as well as demographic, economic and real estate conditions at each station and throughout the West Corridor. Based on the demographics, economics, real estate conditions, the station areas were organized into three types of categories for implementation as transformational, intensification and infill stations. CTOD provides recommendations to the WCWG for moving from vision in the station area plans to reality in the corridor.

The implementation process differs depending on the condition of the real estate market in a particular location. In a cooler market, it is especially important that the WCWG continue to exhibit leadership by intervening with public-sector support for infrastructure and amenities. In hotter market locations, there will be less need for the public sector to intervene initially, but it can assist with the fi nancing of infrastructure and amenities that make a location attractive to TOD.

Key Implementation Strategies

The report includes detailed findings on real estate market, population and households, employment, transportation, infrastructure, community resources and parks and recreation. The implementation strategies respond to the goals identified by the WCWG and can be implemented by at both the corridor scale and station levels. Th e station-specific strategies are unique to the type of station context and needs. Corridor-level strategies require continued commitment and participation by the WCWG and must, in the long term, be paired with similar strategies for each individual station area. Achieving TOD success in the West Corridor will require ongoing proactive identification of barriers to development and efforts by WCWG members, including the cities, to work either together or separately to remove those barriers. There are some overarching findings that are illustrated in the report:

The Cities have provided a great foundation for TOD in the West Corridor. The Cities of Denver and Lakewood, as well as the General Services Administration (GSA), have already laid the groundwork for TOD along the West Corridor with their station area planning efforts. Collectively, there are fourteen completed station area or commercial corridor planning efforts that together create a vision for TOD along the West Corridor. A tremendous amount of staff time and resources has been dedicated to creating and adopting these station area plans. Residents, property owners, businesses and elected officials have also invested time in public meetings, workshops and hearings on the planning efforts. Both cities have reformed their zoning codes to allow for higher density, mixed-use development within station areas and in some cases, rezoned station areas with the new zoning to support TOD.

The West Corridor Working Group can play a significant role in facilitating successful TOD. To a large extent, the WCWG will take the lead on the visioning and coordinating role for development in the West Corridor. In private land development, the developer creates value by establishing a long-term vision for a development site, seeks the entitlements necessary to permit this vision to be built, and provides the major infrastructure necessary to support the future development. Developers often work well ahead of the market and take on a high degree of risk in order to reap a return. By taking on this risk the developer is removing barriers for subsequent development activities. The WCWG can address some of the risk and more quickly facilitate private investment by leading the visioning and coordinating activities, applying appropriate zoning, providing some necessary infrastructure and removing some of the policy and implementation barriers to future development.

Station areas in the West Corridor are unique and have diff erent opportunities and needs to support TOD. Each of the light rail station areas has a different context and unique attributes. Combined, these stations off er some rich and wonderful amenities as well as connections to some major employment, education and entertainment destinations. However, the West Corridor lacks the strong identity that other corridors in the Denver region enjoy. The diversity of stations and the collective corridor needs to be celebrated and promoted so that it is viewed as an attractive place to live, work and play.

The cities, housing authorities, RTD, DRCOG, GSA, and other stakeholders are working hard to support TOD in the West Corridor. Given the numerous activities and multiple stakeholders, more inter-agency coordination and stakeholder collaboration will maximize the leveraging of resources to support TOD. Most stakeholders share the same objectives but they play diff erent roles and provide different expertise. More formal coordination will help expedite the visions of TOD in the station area plans in the West Corridor.

Key Recommendations

A tremendous amount of work has been accomplished by the local jurisdictions along the corridor. The station area and community based plans identify the visions for change at the station areas. The corridor is far ahead of the curve compared to many other places – both regionally and nationally – with expanding transit systems. Additional implementation activities and commitments from the local jurisdictions, region and state will accelerate private investment in the corridor. The following are some of the key recommendations to move the plans from vision to reality:

Create a permanent West Corridor Collaborative. A formalized partnership will ensure regular meetings and a commitment to the TOD implementation strategies. In addition, The WCWG should engage new partners in the implementation activities of the West Corridor such as RTD, DRCOG, ULI and the business improvement districts (BIDs) to embrace the vision and actions to implement TOD in the corridor. There should also be a public process on corridor planning and information sharing that includes co-hosted corridor-wide workshops.
Develop a marketing and branding plan to market and promote the West Corridor. A branding and marketing process would help create an identity for the West Corridor in order to generate interest among potential retail, commercial and residential developers, and to attract the public to the West Corridor as a place to live, work and play. In addition, West Corridor Working Group participants should promote the WCWG process and technical work through attendance and presentations conferences, speaking engagements and peer exchanges.
Complete the “last mile” of critical bicycle and pedestrian connections. The WCWG and other partners should collectively work on planning and funding comprehensive bike and pedestrian connections in the corridor. Th ey should jointly explore joint funding opportunities to complete the bicycle system and pedestrian connections.
Develop an affordable housing strategy for both preservation and new production. Work with WCWG partners and others involved with aff ordable housing in the region to develop an affordable housing plan. The plan should focus on transition of some existing housing stock in all station areas from private market ownership to another structure that would permanently preserve affordable housing; identify targeted opportunities for additional new affordable housing; evaluate possible strategies for expanding the Denver TOD Fund to the entire West Corridor; and evaluate various HUD programs to demonstrate ways that they could be modified to better support aff ordable housing near transit by adding proximity to transit in HUD’s evaluation criteria.
Prioritize the Federal Center, Oak and the Federal/Decatur Stations respectively as high priority stations with transformational opportunities. Lakewood and Denver should each establish an interdisciplinary team of key leads to work together on the short term and longer term redevelopment opportunities at these three key stations by looking at infrastructure, market, demographic and community challenges.
Continue to support infrastructure improvements at Oak, Garrison, Wadsworth and Lamar. Facilitate TOD supportive infrastructure including bike and pedestrian connections. Funding for new infrastructure including utilities should be explored through the city’s capital budget, special districts and future HUD/DOT community challenge and TIGER II grants.
Collaborate on an implementation plan at Sheridan. Given the signifi cant infrastructure and transit changes at Sheridan, the Denver and Lake-wood planning, parks and public works staff at the cities should collaborate to develop an integrated plan for TOD implementation at the station.
Develop some small-scale strategies for the Knox and Perry stations. Denver should support the redevelopment of existing aff ordable housing by preserving those developments due to expire in the coming years and by acquiring land for additional affordable, senior, or student housing. Th e city should also look at improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle network and leverage the activities planned for this area as part of the Denver’s Community Challenge/TIGER II grant.
Emphasize Colfax as the retail corridor in both cities. Continue to focus on Colfax as the retail corridor in both cities with strong physical and visual connections from the West Corridor stations to Colfax. Examine a multi-jurisdictional business improvement district (BID) and explore the creation of a linear urban renewal district for both jurisdictions.

Charlottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority Plan- Transit Supportive Corridors and Areas

Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:22:12 -0400

This report documents the current status of transit in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. It then reviews the factors that suggest a greater probability of the use of transit, develops a composite index of transit use and identifies those corridors and areas most likely to support transit services within the relatively near future (two to seven years). Conditions existing in the study area today are described, including the patterns of development and transit service. Those geographic areas that are most conducive to public transportation, based on a range of transit-supportive factors, are then identified.

Streetcar Economics

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:00:00 -0400

In this 17-minute video, Michael Powell of Powell’s Books talks about why he led the effort to convince property owners in Portland’s Pearl District to tax themselves to build a streetcar line, and what that streetcar has done for economic development in Portland. He calculates the benefits this way: The number of pedestrians in the crosswalk in front of his store numbered three an hour before the line opened in 2001, he says, but when he counted again in 2008 there were 938 pedestrians. Meantime, 400 new businesses opened in the Pearl, 90 percent of which are locally owned – the vast majority by women and minority entrepreneurs. In the meantime, property values have increased more than tenfold.

Michael gave this talk at a day-long national streetcar workshop last May in Los Angeles, which has begun environmental work on a streetcar line in downtown. The workshop was based on Reconnecting America’s book, Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the 21st Century. Michael’s perspective is interesting because business and property owners are increasingly being asked to step up to the plate to help fund the construction of streetcar lines. Streetcar projects are increasingly being viewed not as transportation projects, but as “economic development projects with transportation benefits.” Property owners in Seattle’s downtown-adjacent South Lake Union neighborhood put up half the money used to build a $52 million streetcar line that opened last year.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Michael Powell is also featured in the March 27 New York Times, in a story about the economic downturn and how it’s affecting cities.

Transit Oriented Development Districts

Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:29:42 -0400

Purpose.

The purpose of the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zoning districts is to create a compact, and high intensity mix of residential, office, retail, institutional, and civic uses to promote the creation and retention of uses in areas with high potential for enhanced transit and pedestrian activity. Pedestrian circulation and transit access are especially important and have an increased emphasis in the TOD zoning districts. The development standards are designed to require compact urban growth, opportunities for increased choice of transportation modes, and a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment by ensuring an attractive streetscape, a functional mix of complementary uses, and the provision of facilities that support transit use, bicycling, and walking.

These zoning districts are meant to create high density transit supportive development around transit stations, typically the area within one-half (1/2) mile walking distance from the transit station, which represents a 10-minute walk.

Penn Avenue & West Broadway Avenue: Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines

Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:10:58 -0400

Purpose

The design guidelines in this study report for Transit-Oriented Development in the North Minneapolis Penn-West Broadway Avenue redevelopment area are the result of a nine-month long public planning process.

The intersection of Penn-West Broadway Avenue will be the location for an inbound and outbound Bottineau Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station, scheduled for construction in late 2006. The BRT stations will be heated, well-lit and partially enclosed, with ticket machines for off-board fare collection and real-time information kiosks that show the arrival time of the next bus. Bus Rapid Transit combines ef. ciency, speed and the lower cost of buses using service features such as limited stops and signal priority.

These design guidelines present the vision of the West Broadway Community Advisory Committee and the West Broadway community for the future and should inspire and guide redevelopment within the Penn-West Broadway Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) District.

Creating Walkable and Transit-Supportive Communities in Halton

Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:59:12 -0500

Executive Summary

Studies have repeatedly shown that community design and development has a significant impact on: emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases; levels of physical activity and social cohesion; and rates of injuries and fatalities related to motor vehicles, which may include pedestrians and cyclists. This discussion paper is intended to: review the best available evidence related to health and land use planning in terms of walkability; define what is meant by “walkable and transit-supportive communities”; identify the opportunities for realizing these attributes within a Halton context; and, suggest the parameters that can inform the Sustainable Halton and Regional Official Plan review processes with respect to walkability. It is recognized that future public and agency consultation on this paper will take place through these processes and that some elements of this paper, such as community design and transit, fall under local municipal purview.

Poor air quality is a significant public health concern for people living in southern Ontario. The Ontario Medical Association estimates that air pollution in Ontario contributes to 9,500 premature deaths each year (OMA, 2008). Climate change, associated with long-term shifts in air and water temperatures, precipitation, water and food supplies, and will present significant direct and indirect risks to human health and security in the coming decades. Physical activity, even at moderate levels, reduces the risk of developing numerous chronic diseases. There are many shifts in policy and behaviour that are needed within Canadian society to reduce emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases and to increase physical activity. One of the important policy shifts required relates to the patterns of development within our communities.

There are several models and frameworks that help define the dimensions of the built environment that are most closely associated with walkability and public transit use. The Health Department has chosen to use the “3 D” model to organize this paper: density, diversity (mixed use), and design. Density refers to the number of households and jobs per hectare. Diversity, also called mixed use, refers to land use mix, housing diversity and the presence of neighbourhood retail/service opportunities. Design refers to street design, street connectivity for both pedestrian and cyclists, and the quality of the pedestrian environment.

On the basis of our review of the health and planning literature and best practices, the Health Department recommends consideration of the following parameters in order to support the development of walkable and transit-friendly communities during the Sustainable Halton and Regional Official Plan Review processes:

To create transit-supportive densities:
- Locate neighbourhoods and employment areas within a 400 m to 800 m radius around activity nodes, transit nodes, or activity corridors
- Activity nodes, transit nodes and the 400 m radius around them have a minimum of 200 residents and jobs per gross hectare
- Activity corridors have a minimum of 80 residents and jobs per gross hectare
- Transitional zones within 800 m of activity nodes and transit nodes in greenfield communities have a minimum 75 residents and jobs per gross hectare
- Stable communities and employment areas achieve a minimum 50 residents and jobs per gross hectare whenever possible
To provide appropriate housing for people at all stages of life and income, align the housing mix with the density targets for activity nodes, transit nodes and activity corridors. It is important to monitor the average density of new housing for each housing type yearly to ensure that the overall density targets have been achieved.
Residents live within 400 m of six diverse uses and within 800 m of 17 diverse uses. Because of the important role that access to retail food markets plays in creating complete communities and ensuring access to healthy foods, the best practice literature suggests that residents live within 800 m of a planned or existing retail food market such as a supermarket, grocery store, or produce store.
Locate the land set aside for elementary schools within 1500 m of residents to maximize the numbers of students walking; and, locate the land set aside for secondary schools within 3000 m of residents and on local transit routes. Lands declared surplus by the school boards in Halton have public value and consideration should be given to purchasing these lands for public use.
Design communities so that residents are within 400 m of an existing or planned transit stop. In addition, when developing new communities, adopt a “transit-first” principle.
Residents have access to a full range of parks described in the parkland hierarchy. Ideally residents will live within 400 m of a village square/parkette and within 800 m of a neighbourhood park. In addition, locate community parks, town/city wide parks and recreational facilities on local transit routes.
Consider “sense of place” when identifying and selecting preferred road alternatives.
Incorporate a walking and cycling review for pedestrian connectivity and safety at each stage in the planning process, which would include:
- Residents have access to continuous sidewalks or equivalent provisions for walking along both sides of all streets. New sidewalks in residential areas should be at least 1.5 metres wide. Equivalent provisions for walking include footpaths
- Commercial areas have continuous sidewalks or equivalent provisions for walking along both sides of all streets. New sidewalks in commercial areas should be at least 4.0 metres wide
- Design streets on the basis of medium to short block lengths with a recommended maximum block perimeter that does not exceed 250 metres. Where block perimeter exceeds 250 metres, a block pedestrian linkage is provided
- Neighbourhoods have a linked open space system that interconnects allowing pedestrian, bicycle and other recreational activities continuously throughout the community
- Neighbourhoods built on a cul-de-sac street pattern system are connected to arterial and collector roads by looking for direct pathways that link residents to these areas
Incorporate a walking and cycling review for cycling connectivity and safety, at each stage in the planning process, which would include:
- Neighbourhoods and communities accommodate a cycling network that includes bike lanes and off-road cycling or multi-use trails
- Roads with speeds over 60 km/h have separated lanes that are part of the road, not sidewalk, infrastructure
- Roads with speeds between 50-60 km/h have marked bicycle lanes
- Roads with speeds under 40 km/h are shared
- Priority for cyclists in intersections
- Reduce overly frequent stops or places where reduced cycling speeds are necessary
- Residents have access to trip end facilities such as secure long-term bicycle parking such as lockers, secure short-term bicycle parking such as bicycle racks and showers in commercial buildings
- All streets, roadways, and designated bike routes are maintained to be free of deterrents to bicycling (such as potholes, debris, and overgrown landscaping)
Incorporate a walking and cycling review to consider the appeal of the pedestrian and cycling environment at each stage in the planning process, which would include:
- Building frontages that positively address the street, with active uses at ground and first floors
- All ground level non-residential interior spaces that face a public space have transparent glass on the ground level façade
- Consideration of the length of blank walls (without doors or windows) along sidewalks
- Commercial buildings designed and built so that each building has a front façade and at least one entrance that faces a publicly accessible area such as a street, square or plaza
- On street parking provided on selected streets
- All off-street parking facilities located at the side or rear of buildings, leaving building frontages and streetscapes free of parking facilities
- Each transit stop with at least one bench and, where appropriate, sufficiently sheltered
- Sidewalks connect directly to transit shelters x Place transit shelters in such a way as to not impede pedestrian traffic
- Street trees occur between the vehicle travel way and sidewalk x Universal design options are addressed

Bay Area Transit Oriented Development Demand Analysis

Fri, 01 Jul 2005 17:38:03 -0400

MTC is conducting a “TOD Study” to address the transit oriented development opportunities in the Bay Area. This report looks at demographic characteristics of transit users to estimate the households and jobs with a preference for living/working near transit in the Bay Area, by 2030. It compares these estimates by county with ABAG Projections 2003 and the Smart Growth Vision.

The Causal Influence of Neighborhood Design on Physical Activity Within the Neighborhood: Evidence from Northern California

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:58:54 -0400

Using data collected from Northern California in 2003, this study explored the causal relationship between neighborhood design and physical activity. The combination of three key features provided a stronger assessment of causality than previous studies to date: a focus on the connection between built environment characteristics of the neighborhood and physical activity within the neighborhood, statistical control of preferences for physical activity and neighborhood design characteristics supportive of physical activity, and quasi-longitudinal measures of neighborhood design characteristics and physical activity.

The Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Ownership

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 20:47:04 -0400

Carsharing in North America is changing the transportation landscape of metropolitan regions across the continent. Carsharing systems give members access to an automobile for short-term use. The shared cars are distributed across a network of locations within a metropolitan area. Members can access the vehicles at any time with a reservation and are charged by time or by mile. Carsharing thus provides some of the benefits of personal automobility without the costs of owning a private vehicle.

Transit-Oriented Global Centers for Competitiveness and Livability: State Strategies and Market Responses in Asia

Sat, 01 May 2010 20:25:31 -0400

Building Support for Transit-Oriented Development: Do Community-Engagement Toolkits Work?

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 19:36:42 -0400

Many metropolitan areas are struggling with how to accommodate future population growth—and are looking to transit-oriented development (TOD) as a potential solution. TODs, in which densely-built, mixedincome housing is placed near transit to create walkable neighborhoods complete with amenities and retail, could house as many as a quarter of the country’s new households in coming years.1 Yet one barrier to building a significant amount of TOD housing is the unwillingness of many local residents to support some of the components of TOD, particularly higher-density construction and mixed-income housing. Often called NIMBYs (short for Not-In-My-Backyard), opposing residents can stop such developments in their tracks.

Planners must “sell” the developments as beneficial to the community and the region, and follow up on their promises by creating good plans and developments. To that end, practitioners have developed successful strategies to both counter resistance and rally community support around projects. The process requires a great deal of community education and outreach at community meetings, often aided by community engagement tools such as PowerPoint presentations, brochures, activities, and other tools created for the purpose. Despite their widespread usage of these tools, however, there is little information about their effectiveness, or lack thereof, when used in the field. There is a need for research on what about these tools works, what doesn’t, and in which situations and contexts. It is this gap that this study will attempt to fill, to help inform the work of the developers, planners, and community engagement groups that use these community engagement tools in their work.

Using focus groups in our case study region of the San Francisco Bay Area, this research begins the process of showing what does and does not work in these tools, and makes suggestions for how they may be altered in light of our findings. Focus group members found much to admire and much to find fault with in the tools. In general, focus group members responded to credibility, openness and honesty; relatable and specific facts, stories and examples, especially about real people as well as real places; community benefits; and connections to their existing understandings of their lives and communities. Conversely, they were quick to pick up on any kind of manipulation or deceptiveness, unsupported ideas, or ignorance of their particular community, all of which fostered mistrust and undermined the messages of the tools.

Transportation and Employment: Access to Growing Job Centers

Wed, 05 Apr 2006 19:01:15 -0400

Like most metropolitan areas, the Twin Cities has seen dramatic decentralization of population and jobs during recent decades. These trends have not been as dramatic in the Twin Cities as in many other metropolitan areas for several reasons. The region is home to one of the strongest regional planning organizations in the country – the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council – and it boasts the country’s only region-wide tax-base sharing program – the Twin Cities Fiscal Disparities Program. As a result, sprawl rates and fiscal inequality are not as great as in many regions. The region’s core cities – Minneapolis and St. Paul – have also fared well economically compared with many other central cities.

Despite these positive features, development in the region has been unbalanced with growth in a few suburban areas outstripping the core and the rest of the suburbs. These places have attracted much of the wealth of the region – much of the high-end housing, transportation funding and many of the new high-paying employers. This trend is similar to other metropolitan areas, such as Atlanta, where job growth is mostly found on one side of the region and concentrations of affordable housing, poverty and racial minorities on the other side.

The Geography of Innovation: The Federal Government and the Growth of Regional Innovation Clusters

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:31:06 -0400

Innovation is the critical component of long-term economic prosperity, driving productivity growth and (if spread across key sectors of the economy) ensuring broad-based economic growth. Sparking innovation, however, requires capital (which is threatened by the current economic downturn), skilled-labor, scientific and technological advances, and creative collaboration between government and the private sector. Innovation cannot be dictated, but it can be cultivated.

In this paper, we focus on the importance of President Barack Obama’s call for a new federal effort to support regional innovation clusters. We know now—from a solid record of state and local achievements and academic research—that regional innovation clusters are a critical component of national competitiveness. Geographic regions that are bound together by a network of shared advantages create virtuous cycles of innovation that succeed by emphasizing the key strengths of the local businesses, universities and other research and development institutions, and non-profit organizations. Think information technology in Silicon Valley, music in Nashville, manufacturing in the Pacific Northwest, or life sciences in Massachusetts.

The United States, we argue in this paper, requires innovation policies for which responsibility is shared between regional leaders and the federal government. Leadership must begin in the clusters themselves—with local understanding of competitive strengths and strategies to increase the shared advantages that economists recognize as “positive externalities.” The federal government, however, can and should assume a vital role in which it frames critical national challenges, facilitates the flow of information and expertise to and between regions, and helps finance, in a competitive and leveraged fashion, valuable activities that clusters would otherwise be unable to undertake.

Proposed Walkability Strategy for Edmonton

Wed, 01 Sep 2010 18:13:07 -0400

The overall purpose of the proposed Walkability Strategy for Edmonton is to develop an integrated set of potential actions to address a range of identified barriers to improving walkability in the city of Edmonton. Edmonton has become a fast-paced urban centre with ‘big city’ advantages, opportunities, and challenges. Like other large centres, the limits of funding, outdated regulatory frameworks, and increasing land mass, as well as the need for sustainable growth and improvements to quality of life, are challenging municipal decision makers to respond with integrated, innovative, and efficient solutions. Initiated by the Walkable Edmonton Committee and funded by Smart Choices and Alberta Health Services, the Walkability Strategy addresses a number of key urban form, infrastructure, and policy and program barriers that are impeding Edmonton from being a more-walkable city.

Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking

Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:01:09 -0400

Advocates of New Urbanist and neo-traditional planning concepts include street connectivity as a key component for good neighborhood design. Street networks that are more grid-like are preferred over networks that include many cul-de-sacs and long blocks, thus increasing distances between destinations. The increased distances are thought to discourage walking and bicycling and, thus, physical activity.

While intuitively attractive, there is limited empirical research at this time making this connection. There is also debate over how to measure connectivity and what levels of connectivity are appropriate. The objective of this research is to evaluate various measures of connectivity for the purpose of increasing walking and bicycling. Measures of connectivity can be useful in two arenas: (1) research linking travel behavior (and perhaps physical activity and health) to urban form; and (2) public policy establishing performance standards for new and/or existing development.

This paper first defines and describes a wide range of measures of connectivity, drawn from multiple fields, including transportation, urban planning, geography, and landscape ecology. The paper then includes some preliminary results applying four measures of connectivity to the Portland, Oregon region.

Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods

Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:59:57 -0400

A growing number of researchers agree that social networks and community involvement have positive health consequences. Persons who are socially engaged with others and actively involved in their communities tend to live longer and be healthier physically and mentally.

The more integrated we are with our community, the less likely we are to experience colds, heart attacks, strokes, cancer, depression, and premature death of all sorts. . . . Over the last 20 years more than a dozen large studies . . . have shown that people who are socially disconnected are between 2 and 5 times more likely to die from all causes, compared with matched individuals who have close ties with family, friends, and the community.

Operational Definitions of Walkable Neighborhood

Fri, 07 Jul 2006 17:07:56 -0400

The concept of walkable neighborhoods is increasingly important in physical activity research and intervention. However, limited theoretical understanding and measurable definitions remain a challenge. Methods: This paper reviews theories defining neighborhoods and offers an empirical approach to identify measurable attributes and thresholds of walkable neighborhoods. Bivariate and multivariate analyses are used for self-reported socio-demographic background, neighborhood walking behavior and perception, and objective measures of environments. Results: Environmental attributes positively associated with walking sufficiently to meet health recommendations included higher residential density and smaller street-blocks around home, and shorter distances to food and daily retail facilities from home. Threshold distances for eating/drinking establishments and grocery stores were 860 and 1445 feet. Conclusions: Results questioned theoretical constructs of neighborhoods centered on recreation and educational uses. They pointed to finer mixes of uses than those characterizing suburban neighborhoods, and small spatial units of analysis and intervention to capture and promote neighborhood walkability.

Reinvesting in Pittsburgh's Neighborhoods: The Case for Transit-Oriented Development

Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:03:02 -0400

Introduction

As more and more cities join the transit space race and see the benefits of walkability, places like Pittsburgh – which already have well established systems and walkable street patterns– need to revisit and reinforce their existing transit networks in order to stay competitive. Long thought of as a planning concept for managing growth in fast growing regions, transit-oriented development actually has great applicability when it comes to reinforcing the neighborhoods that make mature cities great. We have the opportunity to reinforce and invest in our transit network in a way that captures higher ridership, generates lasting value for our neighborhoods, enhances the economic strength of our job centers, provides enduring benefits for all of our residents, from young working families to retirees.

This report comes at a time when our region is at an ironic crossroads. The time has never been better to think about how we can improve the integration of our transit system with our neighborhoods. There is growing Federal support for concepts like sustainability and transportation alternatives, reflected in the creation of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s year-old Sustainable Communities Office. Many regions are building entirely new transit systems to improve the quality of life of local residents, many times as a strategy to enhance economic competitiveness goals. And despite fiscal and economic crises facing nearly every region in the country, residents in many regions including Houston, Los Angeles, Charlotte, and Salt Lake City have agreed to tax themselves to fund these improvements. But meanwhile, Pittsburgh is facing one of the greatest transit operational budget crises the nation has ever seen. If we cannot take care of – and leverage – our existing transit resources, we stand to lose out on key opportunities for our workers, attracting and retaining young professionals, supporting our elderly, and serving families of all income levels, many of which are outlined in this report. Transit-oriented development is just one strategy we can use to preserve and promote our transit network, but it is an important one that requires us to pay attention and work together.

Green Infrastructure: The Effects of Urban Rail Transit on Air Quality

Tue, 01 Feb 2011 18:21:51 -0500

Abstract

The transportation sector is a major source of air pollution worldwide, yet little is known about the effects of transportation infrastructure on air quality. In this paper we measure the effects of one major type of transportation infrastructure – urban rail transit – on air quality. Our approach uses the sharp discontinuity in transit utilization on the opening day of a completely new rail transit system in Taipei, Taiwan, to identify the air quality effects of rail transit infrastructure. Using hourly air quality data from Taiwan we have three central findings. First, we find that the opening of the Metro reduced air pollution from one key tailpipe pollutant, carbon monoxide, by 5 to 15 percent. Second, we find little evidence that the opening of the Metro affected ground level ozone pollution. Third, we find little evidence suggesting that automobile travelers adjusted their time or route of travel to the availability of rail transit. These findings shed new light on the determinants of air quality, and suggest that environmental impacts are important components of the social value of transportation infrastructure.

Request for Developer Qualifications: Millbrae BART Station

Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:03:26 -0500

Introduction

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”) is pleased to announce the availability of property it owns at the Millbrae BART Station for private development. BART’s station area property offering is located within the City of Millbrae as depicted in Exhibits 1 and 2.

BART is offering four parcels of its station area property as shown on Exhibit 2. All of the four parcels are offered to maximize flexibility to the development community. However, developers should clearly note that all of BART’s property is currently encumbered (as noted below). Currently, the offering consists of the following:

BART Parking South (surface): 2.4 acres with an FAR of 2.0 = 180,000 square feet.
BART Parking North (garage): 2,096 spaces, available for shared use.
BART Parking East (surface): 5.2 acres with an FAR of 0.5 = 65,000 square feet.
BART/SamTrans Intermodal Area (subject to modification and relocation): 2.0 acres.

The property offered is located within, and all private development will be governed by, the City of Millbrae’s Station Area Specific Plan, adopted on November 24, 1998. Overall, the City envisions approximately one million square feet of office, 1,000 hotel rooms, 290 residential units, and 100,000 square feet of retail in the 116 acre Specific Plan area.

BART is soliciting developer qualifications as a first step in identifying a development team to transform the BART property into an exciting transit-oriented development (“TOD”) project. Such a project would require the approval of the City of Millbrae and involve the cooperation of the San Mateo County Transit District (“SamTrans”). Depending on submittals, BART may either select a development team to immediately begin negotiations or request submittal of additional material by the pre-qualified development teams for ultimate selection for negotiations.

The balance of this solicitation provides additional background on both BART and the City of Millbrae’s Specific Plan, identifies the material to be submitted by developers, and outlines the selection process.