USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Technical memorandum number one

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Technical memorandum number one conditions of successful station area development
Portion of title:
Conditions of successful station area development
Alternate Title:
Enabling station area development in Florida towards more cost effective rail transit investment
Physical Description:
122 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Sheck, Ronald C
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation. -- Office of Public Transportation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Transit Solutions (Firm)
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Local transit stations -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Land use -- Planning -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Finance -- Florida   ( lcsh )
rail transit   ( trt )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 107-117).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Performed by Transit Solutions for the Florida Dept. of Transportation Office of Public Transportation.
General Note:
"Project manager, Ronald C. Sheck."
General Note:
"November 1998."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001931354
oclc - 44865301
usfldc doi - C01-00128
usfldc handle - c1.128
System ID:
SFS0032238:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NUMBER ONE: CONDITIONS OF SUCCESSFUL STATION AREA DEVELOPMENT Enabling Station Area D e velopment ;, Florida: Towards More Cost Effective Rail Tra11sit Investment for Office of Public Transportation Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street (MS 26) Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

PAGE 2

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NUMBER ONE: CONDITIONS OF SUCCESSFUL STATION AREA DEVELOPMENT Enabling Station Area D e velopment in Florida: Towards More Cost Effective Rail Transit Investment for Office of Public Transponation Florida Department ofTransponation 605 Suwanee Street (MS 26) Tallahassee, Florida 32399 through Center for Urban Transportation Research C olle ge of Engineering, University of South Florid a 4202 E Fowler Avenue CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620.5375 (813) 974-3120, Fax (813) 9745168 by Transit Solutions 4612 Evanston Avenue North Seaale W A 98103 (206) 632 Fax (206) 632 Email: transoll @home.com November 1 998 Project Manager Ronald C. Sheck Project Staff Jesus Gomez Scon Place

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface I Introduction 3 Scope ofThis Technical Memor andum 3 Defini n g "Successful Stat ion Area Develo pment 4 Chapter 1: Research Approach 7 Traditional Liter ature Rev iew 7 Recent Research Developments 7 Survey ofTransit Agency Projects 8 Chapter 2: What is the Definition of Station Area Development? I I The Traditional Land U se and Zoning Approach 1 1 New Community Based Approaches 12 Chapter 3: 'Where is Station Area Development Occurring? 19 Summary of Developments by Metropolitan Area and Systems 19 Identification of Systems and Areas w h ere the Approach has been the Most Successful 25 Chapter 4: How do the Various Rail Modes Relate to Station Area Development? 29 Light Rail 29 Hist oric Replica Streetcar 31 Heavy Rail 32 Commuter Rail 37 Automated Guideway 41 Chapter 5: Who is Responsible for Station Area Development? 43 Th e Public Sector 43 The Private Sector 45 Joint Participation 47 Chapter 6: How do Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Plans Affect Station Area Development? 51 Perm issiv e Conditions--for the Area, for the Players 52 Restric tive conditions--for the area, for the players 55 Chapter 7: What are the Conditions Favoring "Best Practices" of Station Area Development? 59 Vision, Concept and Plan 59 Committed Stakeholders 60 Pennissive and Flexible Context 61 Leade rship and Synergy 62 Financial Capability 63 Appendix A Examples of Station Area Development 65 References 107 Glossary 119

PAGE 4

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM NUMBER ONE: CONDITIONS OF SUCCESSFUL STATION AREA DEVELOPMENT PREFACE Overview of the Project This project i s being carried out for the Florida Department ofTransportation as part of the agency's commitment to a larger role for transit in the state's transportation future. Several Florida m e tropolitan areas have, or are planning rail transit services. These services will be financed in part by state f unds. In order to maximize the benefits of rail transit it is critical to attract the appropriate concent ration s and mixes of activities to rail corridors and station areas that will build ridership and contribu te t o th e quality of urban life. Existing, proposed, and planned rail transit inveslmcnts in Miami and Southeast Florida greater Orlando, Tampa-St. Petersburg -C learwater and Jacksonville, can be made more cost-effect iv e by utilizing this strategy This research project will assist in implementing such a strategy by : 1. E xamining ways in which this approach can be used to take advantage of poten ti a l opportunities on existing or planned Florida rail transit systems. 2. Identifying barriers and constraints that limit or prevent this type of development in F lorida and in particular the communities that have, or arc planning, rail transit. 3. Recommending a set of actions to overcome these barriers and constraints at the state and metropolitan levels. The Role of This Technical Memorandum in the Overall Project The research will identify what makes station area development successful, where opportunities exist in Florida for such development, and what actions need to be taken to facilitate this type of development. The first step covered in this technical memorandum, includes examining the range 1

PAGE 5

of development mixes that contribute the most to rail ridership, and isolating factors that have made development successfu l or that have limited or prevented it. Existing and planned rail transit systems in Florida will be surveyed to identify their current and future projects where opportunities may occur for similar development as the second stage of the res earch Third, factors that work against imp lem enting a station area development strategy in Florida will be identified. These factors will be compared with those encountered in other states, solutions developed elsewhere examined, and recommendations made for dealing with them in the Florida context. Remedies will be suggested that may include legis lative and/or policy action at state and loca l l evels. 2

PAGE 6

INTRODUCTION Scope of This Technical Memorandum An inve n tory of station area development projects has b e en prepared and examples of "best practices"have been selected The tech memo begins with a brief discussion o f the research approach used on this task. The approach combines literatu r e review, examination of recent salient research products and a survey of transit properties. Because this study focuses on Florida development associated with new rail tran si t systems is emphas ized Florida's rail transit systems are barely more than a decade old. The range of definitions of station area development is examined A promising new approach is highlighted. Material gathered in the literature review and the syste m survey i s used to identify where station area development is occurring, by both metropo li tan area and by transit system Station area developments are examined in a variety o f forms and contexts. These include CBD developments, suburban developments residential developments like transit villages TODs and others. Great variation exists as to the type and intensity of station area development. Several communities have developed strategies to pursue this type of developme n t very aggressively. Others have taken a very benign approach and let events pla y out at station sites with minimal intervention. A generally over l ooked p henomenon, variation with rail mode technology, i s explored in this memorandum. Those parties responsible for station area development are identified and their roles noted. How public and private sector actions separately and jointly, have contributed t o s t a tion area development around the country is no ted The importance of the legal and instit utio nal c o ntext in aid in g or hindering station area development is examined. A summary of conditions favorin g "best prac t ices" of station area development conclude s this technical memorandum The chapters that follow answers the following questions. How i s this research approached? What is the definition of station area development? Where is sta t ion area development occurring? How do the various rail modes relate to sta t ion area develop ment? Who is responsible for station area deve l opment? 3

PAGE 7

How do statutes, ordinances, regulations and plans affect s t ation area developm e nt? W h at are the co n d it ions favoring "bes t practices of station area development? Defining "Suc cessful" Sta tion A rea Deve l o p ment T ransit station area develop m ent is n o t a new phenome n on. The growth patterns of American urban areas between 1870 and 1920 was in large part driven by rail transit. Late 19"' and ear l y 20"' century streetcar l i nes were the growth arter i es of large and small c i ties, and even larger towns. Suburban passenger services, which today are called commuter rail, developed as a new revenue source by private rai l road entrepreneurs, and allowed city workers to live in smaller, cleaner and less congested tow n s built by developers some distance from the urban core The extension of elevated and subway tracks into vacant land on the edge ofNew Yor k City was carried out as a development t ool to attract residents to new urban frontiers in Brooklyn and Queens. Quincy, Scarsda l e, Maple t on, Bryn Mawr Lake Forest and Menlo Park are a ll suburban communities that deve l oped around a rail station. The construc t ion of post World War II rail transit began slowly. The firs t three new systems Cleveland's red line, the San Francisco Bay area s BART and the Lindenwold Lin e linking Philadelp h ia and N e w J ersey suburbs were constructed to provide traffic congestio n relief, but with the awareness that new act i vit i es would c on gregate around some of the stations. Heavy rail in subway grade-separa t ed surface or elevated strUctures was used in these three systems, and was the technolog y of choice as other cities built rail transit. Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Miami and Los Angel e s developed n ew h eavy rail by 1990, and other c i ties expanded their systems. ln 1981 the first new light rail line buil t since the 1 920s, opened in San Diego. By 1998 ove r a dozen new ligh t rail systems have appeared in U .S. cities, and others are in the development or planning p h ase i ncluding Orlando, Tampa and Jacksonville. Established commut er railroad systems have undergone expansion and new ones have appeared in Connecticut Maryland, Virgin i a, Texas, California and south Florid a By 1996 nearly on e third of all transit trips and 40 perce n t of transit passenger miles in the U nited States were on rail modes. Followi n g the ope n ing of BART in 1972, efforts were begun to determine "sueecss," by measuring the investment benefits of these new systems. Actual ridership, ridership growth, and rail mode share in relationship t o au t omobile and other transit modes, were the initial subjects considered for evaluat i on. By the late 1970's a t h e focus of measuring im p act had expanded to include e x aminat i on of changes in popu l at i o n density land u se and land values Increases in density, rising land values, 4

PAGE 8

and the particular associated land uses that produced higher values, were considered to be part of "success." A decade later the d efmition of "success" began to broaden. Quantitative measures continued to be important. Increased residential and employment densities around transit stations showed a propensity for attracting people to transit. Competition for space close to the stations drove real estate values up, and this in tum resulted in increased tax revenue. A new perception of success began to be expressed in t erms of qualitative issues. A de finite shift trom automobile access to pedestrian access began to be recognized and value was p lace d on it. This value emphasized the functioning of the area around the station as an integrated whole, or a station commun i ty, rather than a series of disconnected parts. The presence of a variety of functions found in the neighborhood around the transit station allowed lor a total functioning of many day-to-day clements of life without having to go outside the area ... except perhaps to work. Linking these functions together with sidewalks, pleasant spaces and public places, all combined to create a new set o f perceptions about what is positive and valuable in th is kind of neighborh ood "Livability" and "sustainability" are terms which evolved and have been applied to this type of development as the hallmarks of"success." The new definition of success implies that it is possible to restructure land use and activities around transit stations in a way that creating communities with transit becomes a new tool in the process of urban development and revitalization. This first became articulated in Portland, Oregon 'hith the development oft he city's East Side light rail program Tri County Metropolitan Transit District (Tri Met) carried this theme into the planning and development ofPortland's West Side line which opened in September 1998. "The ultimate measure of success for Tri-Met's MAX light rail is its effectiveness in organizing urban growth ln many cities, as population grows, development spreads over former farms and forest People live ever farther from work and shopping. Major roads are built and soon clogged with traffic Air quality and the genera l quality of community life deteriorate. The Portland region has invested in light rail in large part to help attract new growth to areas easily served by transit. Westside MAX is a test case that al ready has proven the point: people want to live near light rail. Nearly 7 ,000 housing units are completed or under construction within a half mile of Westside MAX stations Vibrant new communities are taking s hap e around several of the stations. In all private developers in Westside MAX station areas have invested some $500 million--a heady start, considering trains are not yet running. Roughly $1.9 billion has been invested in Eastside station areas since MAX 5

PAGE 9

opened in 1 986 This statem ent b y Tri Met summarize.s much of the success of Portland's investment in light rail. However, much of that success is the res u lt of important and c ruc ial complementary policies. Key policies have established a strong urban growth bo un dary, encouraged in-fill deve l opment, and promoulgated various other growth management strategies. 6

PAGE 10

Chapte r 1 : R esea r c h App r oac h T h e r esea rch object i v e in t his technical memorandum has been t o id entifY the exte nt of tran s i t s tation re l a t e d developmen t a c ross th e U nit e d Stat e s and to pi c k out e xamples that be s t iUust rate t hi s s ubject It is n s sumed that m os t of t h is deve l opment has occu rred o n n e w s y s t ems built s in ce 1970 o r on newly b uilt lines tha t are ext ensions of o lder syste ms. Some n e w deve l opme n t has a l so taken pla ce arou n d stations that are part of ol der syst e ms, but this is relative l y rare. I n order t o conduct this inventory and identifY best examples that illustrate the range of mixes occurring around rail transit s tations the following approach has b een used to represent the range of possibilities. Tnditional Literature Review T h e fir s t s tep in the r esearc h p roce ss was to cond uct a computer key word searc h t o identify publica t ions and docum ents availa bl e in various d a t a bases This turned u p a limited numbe r of technical i t ems. A more fruitful e n deav o r was a review of selected p ubli ca tions including Passenger Transport, Mass Transit Metro, Planning, Urban lAnd, U rban T r ansportation Monitor and ITE Journal. N ume rous citations from these pub li c a tions are i n corpo r ated into the bib l iograp h y. M os t of these items are n e w s s t o r ies on particular pro j ec t s, a lthough more compr e h ens ive article s e nc o mpass ing the range ofissu es assoc i a ted with tran s it r e lat e d development were f o un d in Planning and U rb a n lAnd R e
PAGE 11

TCRP Report 22, The Role of Transit in Creating Livable Metropolitan Communities This report addresses the impact of transit on livability, uses a series of case studies to illustrate how transit can act as a catalyst for downtown and neighborhood renewal, and provides guidelines on how to implement a community based process for creating livable communities. TCRP Report 33, Transit-Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies to Support Livable Communities. This report examines through a series of case studies how design and managemen t of streets, sidewalks and traffic can create a more favorable environment which is conducive to transit use. The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida and the Lehman Center for Transportation Research (LCTR) at Florida International University have been cartying out a multi-yearproject, "Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness," for the Federal Transit Administration. This project examines factors that make investment in rail transit successful. A series of case studies of rail transit systems across the country and three research books are among the products of this effort. Information and materials gathered in the conduct of this large research project have been germane and useful to the E nabling Station Area Developme n t" project. Survey of Transit Agency Projects In order to examine the full scope of station area development issues, a survey has been undertaken of rail trans i t systems in the U.S. This survey has been based on information gleaned in the literature review, supplemented by material from recent research developments, and further enhanced by phone calls and to certain transit properties. The survey bas revealed that a number of transit agencies, and/or the communities where they are located, have embarked on new policies and programs to encourage or facilitate transit station area development. As evidence of this is the growing number of manuals, guidebooks, policy documents and planning ordinances produced and adopted across the country in support of what is being increasingly perceived as a powerful new tool in urban growth management and development. These publications and documents have been incorporated into the bibliography at the end of this technical memorandum. Transit systems and local governments were examined in 22 metropolitan areas as partofthis approach. These included: 8

PAGE 12

Atlanta Denver Pittsburgh Seattle Baltimore Jacksonville Po n land St. Louis Bos ton Los A n geles San Fra n c i sc o W ashi n gto n DC B uffa l o M e mphi s Sacr a m e nto C l e v e land M iami Sa l t L a ke Ci t y Dallas N ewar k San D i ego San Jose This me, thod has provided updated info rm ation on the ever-growing coll ec tion of transit station area developme n t ac t iv ities. Statio n a rea deve lo pment is taking place in v irtua lly all new (post Worl d War II) rail transit p roperties N o t e v e ry new rail station i s s urround e d by such dev e lopment. Nor i s the s upport or encouragem ent of transi t related dev e l o pment an adop ted policy of every agency, or l o ca l government, whe re n e w rail trans i t has been buil t. Ho wever there is a cle a r e m e r ging trend tha t tr a n si t re l ated devel opmen t is playing a bigger rol e in s h ifting t h e character of u r ban deve l o pment in many of our citi es. 9

PAGE 13

10

PAGE 14

Chapter 2: What is the Definition of Station Area Development? Definitions are assumed to be commonly held perceptions and descriptions of a particular phenomenon. There are two basic definitions of station area development. The first can be called a traditional land use and zoning approach. Unti l the post World War II period and continuing in some cities up until now, the approach has been simply to accommodate ma rket forces by re-zoning, or to not treat station areas differently from any other area and adhere to existing plans and zoning. This approach can best be described as reactive. A second definition, and one that involves a very different a pproach to station area development, has evolved in the last decade and a half. This new approac h cao best be classified as proactive. It assumes that particular types of statioo area development can be a posi tiv e benefit to overa.ll community goals, and should be encouraged and supponed. These very different approaches produc e very distinct results. The Traditional Reactive Planning and Zoning Approach Most new rail transit systems have been constructed in urban areas where specific land use plans and their re inforcing zoning ordinances, were already in place. The imposition of a rail system on the existing land usc patterns and plans usually resulted in areas around the stations changing only in response to market forces. If the rail line passed through a location where the plans and zoning around a station site were compatible with what market forces would expect to deve lo p there no change in exist ing plans were required. As an example, construction ofBART stations in downtown San Francisco or Oakland were sited in areas where the zoning already existed for intense commercial development. If a rail station were located in an area where market forces would attract new uses to the station area then changes to plans and zoning would be considered on an ad hoc basis. Each particular station site was considered individually in response to proposals for new development as they were submitted. This could involve each new use, or each building application being considered individually. Or it might incl ude re-zoning the area around the s tation, and modifying comprehensive land use plans, to allow certain kinds of new uses or more intense use, to accommodate new projects as proposed by developers. In some cities, this involved creation of a transit station area zoning classification. Local ordinances to establish transit station area zoning were passed in many places including Atlanta Miami Alameda County San Diego, San Jose, Portland, Dallas, Denver, and King County Washington. It

PAGE 15

Two factors were considered in the reactive response to these market driven changes proposed around transit stat ions. The first was the appropriateness of the use. The second is the intensity factor, or increase in density. The latter included higher housing density more concentrated employment in office buildings, and in some cases activity densities associated "1th shopping, entertainment or sports facilities. Use appropriateness was often, but not always, considered on the basis of compatibility of the proposed new development to the existing neighborhood patterns. In suburban locations, either where development had not yet occurred, or where the predominant pattern was low density single tiunily housing the increased traveler presence associated with a rail transit station became perceived by investors and developers as an attraction for new and/or different kinds of business. This particular definition produces visions of station area development as being an intensification of activity, often drawing new retail office and residential uses into high rise structures and creating serious anomalies in the urban fabric. Parking and automobile traffic are often associated with this view of station area development It is sometimes viewed as more of the same" as automobile oriented development, especially in some of the early tra nsi t development that took place at park and ride stations in the suburbs on the Bay Area and Washington systems. However, as these stations began to attract more investment, land values rose and surface parking soon became replaced by decked lot s and multi-level parking structures. Urban zoning and parking requirements did not take into account the possibility that shifting trips to transit could reduce parking demand. New Community Based Approaches By the late 1980 s a growing dissatisfaction with the patterns of urban sprawl led to consideration of new alternatives that could provide for more attractive communities and neighborhoods that would be linked by transit to employment and other specialized activity destinations. The area around the station could become a community on its own if a certain critical mass in population were reached which could justify retail businesses and public services at a neighborhood level. Peter Calthorpe introduced the concept of the Transit Oriented Development (TOO) or the transit village. TOO's offer a certain level of self-containment. Basic everyday needs (groceries, gasoline drugstore, personal care, elementary school, community social center, recreational facilities) would be within the community served by a transit station. The transit service would provide the link to work to entertainment, specialized shopping, and other services. Automobiles are part of the scene but needed in fewer numbers as transit and walking become substitutes for some of the trips made in the car. 12

PAGE 16

While only a handful of TODs have actually been buil" many elements of the concept have been adopted in the planning of new rail transit system station area developments. These are being incorporated more and more with each new rail system or extens ion of existing ones A s t ep beyond th e concept of the TOD is being taken by a g rowing number of metropolitan areas i n the planning of rail transit. This is to build upon the positive neighborhood elements of pedes tria n movement for short trips and maintaining social and community co he s ion and to use transit for as many long trips as possible. Few situations actuall y offer the opportunity to do a TOD. Most sys tems are being planned to fit into existing urban areas. It becomes important t o recognize the existing elements and character around each proposed station site as planning takes place. An excellen t example of this approach has emerged in Tampa, Florida. Hillsborough County has recently completed a Major Investment Study (MIS) th at has examined a serie s of transportation alternatives One component of the mu lt imodal approach which includes roads bus transit, pedestrian and bicycle elements is light rail transit As part of the MIS, the consultant team ofBR W and Dover Kohl Associates, and the Hillsborough County Planning Commission developed a set of al ternative concepts that recognize differences in size scale, history and character of particular Station areas. A distinction is made between mature areas and developing areas. M ature areas are the o l der, established portions of the community where the rail line would be inserted into an already existing set of land uses and activities Develo ping areas would be statio n sites surrounded by vacant land, or land in a use, e.g. agricultural that would be subject to change. This approach also recognizes the very critical difference that scale makes in planning what happens around the station. This i s incorporated into four distinct station types: local neighborhood, community, and regional. The approach is outlined below. 13

PAGE 17

Setting Transit Focus Development Focus Transit Focus D e velopmen t Focus Framework for Analys i s Station Types Local Neighborhood Community Mature Areas Wal k-upao d Local Transit Shu tt l e Multi Moda l Kiss-and-Ride Scn.icc, Line Haul Transit Center Trans i t Modest Moderate Majo r Redevelopment Rede.,clopment Redeve lopment Potential, Emphases Po t ential Potential on fnftll Developing Areas Large PariHUld-Pork-and-Rid e, Loca l Park-and-Ride, Ride Facility Transit Shuttle Service local Transit Shuttle Service, t.,ine Haul Transit M ini mu m Adj acent Moderate AdjaJlt TransitOrient ed Development De velopment Potential V illage Potential De'etopmen l Potc-.Jllial Regional T r a nsit Cen t e r of Region Major Ac. t i \'ity Center Development/ Redevelopment Opportunities Major Park-and -Ride, Local Ac.t i viry Center Sh uttle, Lin e Haul Transi t Major De\clopment Opportunities Each of the station types is further exp lai ned as to characteristics and design parameters. Local Stations Station Area Characterist i cs Simple station stru c tureplatform, shelter ticket v ending etc. Walk-up in nature to serve nearb y residential and employmen t destinations in mature areas No additional parking envisioned for mature locations Pedestrian connections to adjacent uses Limited service from local shuttle busses Minimum oarkina in mature areas; oark-andride in develooimz areas 14

PAGE 18

Local Stations are located in established or emerging neighborhoods. These stations well serve walk up users of the rail transit system who reside in the neighborhoods surrounding the station loc ation, or who are employed in adjacent commercial districts. Design of Local Stations is intended to: Have minimal impact on their surroundings, Improve pedestrian linkages to adjacent uses, Emphasize pedestrian scale and amenities: trees, shrubbery, street furniture, low level lighting, patterned paving and Connect to bus routes. Neighborhood Stations Station Area Chatacteristics Primary focus on serv ice to adjacent neighborhoods Potential for local shuttle buses, as well as line haul buses from a larger area Reduced parking for ne w adjacent transit oriented uses Accommodates development and redevelopment at moderate density Minimum parking in mature areas; park-and-ride in developing areas Pedestrian connections to ac!jacent uses Neighborhood Stations provide opportunities for a low to moderate level of new development or redevelopment. These stations will be accessed by walk up kiss-and-ride, and some park and-ride users of the rail transit system Adjacent residents may access t he transit corridor via shuttle bus or local bus routes. Design ofNeigbborhood Stations is intended to: Provide a toea! point for adjacent neighborhoods incl uding retail and service uses developed around a publ ic square or plaza, Foster new residential, employment and commercial development or redevelopment at moderate densities within a distance (1/4 mile) from the station Include pedestrian linkages to adjacent u ses, and emphasize pedestrian scale and amenities, and Emp hasize the linkage w ith shuttle and local bus connections, with limited park-and-ride faci l ities. 15

PAGE 19

Community Stations Station Area Characteristics Center for major b u s transfer service New development or redevelopme n t may i nclud e mul ti-level buildings cont a ining retail, office, industrial, educa tional/ institutional centers and medium density residential uses with struct u red parking Park-and-ride site with up to 1,000 spaces provided Comm u ni t y S t ations serve areas larger than their immedia te surroundings. These station areas may provide m oderate to hig h levels of new deve lo pment or redevelopment potential. Community Stations will be accessed by kiss-and-ride and park-and-ride users and local buses. Walk-up use may also be s ig nificant. D es ign of Com m unity Stations is intend e d to: Provide a major public sp ace with substantial, multi-level retail, service and employment development linking the public square with the immed iate ly surrounding are, Promote substantial new infill or redevelopment of residential uses within walking d i stance of the station, Stimulate moderate t o high density development over time, accommodating retail office and residential units with structured parking, and Serve as a tran sit hub for the surrounding community accommodating kiss-and-ride facilities structured park-and-ride spaces, local bus bays, shuttle bus drop-off's, and improv e d pedestrian a ccess to adjoining development. Regional Stations Station Area Characteristics A regional destinat io n associated with a regional mi xe duse ce nte r (e .g. Downtown, regional s hoppi n g center) Park ing shared with parking for mixed use c enter of ac t ivity N e w development may include multi-le vel buildings containing retail, office, educa tional/institutional uses and high density residential uses with structured parking 16

PAGE 20

Regional Stations serve as the destinations for various metropolitan area activities and events. They are located adjacent to or within regional activity center such as central business districts major instit utions, employment, or retail cente rs These stations will provide improved pedestrian connections to the heart of the regional center, including employment government, retail and services, and residential uses. Design of regiona l stations is intended to: Supplement an extensive system of pedestrian amenities providing walkable connections to all uses in the regional centers, Stimulate adjacent redevelopment i n mature areas, Integrate transit access into large scale development or redevelopment opportunitie.s, Stimulate future infill development closer to station locations in developing areas, and Facilitate regional activity loca ted in a public plaza or along a major pede strian s pine 17

PAGE 21

18

PAGE 22

Chapte r 3: Where is Stati o n Area D eve l o pm ent Occurrin g? S tation area d evelopment is occ urring in virtually all oft h e metropolitan are as where new rail transit sys t ems hav e been p u t in p l ace. There i s, howev er, a large differen c e from areH t o area as t o the a mount of devel o pment in tenns of the number of sw t ion s in vo l ved an d the int ens it y o f n e w activi t y that can be associated w ith the su nion. Station area development some t imes occurs spontaneously as a result strictly oflocal factors around a particula r site. Developers, neighborhood businesses and o th ers recognize an opportunity and take s tep s to bring in somethi n g new to the station area. T h e scale and intensity of the new ac tivit y will be aiTected by pro pert y availab ilit y a nd t h e p ermissiv e n a ture of local ordi n an ces and plans t o allow for the ac t ivi t y T his can be considered as an externall y driven approa c h. It most lik e l y focuses just o n a s ingle station In contrast, and the major focus of this research effort, is the range of oew initiatives carried out with the full knowledge support and collaboration of the local transit agency and/or other local governme n t organizations a n d incorporated as part of public policy These initiatives invo l ve the e ntire s pectnun of rail tra nsit tec hnologies: light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail a nd auto mated g uide way. There are differences that do exi s t amon g the rail modes and these ar e exp l ored in a late r c hapter Summary of D evelopment s b y Metropolitan A rea a n d Sys t ems A brief summary of transit station area development related to each of the new rail transit systems by metropolitan area follows A more deta iled breakdown that is stat ion specific is inc luded in the App e ndix. Atlanta ha s very active l y coor dinated station area develo pment on the thr ee route MARTA hea vy rail system. All downtown subway s t a tion s have i ncorporated som e degree of su r face development The range of downtO"'Tl activities extends from sports facilities to government offices, from mid-rise office and commercial development to extensive high-rise buildings incorporating severa l hundred thousand square feet of office space. Some statio n s are integrated with surrou nding downtown block s throug h an e laborate system of overh e ad skyway s Sev eral s uburban s tations have been th e s ite oflarge sca le real esta t e development 19

PAGE 23

Baltimore has experienced station area development projects at or near MTA heavy rail line stations in downtown Baltimore and in association with the light rail stations in the city center and at stations in H unt Valley City center heavy rail stations are underground and provide a set of nodes around which new development and rehabilitation of existing bu ildings is taking place. The light rail line is entirely at grade. Redevelopment efforts downtown have taken advantage of the presence of rail transit. Public policy has placed major new publicly financed buildings adjacent to these rail lines, such as Oriole Park at Camden Yard, the new Ravens Stadium, and the Convention Center. Bosto n although having one of the oldest rail transit systems in the co untry has added on to its core heavy rail system. The Red Line was e x tended both to the north and south in the late 1970s and new development has occurred around several stations: i.e Alewife Porter and Quincy The construction of the Orange Line in the mid-1980s has also triggered station area development, and six stations at the southern end of this line are linked by a lin ear park which provides a community greenway parallel to the rail transit right-of-way. Buffalo built its light rail line in part to revitalize t he city's downtown area. A o n e-mile transit-pedestrian mall in downtown Buffalo incorporates commercial retail and offi ce development. The remaining 5 miles of the light rail aligrunent are in a subway tunnel and varying degrees of de ve lopment have taken place around the six stations. Cleveland operates two rail transit sys tems A two route light rail line is the result of upgrading of former sub urban s t ree tcar lines in 1989. The Red Line heavy rail route was opened in 1955, the first new urban rail line built since before World War ll. An extension of the light rail line in 1996 to serve a downtown entertainment district has been the only recent construction. Station area development has played a minimal role in Cleveland although it is expected to have a greater role in future plans. The areas around three stations on the downtown light rail extensio n are attracting new investment. Dallas opened i ts initial two route, 20-mile first phase light rail system in 1996 and 1997 The use of a downtoWn street as a transit/pedestrian mall has helped stimulate revitalization, and three new development projects are underway along this 1.2 mile segment of the system. DART is incorporating station area dev e lopment planning efforts in the d esign of extensions of the system north into the suburban communities of Garland and Plano, as well as pursuing 20

PAGE 24

various options on the Oak Cliff segments of the red and blue lines. The commuter rail line e xtending westward to South Irving offers limited station area development possibilities a t the present time. However, extension of this route to Ft. Worth in 2000 will add several s tat io ns, and development efforts will be coordinated with local communities. Denver operates 5.5 miles of the first phase light rail route w hich opened m 1994. Development opportunities exist both in the downtown area where the alignment is on parallel city streets and at five other stations. The city and region ha ve adopted t ran sit oriented development regulatio ns and policies. Local government and transit agency plans foresee a greater role for station area development in conjunction with the 8 2 mile second phase light rail route currently under construction. Jacksonville opened a short, three station automated guideway system operating over a 1.2 mile route placed on elevated structures in 1992. The system was upgraded and expanded in I 997 and 1998. The expansion is increasing the number of stations from three to eight. New development is taking place in conjunction with four of the new station sites. Los Angel es reintroduced rail t ransit in 1990 after a nearly 30 year absence. The 22 mile Blue Line light rail line opened then to link Los Angeles and Long Beach. The first four miles of the eventual20-mile heavy rail Red Line opened in 1993 with subsequent sections opening in 1996 and 1998. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) opened a second light rail line, the 20 mile east-west Gree n Line in 1995. The most intense station area activity bas occurred at the five Red Line subway stations in downtown Los Angel es. Station area development activity has been minimal on t11e two light rail Jines in the early years. However, MTA is taking a more proactive role with local communities at some Blue Line stations and at a few on the Green Line. Opportunities are somewhat constrained on the latter by its predominantly freeway median location The second Los Angeles rail operating agency is the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) which began commuter rail service (Metro link) in 1992 and now operates an extensive five route system in five counties. SCRRA is becoming more involved in station area planning and d evelopment largely in response to local initiatives in the communities it serves. M emphis opened its historic streetcar line in 1993 on a 2.2 mile alignment along Main Street as part of a downtown revitalization effort. A connecting parallel line was added to the 21 . .. ..........

PAGE 25

system in 1996. A new transit terminal at the north end of Main Street, and the railroad terminal Central Station at the south end of Main Street are key elements in this effort. Central Station is undergoing renovation as a transportation/commercial/residential mixed use facili t y with an adjacent transit bus terminal. The two streetcar lines operated by Memphis Area Transit Authority (MT A) are viewed as important contributors to enticing development along their respective routes Miami contains both heavy rail and automated guideway systems which opened in 1984 and 1986 respectively. The heavy rail system is almost entirely on elevated structures and serves 21 stations along its 21 mile route. The automated guideway system also contains 21 stations and is operated as two partially overlapping routes totali n g 4.4 miles on elevated structures and functions as a downtown circulator. Station area planning and development options have been built into both systems. Intense development has taken place at four of the Metrorail stations. Other station opportunities are being pursued by the transit agency s real estate ann. Commuter rail services also reach Miami on the 70 mile, three-county service operated by Tri Rai l. Tri Rail has not actively pursued station area development, although it has cooperated with local communities in facilitating projects at stations. Portland is clearly the leader in the arena of stat ion area development. The initial 18. 0 mile Eastside line which opened in 1984 incorporated area development concepts at several station sites. Planning for the entire Westside MAX line which opened in September 1998 has been focused on integration of stations with their surrounding neighborhoods and communities in a very aggressive strategy. Downtown revitalization in Portland, and rehabilitation of the Lloyd Center area across the Willamette River from downtown, have used light rail as a tool. Public facilities investment policies have located a new convention center and sports facilities on the rail line. Strong l y supportive land use planning and parking policies incorporated in the 2040 Plan are major factors in an ever-expanding series of successful station area projects. Sacramento, through the Regional T ran sit Authority (RTA), opened an 18 mile light rail line in 1987 This line has recently been extended by 2.4 miles and other extensions totaling nearly 16 miles are in the planning or final design phases. Station area development was only well integrated in the downtown area for the initia l light rail segment A new downtown shopping center, City Plaza, was bu.ilt at a key station where a segment ofK Street had been converted to a light rail/pedestrian mall. Extensions of the current line to the east, and 22

PAGE 26

construction of a south line will involve more aggressive station area planning and development coordination San Diego like other new builders of light rail, has become progressively more engaged in station area development as its system has grown and matured. The San Diego Metropolitan Transit Developmen t Board (MTDB) opened the nation's first light rail line in 1981 linking down town San Diego and several suburban communities to the south as far the international border with Mexico. The opening of subsequent sections through 1997 has increased the size of the two route system to 45 m i les. S t ation area development was initiated as a partnering program by MDTB at two key stations on the original segment and has spread to become a major policy for extensions planned and implemented over the past decade. San Francisco introduced the first major new techno logy rail transit system in the U.S. in 1972 with the opening of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) 72-mile heavy rail system. Although planning and implementation of the system recognized the relationship between rail transit and development in the surrounding communities it was not until the late 1980s that BART began an active program of station area development This has been coordinated with the loca l governments and private developers and has included several large scale projects at city center stations in San Francisco and Oakland. A more active program has developed at suburban communities as they have faced problems of congestion and containment of sprawl. The city of San Francisco experienced conversion of its five historic stree tcar routes to light rail in association with the construction of s u bway tunnels to meet the needs ofBAR T. The Municipal Railway (Muni) placed the downtown segment of these lines in the upper level of the Market Street tunnel in 1974 Muni has become involved in station area development with the construction of the new "E" line along the Embarcadero to the Caltrain commuter rail station and a new baseball park. Recent plans call for a five mile southern extension of this line and eight stations which will provide new development opportunities and a greater role for Muni in planning and development of the area around these stations. The third rail transit operator in the Bay Area is the Peninsula Joint Powers Board (P JPB) which assumed operation of commuter rail service between San Francisco and San Jose in 1993 and extended it further south to Gilroy in 1995. Seventy trains a day operate over the system. Commuter train service (marketed as Caltrain) has existed on this route since the lat e 1800s serving a chain of towns and small cities between San Francisco and San 23

PAGE 27

Jose. Redevelopment and downtown revitalization efforts in several of these communities have drawn PJPB into station area development issues. Private developers have pursued options for medium and high density housing at or near several stations on the Caltrain commuter rail route. San Jose constructed a 20 mile light rail line which opened in 1989. The downtown segment was built in conjunction with urban revitali zation efforts Valley Transit Authotit y (VTA) worked closely with the city's redevelopment agency and private developers in planning for the transit mall which includes light rail and buses. A major city thoroughfare north of downtown was also rebuilt for light rail and station development focused on the creation of office and housing at several sites. Station area development plarming is an integrated part of the construction of a seven mile extension currently underway. St. Louis opened the 18 mile first phase of light rail transit in July 1994. The Bi-State De velopment Authority operates Metrolink trains to 18 stations. Stations were inte grated with existing and recent development at several downtown stations and at the fonner St. Louis Union Station which had been converted to an upscaleshoppinglentertainmentlhotel complex. Other station area integration into existing conditions was very successfully carried out at a major medical complex, at the University of Missouti at St. Louis, and at Lambert Internat i onal Airport. New development opportunities are being pursued in collaboration with local government agencies and the private sector. Construction of a second phase extension in Illinois i s expected to add a dozen stations to the system when it is completed in 2001. Washington. DC has experienced exceptional success w ith station area development. The five route heavy rail system has been growing incrementally since opening the first segment of the Red Line in 1976. The Washington Area Metropolitan Trans it Authority (WMATA) has been involved in station area projects at more than half of the 97 stations on what will be a I 0 I mile system by 2002. WMA T A has benefitted from being able to cont rol a large amount ofland around the stations which has made for an attractive development opportunity for investors. The range of development bas included otlice, entertainment commercia l, and residential activities. Most projects involved mixed use development and collaborative financing between WMA T A and the private sector. 24

PAGE 28

Identification of Systems and Areas where the Approach has been the Most Successful All of the metropolitan areas and tran s it systems listed above have been involved to some degree i n station area developmcnL This involvement covers the gamut from responding to externally induced local proposals and efforts to make things happen at a particular station through coordinated efforts with local governments to achieve o ve rall goals, to a very aggressive role by the transit agency and o ther parties to take on a systematic approach across the system with the goal of benefitting the entire community Six systems stand out as being particularly successful in carrying out a community-wide approach to incorporat ing station area development as an integral part of planning and implementing new rail transit. Two of these are new heavy rail systems. The other four are all users of light rail technology. No commuter rail agency has yet produced and implemented a system-wide approach to station area developm ent. The six systems and their part ic ular successes are: Heavy Rail Systems Atlanta has carried out a very opportunistic program encouraging station area development at many places on its system MART A has played a major role in working with the local government planning and development agencies and with private investors and developers in producing a series of very s ucce ssful projectS. In downtown the stations have been nicely integrated into adjacent and n earby development plans Noteworthy are the deve lopm ents at Five Points, Peachtree Center, Civic Center, N orth A venue Georgia State Onmi/Oome and Arts Center Suburban statio n development has clustered a t an intense leve l at Lennox, Medical Center and Dunwoody stations. MARTA has also very e ffec t ively integrated its rail system imo the existing suburban community fabric withou t being disruptiv e and bringing an improved community quality at the Decatu r and Avondale stations. The successful approach has been one based on collaboration and cooperation. Washington, D.C. offers extensive examples of transit station area development carried out in a variety of contexts by WMA T A working with other local government agencies and private developers By acquiring 2,500 acres of property around stations as the system developed, WMA T A was in a position to effectively use this asset in ways that would benefit the agency and create new development in the areas around the stations. Washington Metro serves city center down t own locations with subway stations. Suburban stations include subway surface and elevated sites. In 25

PAGE 29

downtown Washington, development has occurred around many underground station access points in coll aboration with new federal and local government building construction, and with private sector invo l vement in joint projects. The stations at Met r o Center are tied into existing department stores and shops. L 'Enfant Plaza is a major transfer center between four of t he five Metro lines and the site of new federal offices, a privately funded hotel office and shopping complex. Pentagon City station is t he site of a major new shopping mall. Ballston station is the focal point of an intense development of commercial office, retail and hotel space accompanied by h igh density housing which grades i nto single fam il y uses within a short distance. Prince Georges Plaza station is in an open cut covered by a parki n g structure and yet effectively integrated into an adjacent suburban neighborhood by a park and footpaths. Other examples of developm ent abound. Light Rail Systems Portland has taken the concept of trans it station area development to its greatest level. The Tri County Metropolitan T ransportation Agency of Oregon (Tri Met) has worked closely with Portland Metro, the regiona l goverrunent, in developing a totally integrated approach to linking transportation, land use economic deve lopme nt, growth management and quality oflife. Rail transit is viewed as a powerful tool to assist the community in meeting its goals Tri Met points with pride to nearly $2 billion in new development generated along its Eastside light rail line with a similar level of investment already committed at stations on the recently opened Westside line. Station development is considered not just in economic impact terms but in how the ambience, character and accessibility factors contribute to community livability. Grass roots planning efforts with maximum public input and involvement are cited as being key to achieving this level of success Sacramento has produced some excellent examples of station area development that arc useful for others c i ties to consider. From a system perspective, RT A and local governments have not adopted as extensive a str ategy nor impleme nted as many tactics, as either Portland or San Diego, but Sacramento has produced some very valuable lessons about station area deve lopment. The K Street Transit Mall which incorporates two stations has helped bring new vitality to a declining downtown street. A fonner department store has been converted to a state office building and retai l ground floor uses have come back. The Convention Center provides an anchor at one end of the Mall, while City Plaza, a downtown shopping center is sited at the other end of the Mall. City Plaza contains two major anchor stores, 100 other shops, and a Holiday Inn. RTA has also successfully 26

PAGE 30

developed new stations in older residential areas that are non-intrusive and provide only pedestrian and bicycle access. San Diego is not only the first new light rail system in the U.S. i t is also an early leader in carrying out station area development projects on its own initiative and jointly with privat e sector investors. The init ial approach was characte ri zed by consideration of development on a stalion-by -st alion basis after construction of !he initial South Line. MTDB constructed a building using adjacent land and air right s over !he tracks at its Imperial and 12"' Station to house agency offices, but also to provide office space for other tenants and ground floor commercial uses An extension of the line from the C Street Mall to the Santa Fe Depot involved a joint development project with a 22 story office building/hotel designed around and over the light rail line at American Plaza station. Private developers built some of the first transit oriented housing at the Amaya and Barrio Logan stations on the south line. The planning and design of the Mission Valley East extension which opened in late 1997 incorpo.tated the agency's new strategy for area planning around all stations St Louis opened its new light rail system in 1994. Largely constructed on former railroad right-of way at grade, in open cuts, and even in a former freight railroad twmel, Metrolink connects numerous important trdffic generators. Station development has both successfully integrated older established areas and activities with ligbt rail transit, and provided opportunities for stimulating n e w development and a reassessment of livability. In downtown St. Louis a subway station has brought additional customers to an urban shopping mall, and the station at the Laclede s Landing entertainment distric t has helped reshape that area. A major medical complex is undergoing expansion and being complemented with new housing at another station. Two stations at the University of Missouri at Kansas City are providing new opportunities for planning and development on campus. Stations in a former industrial area in the northwest sector of St. Louis are becoming focal points of new and revitalized residential neighborhoods Station area development is a key component of the under construction eas t extension into Illinois 27

PAGE 31

28

PAGE 32

Chapter 4: How do the Various Rail Modes Re l ate to Station Area Development? There is a t endency to lump transit oriented development into a generic rail transit category. This overlooks the important, alt h ough sometimes subtle variations that exist from one rail transit mode to another. The environment that each of the rail modes operates in, the capacity to move people, the location of stations on the system and the nature of access by users are all important distinguishing factors Five types o f rail transit technology and the intermodal linkages where two or more of these technologies share the same station, are considered in the discussion below The rail technologies include : Light rail Historic streetcar Heavy rail Commuter rail Automated guideway Light Rail Light rail t r ansit (LRT ) is the post-World War II adaptation of the electric streetcar to modem urban transit. Electric vehicles operate i.n one t o four car trains drawing propulsion power from overhead wires. Stree t cars ope r ated primarily on tracks laid in c ity streets, hence the name Light rail vehicles (LRVs} also operate i n this environment. However, th e y also operate on private rights of-way frequently former railroad lines converted to exclusive LRV use or they may operate in tunnels or subwa ys, or on elevated structures This flexibility has made light rail easier and l ess costly to insert into already built up environments than heavy rail systems. Light rail operations generally include street operations which may or may not be shared with automobiles and running on tracks that are in an exclusive right-of-way. The latter may include grade separation from cross streets, or it may not. While streetcars stopped at almost every comer, LRV's even when they operate in streets have stat i ons every few blocks On private right of way LRT stations are anywhere from a half mile to a mile apart Light rail vehicles can operate singly or in trains of up t o fou r cars. Longer trains are 29

PAGE 33

precluded by the length of city b lock s where track is in the streets and blocking cross streets is unacceptable. Cities with Light Raii Systems Balt imore, Boston, Buffalo, Cleve \and*, Ballas, Denver, Los Angeles, Newark*, Philadelphia Pittsburgh Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco*, San Jose St. Louis Pre-I 950 streetcar system upgraded to light raii Under Construction and Funded Planned Light Rail Systems Hoboken/Jersey City, Orlando, Salt Lake City, Seattle Several sets of LR T station possibilities exist: Downtown Stations are usua lly in city streets, and often only three or four blocks apart. Because of the close spacing, relationships with the surrounding environment tend to be linear, rather than noda l. Any place along the downtown alignment is no more than a block or two from a station. This spreads the development attractiveness potential across a larger linear dimension, but can also be considered to have a depth aspect certainly extending to a block or two on either side of the alignment. LRV s may share the street right-of-way with automobiles or the street rnay be restricted to LRV s and pedestrians, or to LRV s, buses, and pedestrians, Downtown LRV stations are located in highly pedestrian environments. Access is almost exclusively by foot, bicycle, or perhaps by transfer from another transit vehicle Downtown transit malls or exclusive streets are part of the L R T scene in Bu f falo, Dallas, Denver, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Jose Down to wn activities associated with th is type of development can range from office buildings to pub li c entertainment and sports locations, ground floor retail, hotels, upper floor residential and mixed use options. City center shopping malls on o r near light rail stations are other s trong options. Public s paces and public activitie s are important here also. Government agencies, financial ins t itutions other places with high traffic demand and in need of central locations are also possibilities. The mixed nature of downtown act ivities also i ncreases the possibility for public and private sector collaboration. Marure Re s idential Area Stations are located in a street or on an exclusive right-of-way in a well established urb an residential neighborhood that intends to maintain the existing pattern, Development potential is limited, and preservation of existing neighborhood conditions is a paramount consideration Pedestrian and bicycle access predominate, or may be the only access 30

PAGE 34

modes. Parking is n ot needed or e ven tolerated. Baltimore, Sacramento, and Portland offer good examp l es. S uburban or New Re s identi a l Area Sta t ions hav e great potential for the creation of n e w d e velopment pa!!ems The type of pattern c reated shoul d inv o l ve input from loca l citi zens. Here i s an opportu nity to craft station area developme nt that can be supportive of increase d transit usc and meet other communi t y goals. In some cases this may involve the l ocation of a light rail station in an exis ting but scattered community where the statio n can beeomc a focal point for revitalizing community life. ln other instances the desire may be to stabilize an e x isting suburban situat ion. I n still others there is opport unity to structur e and manage the growth of deve lopment by designing what will tak e place on the vacant land around a new sta t ion. Considerat io n of access will be of param ount importance in any case. If the location i s a feeder point for commuter access by automobile, then parking m ay be an i ss ue If i t i s a site which is neighborhood focu se d th e n sidewalks and bike p aths may be an overriding concern The c h ances are very good that it will probab l y require a mix of access m o des Good planning is essential to accommodat e the needs of nearby residents and workers who will wal k to the station, and those further away wilo wam to drive, or take a feeder bus. San Diego and Portland offer excellent examples His t o ri c Replica Strcctc.ar N e w Orleans is the only city in which the c l assic street car ope ration, th e transit mode that aided the growth and developm ent of every U.S city and man y towns in the late 19'" and early 20' ce nturies has survived in itS pure forn1. Several cities have built replica streetcar lines, or operate s treetcars on the downtown segments of new LRT systems A second line in New O r leans, and lines in five other cities have all been put in service ove r the past decade Private organi zations operate streetcars over LRV tracks owned by publi c tran s it agencies in downt own Portland and San Jo se. Operating Streetcar Systems Dallas, Galveston M emph i s, New Orleans, Portland San Jose Seattle .. Stree t car s operate on light rail system tracks in the downtown area Under Constructio n or Funded Planned Streetcar Systems Linle Rock, Port l and Tamoa 31

PAGE 35

In addition to these regular public transportation services, there are a number of other streetcar operations around t he country. A short streetcar line is operated by the National Park Service in Lowell, Massachusetts. Volun teer groups have restored streetcars and run them on an infrequent schedule at several museums or in occasional downtown service i n several cities. Operating in city streets, usually on lines of2 to 4 miles in extent, h istoric streetcars serve local travel and provide a downtown circulator/distributor fu nc tion. They are used for short trips and frequently oriented t o tourist and entertainment travel The original historic St. Char les line in New Orleans does not have stations, but rather stops every few blocks at street intersections. Thi s pattern is followed in the replica line s in Ga l veston and Dallas. The other new lines (Memphis San Francisco and Seattle) have stations spaced 1/4 to y, mile apart. The h istoric replica systems have been constructed in part of serve as economic development catalysts to attrac t tourism and to enable touri sts and local citizens to get to various destinations in entertainment and recreatio n a l districts. Hotels, convention centers, aquariums, sports facilities open air markets, d owntown shopping, street side retail, restaurants, movie thea ters and other entertainment venues are typical of the activities found along these streetcar lines. The plaruted s t reetcar p rojects in Li ttl e Rock and Tampa are designed, like the existing new systems, to corutect hotels, convention facilities, sports facilit ies and entertainment districts Portland, on the o ther hand, is building i ts 2.5 mile c ity stree tcar as a downtown circulator linking several neighborhoods with high density residential, empl oyment and activity characteristics. The City Center streetcar proj ect in Portland is another tool i n down town r e vitalization efforts. Heavy Rail The distinguishing characteristic ofheavy rail transit is that it operates on exclusive right-of-way that c an be either surface, subway, or elevated, but always grade separated from other traffic. This allows trains to m o ve at a higher s peed than streetcars or light rail vehicles where they are mixed in with motor vehicles operating in a s top-and -go environment on c i ty streets. Because heavy rail is on its own exclusive operating environment, trains can travel at higher speeds (up to 70 mph) than LRVs (up to 50 mph on separate right of way, no more than 30 mph on city streets), or streetcars (rarely above 25 mph). Average speeds are much higher also because stations are spaced further apart excep t in downtown locations Stations are spaced from one to two miles apart on most new heavy rail lines. '!be combination of higher s peeds and greater station spacing plus operating of longer trains translates into considerably greate r throughput capacity for heavy rail. 32

PAGE 36

Like streetcars heavy rail technology dates from the late 19"' century. The elevated railways constructed above city streets in Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Chicago were initially trains hauled by small steam locomotives. The new techn ology of electric propulsion replaced steam by the 1890s, and allowed for trains to be placed in underground runnels, or subways. Much of the growth of these four metropolitan areas i s closely i ntertwined with the growth of heavy rail trans i t systems operating under streets and buildings in t h e center of the cities, and in a grade-separated surface environment in tbe suburbs Tbe expansion of heavy rail teclmology beyond these four metropolitan areas did no t take place until after World War II Cleveland replicated subway train technology in the construction ofits Red Line in 1956. A decade later the San Francisco Bay Area began construction of a 70mile regional system that would combine subway, e levated and surface ruMing linking San Francis c o with several East Bay cities and suburbs. This system would incorporate the basic elements of heavy rail, electric multiple unit tra ins operating on an exc l usive right-of way serving stat ions with high level platforms. In building this new system BART brought new innovation and technology to heavy rail. Lighter weight cars, air-conditioned and carpeted with wide windows and upholstered seats, a computer-based tra in control system electronic fare turnstiles, new signaling sys tem s, and a service emphasis on automobile and feeder bus access were the legacy that BART left for subsequent systems that followed in other metropolitan areas. The new heavy rail systems were characterized by station spacing of one to two miles, and higher speed, and extended 10 to I 5 miles or more from the core city center In doing so stations were placed in a variety of urban environments. <:;i, ties witli' Operating Heavy Rail Systems . . Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston*, Chicag6 ,Cleveland ; Miami New York*, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, .. : San Francisco, Washington, DC Original segments constructed before 19 I 0 Under Construction Heavy Rail System . San Juan, PR 33

PAGE 37

The seven new heavy rail systems all serve the central business district in their metropolitan area, and they all extend into the suburbs. Stations are closely spaced, 1 / 4 toY, mile in the city center and from J to 2 miles or more apart outside of the urban core. Except for Cleveland and Miami, the new heavy rail systems operate in tunnels underneath the city center The entire Miami alignment is on elevated structure and Cleveland is at grade or in a very short tunnel shared with other rail lines downtown. Beyond the city center subway envirorunent, the new heavy rail lines are predominantly at the surface or on short el evated or tunnel segments. Subway tunnels are common features of the Atlanta and Washington, DC systems outside of the downtown area because going underground was the least disruptivcaltemat ive in densely built-up areas, and because neighborhoods and suburbanjurisdictions required this option. Downtown Stations Heavy rail station area development in metropolitan urban cores represents some very unique challenges. Two strategies have generally evolved One is the preservation and/or adaptation of the area around new stations. The other strategy uses the rail station construction, or its subsequent impact, to redevelop the station area. Both strategies have been the most successful where there has been a partnering of transit authority and downtown development agency efforts. The latter has been able to help bring private investors to the table. Downtown station area development on heavy rail lines involves the same mix of activities as for light rail, commuter rail, or automated guideway transit. Where differences exist, they are primarily the result of the higher densities, and hence more intense scale of activity, within the particular city. The BART/Muni Metro corridor in San Francisco has the highest building densities of all of the new heavy rail systems. Just across the Bay in Oakland, where BART also has subway stations, the densit i es are much lower. Construction of the MARTA rail system in Atlanta has been perceived as an opportunity to assist downtown redevelopment and revitalization a strategy that has also been pursued in Baltimore, Oakland, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC Office buildings, hotels, retail establishments and some entertairunent venues are the predominant downtown activities for consideration at heavy rail station sites. Housing is not a likely activity. Both government buildings and private offices are key compon ents. Retail establishments are preferred ground-floor uses. The high volume of foot traffic at rail stations will attract and support certain types of retail. The central location of the downtown makes it the repository of many 34

PAGE 38

government functions. It is usually the seat of local government and maybe the home of regional offices of state and federal agencies. Thi s adds to the complexity of player s in station area planning a n d development. Several BART /Muni Metro sta tion s in downtown San Francisco reflect preservation of existing buildings and/or their adaptations to new uses Across the Bay in Oakland, ne w buildings house old functions and attract new activity and business as we ll Cons truction of new federal offices, an d o ther public buildings has taken place at several stations in downtown Washington D.C At lan ta has almost totally reb uilt the area around five of its seven downtown MART A sta tions Baltimore has combined preservation and new construction, and particularly the siting of public buildings in a way that enhances opportunities created by the presence of heavy rail. Los Angeles also offers good examples of stations integrat ed into both existing and new b igh ri se office buildings Access/egress at dov.nto'vn heavy rail stations is almost exclusively by foot, or by other transit modes Some downtown stations may have direct intermodallinks to intercity and com mu te r rail services, but bus transit connections are made at city street stops. The circulation design focus is for pedestrians. Existing Urban Neighborhood Stations Heavy rail systems serve a rich variety of urban neigh borhoo ds. Station area developmen t must recognize neighborhood character, needs and vision and adapt to the m. Some neighborhoods may be predominantly residential with a shopping node. Othe rs ma y in clude a cluster of oflice, retail, and residentia l activity, but at lower density and smaller scale than in the downtown area. Rail will bring some change. The critical issue is manag in g that change in a way that is most beneficial to the surrounding neighborhood. Examp l es of this can be found in each of the new heavy rail systems. Like downtown s ites neighborhood stations will depend heav ily upon pedestrian and other transit modes t o connect them with their serv ice area. However, driving may be the m ode of access for so me users, and there may be a need for limited parking. Once agai n, preservation/adaptation versus development/revitalization concerns are important. Finding the best answers and approaches can only result from cooperative and collaborative efforts between the transit agency and the loca l neighborhood. Most retail activity will be oriented to neighborhood reside nts. Business offices may locate nearby to take advantage of! ower costs, good 35

PAGE 39

transportation and an accessible work force Res i dential densities may vary greatly but apartments condominiums and t own houses are most likely to be close to the station. New Urban Cluster Stations All of the new heavy rail systems have penetrated into sparsely settled portions of the metropolitan area Stations at these locations have provided focal points for new urban development. In many cases a village or other agglomeration has been chosen as the station site. Since the station draws travelers from a large area, automobile access is important, requiring considerable parking space. This can be accommodated initially in surface lots, and as demand increases and competition arises for space near the station it may be more reasonable to think of multi-level structures Pedestrian access is required, but it may beofless importance early on because few peop l e live or work near the station. As development grows and new housing and other activity fills up the area close to the station sidewalks become more important. This assumes a slow, evolutionary growth process Some station sites have become the focal point of extensive, and intensive, planned development. Here a new community, or large sca l e activity is created. Lennox and Dunwoody stations on MARTA; Reiserstown Plaza on Baltimore MT A; Dadeland South in Miami ; and Ballston, Pentagon City and Crystal City on the Washington Metro are all examples of this type of development. Development can include major shopping malls which serve not only the adjacent suburban community but draw on a larger market through the rail transit network. Some, but not all of these, include h i gh density housing and major office complexes Suburban Park N-Ride Stations These stations at least initially, provide l argely a transfer function. They are the access/egress points for the rail transit system where it serves a much larger hinterland. Mos t people drive their cars to reach these stations. They are in t ercept points where travelers from the far edges of the metropolitan area transfer to rail transit. Some will ride feeder buses a few will come by bicycle, but the vast majority arrive by automobile as drivers passengers or participants in a s h ared-ride arrangement. Parking is the predominant land use. Business activity is limited to vendors selling beverages food, and newspapers during peak travel hours. Examp les can be found on the outer segments of rail routes i n Bal t imore Miami, Washington, Atlanta, and San Francisco 36

PAGE 40

However, this type o f station must be considered as transitory. As the nearby co mmunity grows although it may be only sp rawling single-family developme nt, there w i ll be a need for new commercial activity and new demand for space. The central location of the rail stalion with its morning and evening ebb and flow of commuters, becomes an attractive site for businesses wishing to locat e close to cus tom ers. This type of station is a holding pattern for future dev elopment. E vidence of this evolutionary development can be seen on WMA T A i n suburban Virginia and Maryland and on BART at several East Bay locations. Commuter Rail Co mmuter rail differs from other modes in that trains run on regular railroad tracks, often with intercity freight and passenger trains. Rolling stock, motive power, tra ck, and signal systems are built to standards of intercity rail service. Engineering, signal systems and safety are all monitored by the Federal Railroad Administration. Mainline railroad standards pwv ide for higher rolling stock profiles than light or heavy rail thereby allowing for double deck cars with greater carrying capacity. Tra ins are composed either of cars hauled by locomotives, or of self-propelled cars operat ed singly or coupled into trains. Eit her electric or diesel power is utilized for traction Mos t newer systems use diesel locomotives or rail cars, thereby avoiding the capital and maintenance costs associated with overhead catenary or trackside third rail power supplies. Locomotive hauled trains, both diesel and electric usua lly operate with the locomotives assigned regularly to the same end of the consist, pushing the train i n one direction pulling it in the other. Such "push-pull operations are standard on all o f the newer systems and older sys tems in Boston, Chicago and San Francisco. Commuter rail services are the heritage of intercity f reight and passenger railroads which began operating trains on portions of their lines close to major cities in a collaborative effort with real estate entrepreneurs who developed the first distinct suburban communities in the late 1800s. The trains allowed city wo rkers to live in more pleasant and desirable surroundings away f rom the noise congestion, a nd po llution of cities. By the early 1900s, railroads serving Boston, New York Philadelphia, Chicago and San Franci s co had developed elabora te commuter train networks on their exist ing lines and even extended routes into new suburban markets around these major metropolitan centers. The New York Central, New Haven Boston and Maine, Pennsylvania Read ing, Long Island Lackawanna, Central Railroad of New Jersey Burlington Chicago and Northweste rn, Milwaukee, Rock Island, Jllinois Central, and Southern Pacific were all major commuter train operators. Today service is provided on m ost of these historic commuter lines by public agencies : 37

PAGE 41

MBT A in Boston ; MTA Metro North and MT A Long Is land in New York, NJ T ransit in New Jerse y, SEPTA in Philadelphia Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MARC) in Washington and Baltimore, Metra in Chicago, and Cal train in San Fmncisco. Public ownership and/or operation of commu ter rail lines spawned new s ervices and ultimately service upgrading. Automobile competition curtailed the limited comm uter rail service s operated by private r ailroad s in C l eveland, Los Angeles Pittsburgh a nd St. Louis. Faced with growing roadway conges t i on in the 1980s, several Sunbelt metropolitan areas began to exp l ore commuter rail alternatives Commuter rail offers lower implem entati on costs that new light or heavy rail systems because it uses existing rail lines that cu rrently ha ve freight andlor intercity passenge r trains. The first new commute r rail line was opened in so uth Florida in 1989linking West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale and Miami. Los Angele s, San Diego, n orthern Virginia Connectic ut Da llas, and the nort hern San Joaquin Valley of California have a ll inaugurated commut e r train serv ice in the past decade. Seattle will commence commut er rail ope rdtions in 2000 M ost of the older commut er rail systems have ex t e nded routes deeper into suburban territory Since 1989 over I 00 new commuter rail s tat ions have open ed Operatin g Commuter Rail Systems -. Boston, Chicago, Dall as, N ew Haven, New York* Philadelphia San Diego, San --t ,. Franci sco, San Jose, Washington, DC' 'r. System in operation prior t o 1940 Unde r Construction Commuter Rail Systems Seattle From a statio n area dev elopm ent perspective commuter rail stations fall into four general types: Downtown City St ations With the exception of Tri Rail in South Florida, all commu ter rail lines and syste m s have the down t own of the major urban core city as their principal terminal. The d owntown city terminal is the destinatio n for most in-bo u nd weekly commu ters, and it is the departure point f or their homeward journey in the evening. In older systems, and some newer ones, this is a large facility that historically has been used by intercity train s. Sharing by Amtrak intercity and local tran si t ag ency commute r 38

PAGE 42

trains is characteristic of stations in Boston, New York Philadelphia Baltimore Washington Chic ag o, Dallas, Los Angeles and San Diego. Some downt0\\1l stations formerly were used by intercity passenger trains, but toda y contain only commuter trains. North S tation, Boston; Grand Central Station, New York; Northwestern Station, Chicago and Caltrain Station in San Francisco, co nstruct ed to serve both have seen their intercity trains disappear. Tri Rail riders are required to transfer to Metrorail rapid transit trains at a suburban station in order to reach downtown Miami. Station area development at downtown city stations is characterized by the urban activities surrounding the station. Large office buildings with street floor retail, government buildings, public spaces, and a scattering of restaurants and entertainment facilities comprise the major nearby land uses. Direct links between commuter rai l and other rail transit exist at several larger downtown stations. The high volume oftrave l resulting from the convergence of various transit services makes these facili ties attractive for development. Ground spac e is limited but building upward i s an option tha t has been exercised in several locations. Office air rights developments have taken place at Pennsylvania Station in New York and at Northwestern Station and Union Station in Chicago. The former Boston Garden built over the tracks at North Station in Boston has been replaced with the newer Fleet Arena. Washington Union Station, served by MARC and VRE (Virg ini a Railway Exp ress ) commuter trains Amtrak and Washington Metro heavy rail transit and buses has become a focal point of new development and urban revitalization. Property adjacent to statio ns in Los Angeles and San Diego have been the site of new office development. Pedestrian access to nearby locations is critical. ) n Ci ty Neigh borhood Stations Severa l larger cities, primarily those with established systems, have commuter ra il stations that are pick up and drop off points for those working or living nearby. These stations serve older neighborhoods where redevelopment and even gentrification may be taking place. A few occur in industrial distric t s that are undergoing change. Change provides opportunities for growth and new activities. In some neighborhoods that are primarily older residential apartments, stability and continuity are concerns. Examples of these types of stations can be found in Bosto n N ew York Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco. Although of much smaller scal e than their downtown counterparts these stations also depend almost exclusively on walking for access although some exchange also occurs with local bus services. 39

PAGE 43

Suburban Community Nodes Historically commuter rail stations provided the nucleus of numerous suburban settlements. The railroad Jines radiating from older cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Chicago were where developers platted new towns Melrose, Scarsdale White Plains, Summit, Chestnut Hill Hinsdale and Forest Park are all suburban towns ini t ially clustered around the railroad station. In California, a host of suburban communities sprang up along the rail line linking San Jose and San Francisco, including San Carlos, Burlinga me, Redwood City, Palo Alto, and Santa Clara. Newer commuter rail lines are having a similar function often helping to give better definition to scattered or sprawling suburban growth and strengthening older communi t ies that are now more effectively linked to larger metropolitan centers. Examples include new rail lines northwest of Chicago and in suburban Washington D.C. as well as in the Los Angeles basin and the San Diego County coast. Two groups of travelers have different access requirements at these stations. Nearby dwellers and workers will wal k Those living or employed further away will drive carpool or ride local transit. Parking and drop off lanes are req uirements at these stations. If the commuter residential shed is large then demand for parking space may be high and force a dynamic competition with other uses for land around the station. Many of the stations on Flo rida's Tri Rail system fall i nto this category. Suburban Park and Ride Stations Some commuter rail stations are essentially collection and transfer points where the vast majori ty of rail riders accessing the system at these points do so by automobile or transit. In contrast to downtown and city neighborhood stations where walking is the access mode for most rail patrons, thv passengers live close enough to the station to reach it on foot. Bicycles may be an important access tool for some riders. Interaction between the station and its immediate environs is limited. This type of station is largely found at suburban sites on the newer commuter rail systems, although some exist on older systems as well. They are usually located where a major arterial, or limited access highway intersects the rail line. These sites provide a collector/distributor function in relation to the road network and riders may drive several miles to use them. Large surface parking lots, kiss-nride drop off lanes, bus bays and shelters, and bicycle racks and lockers are predominant feature s Mos t of these sites are surrounded by single-family residential development. A few may be bordered by industrial property. Some may be in the middle of vacant land. Vacant land may prove to be 40

PAGE 44

attractive to new development that can alter the character of the station site. If land use intensifies around the station, press u res may nibble away at the use of large surface areas for parking. Stations on Tri Rail Mctrolink, Coaster, VRE and MARC exemplify this situation. Automated Guideway Applications of "drive rless" automated vehicles on a dedicated, grade-separated right-of-way were widely heralded as solutions to downtown congestion problems in the I 970s. Although this technology has been widely adapted in Europe and the Far East, automated guideway transit been adopted by only a handful ofU.S. cities. The initial, trial application of th is technology was linking three ca mpus nodes of the Un iversity of West Virginia in Morgantown in 1972. Detroit, Miami, Tam pa and Jacksonville have constructed au tomated guideway systems that serve primarily as downtown circulators within their respective central business districts. These systems all operate on elevated structures built above city street s and in-between, or even through buildi ngs. Cities with Operating .Automated Guideway Systems Detwit. JacksonviUe, Miami, Morgantown, Tamoa City Center Stations Elevated above street level automated system stations are usually a t the second floor level of adjacent buildings Direct access i s sometimes provided into adjacent buildings, but most stations are reached by stairs or escalators and eleva tors. Pedestrian access is of primary importance, although transfer to and fro m other transit modes is also critical as riders from outside the downtown core will use the automated system to reach employment sites or other destinations. Miami's Metromover, the largest of the U .S. automated guideway systems connects with urb an rail and or bus routes at three key intermodal stations. The land use and development opportunities at stations on automated guideway systems are those associated with the particular downtown. Where downtown si tes are fully built out there is limited new opportunity. However, Detroit. Miami and Jacksonville have incorporated automated guideway into downtow n revitalization efforts. As older buildings are tom down and new ones built, there are opportunities to more effect ively tie in stations through better access to meet customer needs. Miami 41

PAGE 45

and Jacksonville have also constructed portions of their automa ted guideway syst e m s into areas where vacant land has been created through urban revi talization efforts New land uses often supported by public investmen t decisions can contribute to even greater use for these urban circulator systems. Tbe use of the systems in tum reduces need for expensive downtown parking. Public investments are p rovidi n g for a new sports arena and performing arts center at two stations on the Omni extension of M iami's Metromover 42

PAGE 46

Chapter 5: Who is Responsible for Station Area Development? A major factor in whether or not s tation area development will take place is the question of who is responsible for mak ing it happen. Three possibilities exist E i ther the pub lic sector takes the initiative and carries out development, o r the private sector pursues development on its own, or t h e two work together in combination to make deve l opment happen. It is important t o recognize that each possibility has different goals and objectives. If the pub lic sector assumes responsibility for development it will have as an overriding goal the general community good. But there may be variations on that theme depending on the particular public agency, or agencies responsible for the development. l'rivate sector development has a responsibility for maximizing pro fit fo r investors and stockholders. and may pursue multiple goals for different parcels around a station A sharing of goals and objectives by both public and private sector parties in a joint development of the station area is the poss ibility that is often pursued in the U nited States. Joint development involves compromise, but can lead to successful attainment of mutually beneficial goals for both business and government agencies. The Public Sector The transit agency is the most obvious responsible public sector agency in station area developmen t. Track, electric power supply station buildings, platforms and related infrastructure (sidewalks driveways, parking lots, bicycle racks, stairs, escalators elevators) are all part of the in ve stment by the transit agency In the planning and design of the system, land is acquired at each station site to accommodate these elements. Most systems assume that ridership will grow and they plan for that growth by acqui rin g enough land around the station to meet future needs for parking and access by roadway and pedestrian traffic. In acquiring land, negotiated purchase is the preferred option. However condemnation through eminent domain may be required if land owners arc unwilling to sell, or if a price caru1ot be agreed up<>n by buyer and seller. State and local laws and ordinances may require purchase of an entire parcel even if o11IY a portion of the property is needed for th e station area infrastructure. Special requ i rements may also force acquisition of additional land to provide access to the station from adjacent neighbo rhood s and major streets. However, legal constrains also usually limit the amount of land that the agency can acquire to that 43

PAGE 47

needed for the transportation purposes of the transit agency Most transit agencies are prohibited by law from acquiring land for other purposes, or they are restrained from using public funds for that purpose. F ederal funds available to assist in transit capital projects until recently have been limited to transportation onl y purposes. Most states providing fmancial assistanc e to local transit agencies do so with similar constraints. Only with the emergence in the last decade of new concepts about rail transit being a tool for economic growth and community redevelopment have these constraints been modified and relaxed Although transit agencies have been constrained in their ability to guide development around their stations by making investments in residential and commercial development, they have been able to work cooperatively with other public agencies to do just that. Local economic development and redevelopment agencies, housing authorities and special development districts are all options where public sector investment has facilitated development around rail transit stations. These public agencies have powers to raise money, invest it directly or loan it to private sector developers and businesses t o carry out projects. They often use a combina ti on of p larming and infrastructure investment to guide growth and development by combining property to attract large scale projects, build streets, parking, sidewalks and provide for public spaces that make the area attractive. In addition, they may lease or sell land While transit agencies are constrained i n the acquisition ofland for development purposes they have been able to successfully take advantage of the land they do own at station sites by building upward. The sale of "air rights" over tracks and station s ites has been successfully used by several agencie s t o facilitate development and generate revenue In most instances this development has been carried out by private sector investment. An exception is the San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) which constructed an office building for i ts agency over light rail tracks at 12"' and Imperial Streets in San Diego. Although the MTDB uses several floors of the 12 story building, office space is l eased to other government agencies and private firms and at the ground floor space is leased for co m mercial retail providing a revenue stream. WMA TA, MARTA, BART, and LACMT A are among the transit agencies that have made air rights over their stations available for private deve lopment. In other parts of the world, particularly in Asia, transit agencies have assumed a much more important role in statio n area development. They acquire large tracts of land, plan for the use, finance infrastructure and building construction, make parcels available for private development, act as 44

PAGE 48

developers, builders and landlords for development, build parks and public spaces, and become major players in the urban development process. This approach bas been successfully used in Japan Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia. The Private Sector An often overlooked fact about transit station area development is the h is toric role of the private s ector. Until the 19 30s first io New York and then elsewhere, most urban rail transit was built and operated by private companies. Streetcar lines, electric utilities, and neighborhood residential development was often carried out by the same, or closely affiliated or commonly-owned companies. Subway lines in New York were the product of private developers who are responsible for much of the beyond-Manhattan growth of the metropolitan area. Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx were developed in large part around subway stations (many of which in the outer suburbs were above ground), and local streetcar lines. Private investors, sometimes subsidiary companies of railroads, buil t many of the suburban communities in New York, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia, and even helped finance stations on commuter railroads. Scarsdale, White Plains, Summit, Forest Park Joliet, Westchester, Downington and scores of other communities grew up around the train station. Banks, city halls, libraries and schools, and s tore s of all kinds clustered nearby. Market forces recognized the importance of commuter rail, subway and major streetcar stops where lines coalesced. The large numbers of people pouriog on or off of trains and streetcars were an agglomeration of customers to be tapped. In a similar vein, land close to transit stations and stops had value for resident ial purposes Apartments row housing, and other arrangements that allowed more people to li ve closer to transit were good investments and helped buoy the price of property around stations. If not suburban towns, certainly urban neighborhood business clustered around the rail transit access points. In the flurry of new rai l transit system construction over the past two decades private investment has once again taken a major role in station area development. But another factor has entered upon the scene that was not present during the lat e 19"' and early 20'" ceutury eras of transit development--the presence of urban plaiUling and its resultant delineatio n ofland use controls and zoniog. Where early investors responded to market forces unfettered, their late 20'" century counterparts found themselves facing constraints in the form of municipal plans that specified what uses were allowed in each sector of the community. One of the major tenets of this new planning and zoning was a strict separation 45

PAGE 49

ofland uses. The agencies building new rail transit lines found themselves siting stations in places where the use of the land was already detennined-speeified in a land use p lan map which was backed up by zoning ordinances and regulations requiring compliance. Often stations were located in land zoned residential, usuall y for singlefamily homes Bringing the type of station area developmen t that had tak en place under Ja. issez-fai re conditions t o planned urban areas required rethinking of concepts, and sometim es brought major resistanc e, particularly in established residential areas or planned low density ones. On !he other band, where land was available for development, or redevelopment in downtown or derelict areas, private investors became much more intere s1ed in !he opportunities that transit access had to offer. Major office buildings, apartment complexes, and even commercial retail development, ofte n in combination with the other two, were large scale investments by private sector that breathed new life and vitality into declining urban cent ers, or in some cases where large tracts of land were available at suburban locations. To allow these kind s of development to take place required a rethinking of existing land use and zoning strategies Sometimes this was aided by community redevelopment efforts (San Francisco, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, Los Angeles, Buffalo, Portland, Sacramento San Jose, San Diego Pittsburgh). On the new heavy rail systems where redevelopmen l was aclively going on, the private sec1or became a major player in building up densi ties and agglomeralin g acti vi lies. Transit provided the abilit) lo move large numbers of people that allowed great concenl rations to be built around transit stations. Transit in turn benefitted from the increased ridership gcncra1ed by the new scale of act iv ity at and near the stations The major role of the privale sector has been 10 make the type of investment in the conslnlclion of housing, office buildings, and retail space that concentrates activity to take full advantage of the presence of rail transit The private sector has acted as developer in the broadest sense. This includes taking an idea from concept to plan, to securing financ ing carrying out conslruction, and securing tenanls or buyers. Private developers, of their own initiative, have been responsib l e for carrying out major proj ects at downtown stations of almos1 e very new heavy rail system and at key suburban points. They bave also become active at stations on light rail lines, both in central cities and at suburban neighborhood points. In all cases they recognize market opportunilies. To tum those opportunities into reality has usually required chang e s in local governmenl plans and zoning. Initially these changes were handled on a station-by-station basis. Many cities, however, have taken a broade r brusb approach to this issue by creatin g a special zoning category for transil Sta lion areas. 46

PAGE 50

Private investment has been slower to become involved in smaller scale projects, although the pace is beginning to pick up in cities which have inst i tute d light rail. First Avenue in San Jose and Eas t Burnside in Portland are linear street developments where low density apartments have replaced sing l e-fa mily ho using, initiatives begun by the private sector in both cases . In E u rope and Asia the pri vate sector has assumed a financing role in actual station area construction. In some cases this has included both air rights and adjacent surface developers who agreed to build, o r at least pay for, a rail transit station in order to have this important transportation asset which they consider so essential to th e success of their development. This concept i s being applied for the first time in the U .S. where a private developer has agreed to fund a $23 million station of Washington Metro's Yellow Line at Potomac Yard. This former railroad yard encompassing several hundred acres, is be ing redeveloped as a mixed community with a var iety of resident ia l densities, office complexes and a shopping and community center adjacent to the new transit station. In San Diego the American Pacific Building is a 26 story office, hotel and retail complex built across from the Santa Fe depot (used by Amtrak, Coaster Commuter Rail, and San Diego Trolley light rail) which provides spac e tor a light rail station at the gJCound floor level, although the line and station were constructed by MTDB. It remains to be seen if private i nvestors will play a more direct role in station funding elsewhere. Joint Participation A combination of public and private initiative and funding is the route taken for most station area development in the U.S. over the past two decades. This recognizes the mutual benefits that accrue both to the transit agency and to private developers who's tenants employees and customers will ride the system. Beyond the transit agency, other public entities may be involved. These agencies can encompass a wide range of responsibilities inc l uding providing other transportation infrastructure utility services, station area planning, financing of certain types of development through low interest loans and grants, tax incentives, public parks, and even other public buildings that ma y become part of a more broad based development around the rail transit node. The private sector can also bring financing to station area projects, but is able to construct and develop a wide range of elements including housing office buildings, and property for commercial retail use. Joint participation projects have the advantage of bringing together in a collaborative manner diverse yet complementary interests. Some projects may invol ve a handful of key players others may depend on the succes s ful blending of the interests of dozens of agencies businesses and i nterest groups. 47

PAGE 51

In joint participation the public sector, so metimes represented by the transit agency or sometimes by other public agencies, often provides the lead role. "!he size and scale of station area development however will be strongly influenced by market tbrces. Local government planning and neighborhood development goals help outline the parameters for the particular station area site. To an increasing degree station area development is becoming important to transit agencies. Ev idenc e of this can be seen in the growing number of projects taking place across the country, and in the establishment of rea l estate development units withi n the administration of the agencies. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMA TA) reported that in 1997 nearly $15 million in station real estate revenue would flow to the agency. Transit agency staff work closely with other local government agencies to coordinate planning efforts, to ensure that infrastructure is in place to support transit and development goals, and to help identify financing packages that will attract private investment to particular sites. Often transit, planning and local eco nomic development agencies will work together to produce a concept pla n for a statio n area. The concept plan becomes refined into a market ing prospectus to attract potential private investors to propose projects in the station area. Rather specific uses may be proscribed for publically held property including the stat ion site. Greater flexibility is allowed for private property but within genera l guideli nes in the larger station area. Government agencies work with private developers to modify planning doc uments and adjust or change zoning regulations to fit the proposed new uses. Federal state, and lo cal requirements provide for cons iderable public input to these p rocesse s Joint participation can range from joint use of a station side alone, or extend beyond it in the planning and development of large areas that may be as much as a half mile from the rail station site. Example s of joint participation encompass a large range of siz es from monoli thic projects that have included station sites where thousands of transit users pass every day, and many surrounding blocks where a totally new set of patterns has developed, to small scale projects that include a station with only a few hundred riders and affect only the immediate adjacent blocks Ballston, Virginia on the Washington Metro and Lennox Pla2a on Atlanta's MARTA are examples of the former South Florida has an interesting example of a large scale project where Dadeland Mall has developed to the northwest of the two southernmost stations on MOTA's Metrorail system. The mall is about 1/4 mile from both Dadeland South and Dadeland North stations. Dadeland South 48

PAGE 52

station incorporates office and hotel space with a limited amount of ground floor retail. Dadcland North has only park ing immedia tely adjacent, but a new four-story retail structure opened a b lock to the northwest t o take a d vantage of both tra ns it and a u tomobile access. Insertion of new rail transit into o ld e r established commercial downtowns can be seen in San Francisco where the joint BART/Muni Metro stat ion was constructed in a two-level tunnel under Market Street and adjacent to two former departm e n t stores. One of the department stores has been remodeled i n t o a multi-level urban mall with two major anchor store s and over fifty shops. Nearly 85 percent of the mall use rs arrive by transit. The southernmost 1.5 miles ofBuffalo's light rail line is on Main Street w hich has been made over into a transit and pedestrian mal l with new retail businesses, offices and h o tels occupying new or tenovated buildings. There are many sma ller scale examples of joint participation projects on new rail ttansit lines around t he cou ntry. Hazard Center on the recently opened Mission Valley West extension of the San Diego l igh t rail system combines a condominium town house development on the east side of the station and a commercial retail, theater and office complex across a stree t to the west. Concord and Walnu t Creek s t ations oo BART in Sao Franc i sco's east bay represent a variety of medium scale, mixed use development. The first full-scale system elemen t planned to incorporate joint participation in station are a development is the Westside line ofPortland's MAX light rail line which opened in September 1998. Each of the 18 stations along the line has its own area developmen t plan Some of the s tation s sites a r e in built up sections of downtown Portland or built u p areas of the town of Hillsboro. Others are located in near ly vacan t land areas where the station is to become a focal point of n e w commun i ty development. Major employers and real estate developers have worked closely with Tri Met and the Metro governmen t in the design and imp lementa ti on of these plans. 49

PAGE 53

50

PAGE 54

Chapter 6: How do Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations and Plans Affect Station Area Development? Statutes, ord i nances, regulations, and plans affect station area development by allowing certain things to happen and allow each of the various players to do certain thing s. But they arc also limiting and restrictive and limit wha t can be done and circumscribe the role of the players. It is the latter situation the restrictions and limitations, that raise questions abou t the efficacy of station area development in Florida. Transit can clearly benefit from this type of development if it is applied in a manner that i s consistent with community and neighborhood goals. And communities can benefit in many ways from transit once the appropriate development is in place. Getting the appropdate development is essential to make transit really work in a region where most of the urban growth has taken place since World War II and is manifest as low density sprawl. Florida has struggled with the issue of unfettered urban sprawl and concern with preservation of the states unique environments by enacting growth management legislation. The state bas been pointed out as a leader in this arena. A major element in this growth management strategy has been the codification of the concept of Concurrency. Basically this requires that growth and development will only be perm i tted where there is a concurrent effort to build transportation capacity to handle the growth. This is a logical and sensible premise. Building a new suburban mall requires that the road capacity be in place to handle the anticipated automobile traffic. Streets are widened and parking capacity must be provided to mee t peak needs. The developer pays an impact fee to help share the burden of increasing transponation capacity with the public. Building a residential subdivision also requires adequate street capacity leading to and from the development and space for circulation and parking inside, and again the developer must share in the cost. Construct i on of a new office building downtown also requires roadway and parking capacity. Parking capacity will largely be paid for by the developer. Roadway capacity may be difficult if not impossible to increase. Adding additional lanes requires widening streets, an expensive undenaking in built-up downtown areas. Construction of high density housing, either as replacement for lower density or in-fill on vacant urban land, also has parking and street capacity concerns. Rather than contain sprawl, the need for capacity for transportation, a seemingly logical condition of Concurrency bas forced much development to go to the only place that transportation capacity can be easily increased the edge of urban communities. Transportation has been defined 51

PAGE 55

almost solely in automobile tenns. Transit has been largely ignored as an alternative, and this makes the provision of public transportation and the imp le mentation of transit-oriented development more difficult. Ironically the state which has touted growth management as a means of combating the evils of sprawl has a lso created an environment where transit's ability to compete with the automobile is seriously hampered. Against this back drop of state growth management legislation, it is important to take a closer look at how statutes ordinances, regulations and plans can help or hinder transit oriented development. What follows in this chapter is a rather cursory conceptual look. A future Technical Memorandum will address tbe issues in greater detail as they rela t e to Florida and the major m etropolitan areas wit h rail transit or those that are considering its future implementation. Permissive Conditions-for the Area, for the Players There are lots of things that are allowed in urban communities from the perspective of land uses and activities The players--government agencies and private individuals and corpora t ions--also bave considerable latitude in the role they play in the planning and development process. Planning has come to be recognized as an integral part of the process of governing at the community level. Local governments are recognized as being able to enact ordinances and regulations which proscribe the use of land in accordance with a conceived vision that has been translated into concrete plans that delineate in general terms what goes where. Activities are grouped into theoretically compatible uses discrete but compatible. All single-family residences go in one area ; multi-family housing in another; industry in its separate place; small-scale commercial business in neighborhood clusters or on streets where there is traffic to attract customers; etc. Where combination of activities in a single block or neighborhood was the characteristic of 19 .. century cit ies, separation of activities has been the hallmark of our cities in the 20" century. Separation has created more travel to get from h ome to job, to shopping or to school. Walking is out, distances are too far Trans i t is less effective in serving the scattered trip destinations of the modem household. But it is possible to change this trend, and for near ly three decades a growing number of urban communities are allowing for a return to mixed uses on the same piece or land of in the same area. Zoning for these mixed uses and for higher densities around rail transit stations has evolved in cities in several states. The concept of unique transit station zones has created separate land use categor ies in several cities. In Florida, Miami and Dade County have created a transit station area zone 52

PAGE 56

classification t h a t gives new flexibility. Orlando and Tampa are moving in that direction. In doing so, these communities are tak i ng the first steps toward allowing for station area development s te ps that have been successfully imp l emented in cities in Californ ia, Oregon Washington, Texas Maryland New Je r sey, Georgia, Colorado, and New York. Both a wider mix of activities and increased densities are allowed under these spec ia l station area :tones Some cities have also effect ively allowed tradeoffs in transportation capacity; that is reducing building parking requirements for office, retail, and re s idential buildings over certain densitie s in order to encourage transit use For example rather than require a parking space for every 1.2 employees some have decreased the parking requirements to one space for every three or four e mployees Some cities, such as Portland, Oregon have p laced a cap on the number of downtown parking spaces. Combined with recent changes in federal tax laws that allow employers to take ded uct ions for employee transit benefits equal to that for parking benefits these actions have helped transit compete with the aut omobi le for work trips. Allowing communities to take a larger role in their own develop ment or redevelopment through a variety of mechanisms ranging from federal and state financial assistance t o being able to create special taxing and/or empowerment zones is another "permissive" action that can fac ili tate transit station area development on the player side. The use of public funds for major community facilities l ike stadiums hospitals, museums, performing arts centers, schools, libraries, colleg e s and universities and even public housing puts public agencies in the role of m ajor players in being able to affect t he success of station area development. These agencies make decisions about the "where" of these facilities. Locating the m on rail transit lines can enhance the success of station area development policies. The converse side of this aspect of the relationship between fac ilities and transit i s to pla n the route of new rail transit systems to serve existing facilities, or ones that arc being planned Examples of the s ynergy between rail transit and public facility locations can be seen in a number of systems The coming tog ether of major sports facilities and rail in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Miami, Portland, San Diego, San Jose, and St. Louis has allowed transit to be an important player in moving large crowds offans and allowed for a significant reduction in parking at the facilities The location of convention centers in Baltimore, Dallas, New Orleans, Portland, Sacramento and San Diego has produced sim ila r benefits. 53

PAGE 57

Allowing for the use of state and local financing for transit gives communit ies greater flexibility in providing for t ransportation options and opens the door for transit to become a participating partner with other government agencies and the private sector in enhancing communities In Florida, the designation of a minimum of 14.3 percent of state transportation trust fund revenues for public transportation purposes creates a poo l of dollars that can be tapped into by local t ransit age n cies to fund new projects. Furthermore state legi slation in Florida allows for the use of local gas tax revenues, sales taxes and property taxes for transportation purposes includ ing transit. The p e rmissive nature of state legislation to allow local governments to use tax revenues to support transit is an important factor in funding the rail transit component of station area development. In Florida, and in most other states there are restrictions on how the money can be spent. Generally it must be used for tra nsi t vehicles and facili ties, and not to directly assist dev e lopmen t projects. Permissive conditions can be summarized into the following key points: Commw1i t ies, as represented by local governments, have the ability to plan their own futures to the extent they can decide the location of various activiti es as these are expressed in land use plans, maps and zoning of discrete areas for certain activities. Creating special zoning categories for transit station areas is one of the options available for local governments. Communities to an increasing degree can carry out their own transportation planning, and in Florida transportation and land use planning must be synchronized in a compatible manner to support one another. Financing options for transit are quite broad. Federal and state funds are available for trans it purposes and Florida communities have several mechanisms at their disposa l to raise money locally A rich variety of funding exists for carrying out station area development---if it is tied into other broader community goals Federal agencies offer grant and loan programs to assist local governments and private investors in undertaking many projects for new bus iness development and for urban revitalization. 54

PAGE 58

Rest r ictive Conditions-for the Area, for the P l ayers Just as there are pennissive conditions in the arena of statutes, ordinances regu l ations and p l ans there are also restr i ctive ones that can bo t h benefit and limit transit station area develop ment. Some of these restrictiv e conditions affect the role of the transit agency others hamper the development oft he types of land uses and activities that exemplify the best of station area development. Earlier in this chapter, there was a brief discussion of the concept and requirements of Concurrency and how its application in Florida has negated the effective use of transit in achieving the very community goals that management is intended to support. Creating exceptions to Co ncurrency requirements that allow for substitution of transit as a travel alte rna tive to the automobile, thereby lowering the need for additiona l roadway or parking capacity must be dealt with on a community-by community basis. There is no systematic statewide approach to t h is strat egy tha t could help enhance in fill development and res t rain suburban sprawl. Loc al land use plans in many communities do not accommodate mixed use development strategies that are typica l of most successful station area developments Requirements that land use and t ransportation p l ans be complementar y and mutually supportive are conceptually beneficial, but enforcement of tho se requirements is sometimes lax The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has responsibility for adminis t ration of growth management policies inc l uding Concurrency, and review of loca l government comprehens i ve plans tbr the i r compatibility w i th transportation plans. However, o t her t han wi t hholding of approval, DCA has only limited enforcement powers. Furthermore, DCA does no t have financia l resources to provide for grants or l oans tor projects that may be implemented by either the public or private sector to help communities achieve goa l s of in fill development, or other sprawl-containing strategies It is difficult to develop a system-wide approach to station area development when the rail system passes through a number of political jurisdictions. Both of F lorida's existing major rail transit systems Tri Rail and MDT A's Mctrorai l operate throug h multiple jurisdictions each wit h its own land use and zoning plan and regulations Tri Rail operates in three coun t ies and over a dozen municipalit i es Metrorail operates in un-incorporated portions of Miami/Da d e County, and the cities of Miami, South Miami, Hialeah and Coral Gables. The presence of a common urban government, (Metro), wit h responsibilities for land usc and transportation planning has made the deve l opment of a reg iona l and system-wide approach possib le for the Tri Met light rail system in Portland. 55

PAGE 59

Control of planning and investment in transportation infrastructure has until recently been largely in t he hands of the Florida Department of Transportation. Botl1 federal legislation (lSTEA and TEA-21) and policy and state transportation policy have shifted to multimod a l approaches over the past decade. A major shift has also occurred in the transportation planning process which gives local communities, acting through their metropolitan planning organization (MPO) a much greater degree of autonomy in preparing local plans. This shift also provides fo r greater public input into the transportation planning process. Even though these shifts have occurred, there arc still many transportation projects deve l oped in thepastdecadethat emphasize roadway and automobile solutions that will be implemented consideration of transit options. This is a reflection of the long lead times needed t o plan and develop major investment projects. For example projects to increase Interstate freeway capacity through Tampa were planned in the late 1980s, although funding will not be available for thei r implementation until the first decade of the 21" century. Limitations exist on the role of transit agencies in station area development. Acquiring land for transit p r ojects using goverrunent funds is largely restricted to rights-of-way and sites for stations, maintenance facilities and parking lots. A transit agency cannot acquire land for the purposes of encouraging station area development, even if the development is to be carried out by a third party. This places the responsibility for amassing parcels to encourage development in the hands of other government agencies or the private sector. In a similar vein, the actual allocation of control and responsibilities in joint development projects between public and private sectors is often a grey area Differences a l so exist between horizontal and vertical development projects. While it may be legally permissible to use a goverrunent financed station structure as the foundation for an air rights office building, it may not be possible to use those same government funds to construct the foundation, or even acquire and improve the land, for a private development adjacent to the station. This is a quite different definition, and restriction, of the role of the transit agency from acting in an aggressive manner to carry out development as is possible in Asia and portions of Europe. While transit agencies do not have this power in the U.S., other government agencies do, especially downtown redevelopment agencies. Restrictive conditions can be summarized as follows: Local land use and zoning policies allowing or favoring transit station area development do not ye t exist in some Florida c ommunities 56

PAGE 60

Conc urrency exceptions to encourage transit-friendly development can be created, but must be app r oached on a case-by -case basis rather than in a systematic manner. Existing transportation plans and projects may have been developed in the recent past which do not yet reflect changes in both state and local policies favoring transit, and particularly encouraging its use as a tool in creating more livable communities The legal role of public and private sector development is murky at best and d ifferences exist between horizontal and vertical development and from community-to-community. Transit agencies are restricted in the use of funds beyond the immediate facilities needed for the function of rail transit at stations. They are not allowed to amass property for development purposes, and are severely limited in what they can do to assist development beyond the immediate stat ion property. 57

PAGE 61

58

PAGE 62

Chapter 7: What are the Conditions Favoring "Best Practices" of Station Area Development "Best Practices" can be defined as those sta t ion area developments that contribute to the community, neighborhood and transit system in a posit ive way. They are vital, dynamic, attractive and pleasant places to live, work, shop or play. They may have a few activities, or many. They may be predominantly residential in character with a few services and shops. They may have a cluster of office buildings with a smattering of retail activity on the ground floor. They may be a major sports facility with supporting entertainment services and parking. They may be a large multiple use complex of offices, high rise apartments, ground floor retail, professional offic e s restaurants and movie theaters Many of the residents, employees, customers, clien ts and visitors come and go by rail trans it They see the station area and transit as synergistically related and perceive the area as a livable and fri endl y place. They like living in or coming to tbis built place. In the earlier chapters, and in considerable more detail in the Appendix are many examples of transit station area development. To achieve the benefits of relating transit and development into "best practices" requires certain condit i ons to be met. These are summarized below. Vision, Concept and Plan The players in putting together a good station a rea development need to have a picture of what they want to achieve. This picture is a vision of the outcome of the planning and investment they are going t o make It will include activities and the buildings and public spaces to house them. It will incorporate rou tes of access that may be rail and bus transit lines, sidewalks, streets bicycle paths, perhaps even br idges and tunnels. The vision becomes translated into a concept when these have been identified and grouped together in a meaningful way. The buildings and public spaces take form as designs and include size, ma t erials, textures landscaping and streetscaping, public art and decora t ion. The elements coalesce into a plan, and each element requires detailed design to carry out construction and implementation of the activities contained in the original vision. Whether it is a single station area or an entire sys tem of stations and their adjacent areas vision concept and plan are all essential ingredients. Old Town American Plaza, Gaslamp/Convention Center Qualcom Stadium, Hazard Center, Lemon Grove and Barrio Logan are all examples of station area development along San Diego's light rail system. Each is the product of a vision. As are 59

PAGE 63

Peachtree Center, North Avenue Lennox Avondale and Buckhead on Atlanta's heavy rail lines . Ballston, Bethesda, Crystal City King Street, L 'Enfant Plaza, Silver Spring, and Union Station on Washington's Metro are each the result of a vision. Planning of Portland's Westside MAX line involved vis ioning on a grand scale for all 18 stations. Good visioning involves bringing all of the players together at the table. And this includes not j ust the transit agenc y and the developers, but involving local residences businesses and community groups that live and work in the area. Committed Stakeholders To have a really good station area development requires commitment from the "stakeholders." This commitment starts with the visioning process and continues all the wa y through the start-up of rail tran sit service to the opening of the last residence, business, park or entertainment facility in tbe area. The transit agency, local governments, federal and state agencies are obvious stakeholders. So are station area property owners, developers, businesses chambers of commerce neighborhood associations service groups and public agencies in the area including schools, libraries and recreation centers. If a major sports or cultural facility is part of the station area development, they are stakeholder s Local resi dents are essential-to-have stakeholders. Stakeholders need to be involved at every stage of the process in planning and developing the area. They have a vested interest in its future and can contribute in countless ways. Involvement leads to "buy in" and support for the project At the end the stakeholders will be proud of what they have accomplished and can claim the project as "theirs." The transit agency is a particularly important stakeholder because working with other government un its, the business community and local citizen groups and organizations can be facilitated by tbe agency assuming a leadership role Many of the best examples of station area developmen t wheth e r they be in Atlanta, Baltimore, Buffalo, Memphis, Portland San Diego, San Jose St. Louis or Washington DC are the result of stakeholder involvement and inpu t early on, and "staying the course," throughout the project's implementation. Portland has frequently been touted as the best example of using rail transit as a tool in building a liv able community. Portland has approached station area design on a system-wide basis It's success i s in large part the result of stakeholder support over the long haul. 60

PAGE 64

Permissive and Flexible Context A key condition for s ucce ssful station area development is having a context that facilitates the exploration o f new ideas and approaches. Station area development is a new concept for most communi ties where rail systems are being considered or planned In cities with established rail systems the phenomenon may not be new---some station area development may have occurred spontaneously in response to market forces and other factors Even in these places making the concept into an active tactic championed by community leaders can be challenging. This is especially true if city planning and development has traditionally been vety cautious and restrictive. If people are satisfied with the status quo in their community they may not be willin g t o entertain new Some may argue that already established plans need to be followed Business owners may view creating new opportunities as something that will only favor their compet ito rs. On the other hand frustration over deteriorating n eighborhoods, a dO\\'Otown in decline, flight of business to the suburbs, growing sprawl, or traffic congestion may lead to a willingness to explore new ideas and break the rigidity of the past. The willingness to recognize prob lems and consider openly the ra ng e of possible sol uti oilS sets the stage for change. Exploring alternatives can l ead to a relaxation of highly structured rules and regulatiollS. In order t o break from the discrete land use and zoning precepts i n place in most U.S. urban areas for the past half century a new flexibility mu st bubbl e to the surface. The benefits of this flexibility can be brought out by community and business leaders and even individual citizens who are innovators of their 0\\'0, or who are aware of changes for the better going on elsewhere An ambience that encourages new ideas and discussion can be assisted by the l ocal press and broadcast media Community organizatiollS can be forums for further discuss ion and exploration An ope n environment that allows t his type of community dialogue to take place is very important. TI1orough discussion can lead to revision of rules and regulation s to allow approaches that will ultimately lead to actiollS for comm un ity betterment. It is in this kind of env iro nment that station area development can be considered in i ts most posi t ive light. It is more tha n coincidental that communi t ies facing significant growth and future concern issues are the ones that have moved ahead to bring rail transit into their t ransportation portfolio and arc the citi es where station area development has emerged as a local event and grown into a lar ger strategy for enhancing urban livability. While Atlanta, Baltimore, Sacramento, San Diego San Jose, and San 61

PAGE 65

Francisco Bay Area have initiated station projects it is Portland which has taken the idea even further and incorporated it into its regional growth strategy as set forth in the Metro 2040 Plan. The openness of the local context to innovation and public discussion was important in all of these communities, but reached its fullest manifestation in the evolution of regional government and planning in Portland. Leadership and Synergy Individuals or organizations have stepped forward to lead the implementation of transit station area development in several communities Where they have been most effective at doing so they have built a synergy with others who recognize the benefits to the city, the neighborhood their businesses and their personal lives. Sometimes it is the individual political or business leader who has advocated and supported railtransitand has incorporated the station area development benefits into that advocacy. The leadership of a handful of key political figures was instrumental in this effort in Atlanta, Portland, Sacramento, San Jose and San Diego. They were visionaries who could excite others and enlist their support Community activism emerged in leadership roles by establishing organizations to advocate rail transit, as in Portland Sacramento and St. L ouis. Government redevelopment and transit agencies worked together to promote station area development and to get the necessary changes in local ordinances and regulations that would facilitate it in Denver, San Diego, St. Louis and Washington, DC. The business community led by key developers and investors, can also play an important role in station area development. By putting their energy and money into station projects they lend additional support and enthusiasm. Although banks in many communities have been initially reluctant to fmance mixed use projects, they have stepped forward with financing for a growing number of projects all across the land. Residential developers RTKL and Post Properties have made major commitments and built new apartment developments on transit lines in Dallas and Atlanta. A variety of major investors have packaged mall and/or urban shopping developments at transit sites i n Atlanta Cleveland, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, St. Louis and Washington, DC. Smaller investors can play a major role also. The Round at Beaverton on the Westside MAX line in Portland which incorporates a three story town home development an office complex multi screen theater and retail shopping has been entirely financed by a local developer. Professional sports teams have taken initiatives to support new stadiums and arenas located at transit stations in Atlanta, Baltimore Boston, Denver, Cleveland, Miami Portland San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, St. Louis and Washington DC 62

PAGE 66

The coming together ofleadersbip in the political, business and community concerns are nas can help provide a broad based synergy to support general and specific station area developments. T his can be strengthened even further by creating opportunity for grass roots involvement and input. Once again Portland provides a quintessential examp le. Financial Capability One of the key components of every one of the station area developments cited as a "best practices" example has benefitted from having adequate financing. There are three types of financing that are important in station area development: public, private and mixed Public funding through government grants provides the capital for construction of t h e transit infrastructure--track, overhead and s ignal systems, stations, maintenance facilities and parking lots. Other public funding from various government agencies can provide infrastructu r e, and perhaps even land acquisi t ion and demolition of abandoned buildings, in the area to be developed If the station area is part of an urban renewal or redevelop ment program government agencies can provide further funds for improvements and even loans for certain kinds of businesses. Public funds are also used for the wide variery of public fu nctions that government carries out, if facilities are located in the station area. Schools, libraries, parks, recreation centers, government offices, fire and police stations and day care centers are some examples of government funded activities that can be located in station areas. Private financing is essential to cover the construction ofbuildings used exclusively to house private bus ine ss. The availability of financing is contingent upon the projected s u ccess of the business whether it be housing, an office building, a retail store or a food and bevemge establishment. Because most station area projects involve one of more of these types of activities private financing will be involved Therefore the viability of the project is important. Getting banks and other lending institutions to approve loans for station projects may require some s trong salesmanship if the project wi.ll brin g new uses to a neighborhood or district that has not had them before. F or certain projects particular l y housi n g but also small businesses government loans and tax cred its may be available Mixed financing may also be important for some pr o jects. SportS ar enas and stadiums may use public financing for a large portion of the project but some private equity is also usually required Some housing and business activities may need a mix of public and private financing. Private investors 63

PAGE 67

may be reluctant to finance the needed share of new types of activities Social and economic development reasons may justify the use of government guaranteed loans. Mixed financing is not the same as joint development. In mixed financing the funds come from both public and private sectors. Joint development projects involve the public agency and the private developer or investor to fund discrete parts of a project. Almost all station area projects use public and private funding sources. As an example Ballston on the Washington Metw in suburban Virginia is a development built over and around the rail transit station. Federal funds provided construction of the rail line and the s t ation envelope platforms and mezzanines plus major access elements i ncluding sidewalks, stairs, escalators, elevators and bus transit bays. Air rights over the station were leased to a developer who constructed, with private financ ing a hotel, office and retail complex. Air rights over the tracks approaching the station are used by other private developers for additional office and high rise residential towers. Adjacent private development ex t ends several blocks in every direction and steps down from high rise to mid rise to low rise apartments and town houses, and eventually to single family homes. A block away is a major shopping mall, also built with private capital. Transit agencies and their other public partners, usually the loca l planning or redevelopment agency are extremely careful in selecting and supporting private sector development in the station area They, like financial institutions, are concerned that businesses not fail, and that what is constructed remains viable and contributes to the neighborhood in a positive manner 64

PAGE 68

Appendix A Examples of Station Area Development Atlanta, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) opened in 1979. It was the first heavy rail system in the southeast. Atlanta had a 1990 population of 2, 157 344. The Atlanta urbanized area is made up of the city of Atlanta, Cobb County, DeKalk County, Fulton County, Gwinett County and Clayton Coun ty. Atlanta has reduced rail transit costs versus bus costs and it was the rail transit that attracted the 198 4 Democratic Convention and the 1996 Olympics. The Atlanta regional transportation plan update identified four major issues: cross regional congestion, radial congestion a transit need and an activity center congestion The MART A heavy rail system is 49 miles long. There is a northeast-south route a north-south route and an cast-west rou te. There are currently 36 stations on the system. Most ofthe lines reach within a mile ofl-275, the outer boundary of Atlanta. There is parking at 27 of the 36 stations. Rail is the most popular transit in Atlanta There are good directional signs in all stations and there is plenty of space for luggage. There are IS bus/rail transfe r centers. Downtown Atlanta Fi\'e Points Station is located near m ajor state and local government office buildings and Underground Atlanta. Omni Station serves the Georgia Dome, Omni Coliseum and the Georgia World Congress-a convention center. Georgia State Station is also a major state office building. Peachtree Center Station is in the middle of many hotels, reta il and office buildings. At least 12 different buildings are linked together by a skywalk. North Avenue station is MARTA's air rights station with Southern Bell. Arts Center Station is a redevelopment mecca. The Arts Center has 2.5 m illion square feet of office space. GLG T ower at Arts Center is a 51-story tower with a hotel and office space and 129 residential units. T here are a small number of retail and service stores within a third of a mile of the station. T he Woodruff Memorial Arts Center the High Museum of Art and several office buildings 65

PAGE 69

are nearby. Civic Center Station s the divider of downtown, commercial and mixed-use development. Lenox Station has the biggest development with the Lenox Square Mall. T his mall has five anchor stores 200 other shops and food facilities. Grandview Towers at Lenox station has 36 stories. There i s a hotel in the mall and two other hotels arc close by. There are some apartments and condominiums in the proximity as well Lenox Station bas three million square feet of office space. Resurgens Plaza has 388,000 square feet of office space; Atlanta Plaza has 674,000 square feet of office space and 14 000 square feet of re tail. Dunwoody Station is close to a mall, office complexes, and has planned high-density residential development. The Dunwoody station area is a high rent suburban office and commercial district near a shopping complex. It mainly serves people working in the Perimeter Center business area. Medical Center Station is between Buckhead and Dunwoody Sta tions. The Medical Center Station is close to an office park and si ngle family housing. Baltimore. Maryland Baltimore Maryland is made up of the central city of Baltimore and six surrounding counties: Anne Arundel Howard, Carroll, Baltimore, Harford and Queen Anne's. Baltimore has also benefitted from economic tie.s with Washington, D.C. The Maryland Metropolitan Tran sit Administration (later known as Mass Transit Administration or MTA) opened in 1983. Redevelopment projects such as Camden Yards, Inner Harbor and the Charles Center have denoted Baltimore as having historic cultural and economic imponance. There is an abundance of redevelopment happening in Baltimore. Light rail transi t was introduced in 1992. In Baltimore, it has been since noticed that vehicles in the Central Business District (CBD) were down 15 percent while traffic rose 7 percent in all other spots. Three guideway Transit modes serve Baltimore. These include: rapid rail (Baltimore Metro-MT A Metro); commuter rail (MARC); and light rail (CLRL). Baltimore Metro (Rapid Rail-MT A) 15 miles of track are between Baltimore and Owings Mills. MT A provides bus service at all 14 stations. It serves the central business district and the eastern end oflnner Harbor. The Metro's six 66

PAGE 70

outer most stations have park-and-ride facilities. T he Metro has 7 ,400 parking spaces and half arc at Owings Mills Maryland Rail Commuter Service (MARC) MARC is 18 7 miles long and has 40 stations. MARC serves commuters in Baltimore Washington, D C eight Maryland counties and parts of West Virginia it has an interchange at Penn and Camden Station The 40 MARC stations operate on three lines and have 8,500 parking spaces between them. M ARC which can be adopted by businesses for planting fl owers, l andscaping and picking up tras h The station in Aberdeen Maryland has just been restored for $400,000. The station at Camden Yards bas new signs, which make customers feel safer and are more convenient. The station also connects the commuter rail, light rail and buses. It was estimated that the MTA brought 15 to 20% of the fans to each Orioles home game which were all sold out. Ce ntral Light Rail Line (CLRL) CRCL i s 29 miles long and has 31 stations on its line. I t t ravels from Hunt Valley in Baltimore County to Baltimore City to Cromwell/Glen Burnie Station in Anne Arundel County. Each station has handicapped access and is "barrier-free". There is also free parking for about 2 400 cars. Soon the CRCL recently opened an intermodal connection at the BaltimoreWashington International Airport. Maryland is making a lot of effort for commuters to use transit. There is now a 100-child care center and police substation at Reisterstown Plaza Metro Subway stop. Maryland is trying to curb urban sprawl by p l acing businesses where they can be best used. This encourages economic development, protects the environmen t and improves the quality of life Baltimore is also looking t o develop 40 acres of station property with mixed -u se office/government/retail/housing and air rights. Soon they will also deve lop stations at the Baltimore Raven's stadium and the Baltimore Zoo Roland Park in Baltimore is an example of an early transit and pedestrian-oriented neighborhood It is a p lanned low-density residential area It is still a desirable residential area l ocated outside of the central business district of Baltimore An electric stree tcar connected Roland Park to the CBD of Bal ti more. The interconnected system of streets provides a d i rect connection to transit. Thoro u ghfare traffic was at the edges of the development. Roland Avenue inc l udes a large median and the adjacent houses have large setback to create the illusion that it was a parkway In Roland Park there was s mall retail and mid -and low-rise residentia l buildings and a church Single-family detached uni t s predominate in the remainder of the area. 67

PAGE 71

Cleveland, Ohio The Clevela nd area is made up of seven counties: Lorain, Medina, Cuyahoga Summit Portage Geauga and L ake. From 1870 to 1970 the population increased more than ten times from 270,000 to 3,000,000 people. New infrastructure for Cleveland included six new interstate routes, bus service and two higher-speed rail systems. Development of Downtown Cleveland (The Gateway Project) inclu ded Jacobs Field, Allen Theater, Public Library, Federal Reserve Bank, the Rock and Roll Museum, Science Center and Aquarium. Between 1990 and 1993 both bus and rail transit ridership declined, it could be a result of lost jobs. T h e Choice of using rail is slowly growing as compared to the very popular bus Rail ridership has increased compar ed to bus ridership between 1990 and 1993. The new Waterfront Line hopes to bring in a lot of tourism and boost cit)NJide enthusiasm. The north coast of Cleveland is really changing with the new two-mile rail line. There are five stations on the line and two more are being planned. It serves the Government, commercial and business needs on the north side of the CBD. The line links all of Cleveland with access to a sports arena, retail and tour is t attractions like the new Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the Gr eat Lakes Museum The new Waterfront Line also serves Tower City, the Flats Entertainment District, Lakeside Avenue Govt./Business Center and parking lots The new line is an economic catalyst for the Flats Entertainment District. Plans include new apartments, office buildings and a hotel which will connect to the East Ninth Street business corridor. Startup conunuter service, which is planned to start in a few years, will connect Canton, Akron and Cleveland. Regional Transit Authority (RT A) bought the Cleveland Transit System in 1975. Cleve land has a big suburban population with Jess and less p eople living in the city. Light rail transit ridership annual unlinked trips has always been between 3900 and 6000 trips per year. Light rail transi t are the Gree n and Blue Lines in Cleveland; the Red Line is the Rapid Rail. In 1995 with the 2.2-m ile extension, the RTA light rail expanded between Tower City and South Harbor with four new stations. The Red Line (heavy rail) services Cleveland Intematio nal Airport, Downtown Cleveland and Windermere Station. The Red Line has 29 stations. The (Light Rail System) Blue and Green Lines 68

PAGE 72

have 29 stations; 12 with on-site parking facilities. Some major Cleveland transit areas are: Southeastern Cleveland Downtown, Shaker Square and Shaker He i ghts Station Areas in Cleveland The Windermere Rapid Transit Station will ha ve a child-care facility in the station. T his will increase transit incentives. Red Line Superior Station is along the Red Line in Cleveland. The Gund Arena also connects to a tr.msit station by an enclosed pedestrian walkway. Cleveland has a long range transit plan called Transit 2010 which will expand and upgrade the transit system. New Orleans. Louisiana New Orleans has rail history since 1831 when it connected the first rail west of the Alleghenies. New Orleans has used streetcars for years and they served as a vital part of its economic source. After the depression only one railway really survived-the St. Charles Avenue Line. The central core ofNew Orleans is V ieux Carre, which has been dominant for 277 years. The New Orleans urbanized area is made up of Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. John the Baptist and St. Tammany Parishes (similar to counties) and has a 1990 population of 1,056,247. Nearly two-thirds of that number live in New Orleans or Metairie. Due to the geographic landscape of New Orleans only 57% is considered dry land so there is high-density development on the dry land. 20% of people in the New Orleans urbanized area reported having no vehicles and as a result 17% use public transportation to get to work. In 1980, New Orleans recognized the need for new zoning for its city and is still implementing a new system. The new planning measure is to make the CBD a 24-hour business center and will promote transit io develop a more consistent zoning plan and to take into consideration the needs of the environment. Trying to increase transit usage in New Orleans has been tough and slow. Hopefully, with all the new plans and investments, the Regional Transit Auihority will be on their way to increased ridership and more routes. New Orleans Transit currently serves the Aquarium of the Americas, the French Market, hote ls and the new convention center. New proposed projects, which hope to be served, are the casino, a 20,000-seat sports arena and the new Riverfront stre etcar line. There are three trans i t systems presently in use in New Orleans: Regional Transit Authority (RTA) operates a fixed-route bus system in the Parishes of Orleans and 69

PAGE 73

Jefferson The downtown system includes a circu lar route especially for downtown. The RT A operates 70 routes including two streetcar lines in Orleans Parish, St. Charles Avenue and the Riverfront in the New Orleans urbanized area. The St. Charles Line is 6.5 miles in length and has I 04 stops or stations. It may be perceived as a tourist attraction but it has a 4: I worker to tourist ridership ratio. The streetcars ofNew Orleans serve too different populations: a transit dependent work force and tourists. This line serves the Carollton area (residential), the universities the med ical district and the comme rcial and business district. The Riverfront Line has I 0 stop s and is mainly used by tourists and conventioneers. Thi s includes stops at the New Orleans Convention Center, the Aquarium oftl1e Americas, Riverwalk Marketplace, the Jackson Brewery Marketplace, the French Market and several ferryboats docks and hotels. When comparing Motorb u s data to Light rail-streetcar data from 1989 vs. 1993, ridership on the bus dropped 13% and light rail-streetcar rose 27%. There is no direct linkage between the two streetcar lines, the airport and streetcar, or between the streetcar and the New Orleans Union Passenger T erminal NOUPT, where the Amtrak/Greyhound terminal is located. This most likely will change with the new multimodal Union Passenger Terminal. The St. Charles Avenue streetcar Jin e inte rfa ces with RT A buses at seven points. The Riverfront streetcar has one transfer point along Canal Street. The New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal will become a multi-modal center. Presently, the New Orleans Unio n Passenger Terminal is an intercity rail and bus linkage for Greyhound and Amtrak and heliport. The new plans for the NOUPT call for a streetcar maintenance facility, commuter-parking garage R T A transfer facility and an airport/regional light rail transit facility. By using in termodal is m with the str eetcar the commercial and retail areas would be linked and would be an econo mic cat alyst for downtown New Orleans as part of the Canal Street Corridor project but would also stimulate Loyola Avenue and the Carrollton Avenue /St. Louis nexus. TI1e proposed route would be 7.8 miles in length and would link the CBD Superdome, aquarium, casino, Union Passenger station and the convention center. Penns\'lv ania Pittsburgh has a 22-mile ligh t rail transit system around the city. Pittsburgh is the pioneer in transit exclusive busways. Buses serve the CBD in Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh urbanized area has I. 7 million people in Butler County, Armstrong County, Westmoreland County, Washington County and Beaver 70

PAGE 74

County. Pittsburgh has a lot of single occupancy vehicles and depends heavily on the automobile, but is far below the national average. Although Pittsburgh s employment is on the decline, but growth is forecasted for the city. Phase one of the ligh t rail line was completed in 1987 and stage two is still being planned Light rail is not the primary mode of transportation for the c ity .... the bus is. The "T" is a light rail transit line, which moves people to and from Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. The light rail transit system has 54 stops; all three-subway stations and five of the I I major stations have b us connections. Seven stations have park-and-ride facilities. The downtown stations are very clean--th e r e i s no drinking eating or smoking. There are also security and information booths. All stations have benches and garbage cans. T ridership has declined though due to service cuts and a lack of parking spaces at stations. Pittsburgh is in the process o f planning an intem1odal transportation system to better accommodate transit users. T he goal ofPittsburgh transit is to get people to the CBD. There is apparently no need to make the whole city connected. Lig h t Rail Transit Stage I Pittsburgh wants to provide rapid mass transit to the south corridor of Allegheny County. Pittsburgh still uses t rolleys because of the hilly terrain and the buses cannot serve the area effectively. Light Rail Transit Stage 2 Funding did not allow stage one and two to be built at the same time. Stage two needed to upgrade 12 miles of existing trolley lines. Stage 2 in now on hold due to airport and high-occupancy vehicle lane priorities. The S pine Line is hoping to be developed to serve East-West commuters.lt would connect Pittsburgh to Oakland with part of the downtown trolley lines. This will link the port to downtown. It is expected to cost $1.5 billion and be completed in 2009. Within two b locks of the downtown light rail transit subway stations are all the new downtown office buildings: Penn Park Station, Liberty Centernew construc ti on Doubletree Hotel and office building; Steel Plaza Station, One Mello n Centernew constructionBank Headquarters and office 71

PAGE 75

building, Oxford Centernew constructionDuquesne Light Company headquarters, offices restaurants and upscale shopping, Steel Plaza Stationnew constructionWalkway connection from Steel Plaza Station to USX headquarters building library daycare facility, retail and restaurants. Wood Street Station, (uppe r levels )--Redevelopment-art gallery, Gimbel s B u i 1 ding r e development-new retail in a former department store, CNG Towernew construction-office building. Pittsburgh Cultural Districtredevelopment and reuse of buildings along Penn and Liberty Avenue for art galleries, theaters and other cultural attractions. There is some small retail, restaurants, and offices. Gateway Center Station PPG Place--new construction--PPG headquarters and office buildings, restaurants, and retail. Fifth A venue Place--new construction-Blue Cross Headquarters, restaurants, upscale shopping and retail. Market Square-redevelopmentis undergoing reconstruction and additional public parking facilities. Stage I Light Rail Transit Potomac Station, Senior citizen housing-new construction of a high-rise apartment building. Mt. Lebanon Station, Rolliersnew construction of a hardware store. Mt Lebanon Parking Garage parking garages and offices. Main Linenew construction of sing le family detached housing. South Hills Village Station, South Hills Village --new construction and expansion of existing build ings Shopping complex with main mall building and detached retail structures. Philadelphia, Pennsvlvanja The ClassicaVRevival Beaux-Arts station has been renovated in suburban Chester Pennsylvania. Chester is in the vicinity ofPhiladelphia.lt was a joint project between the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) and South Eastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPT A) Residents and commuters were most c oncerned about cleanliness, ADA accessibility, safety and the potential of retail. People commented that they would use it more if there were a coffee shop and vending machines insid e the station There would also be better bus bays outside and more park ing while preserving the architectural in t egrity of the building. 72

PAGE 76

Portland, Oregon The Portland area light rail transit is operated by Tri-Met (Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon). Light rail has become more popular than heavy rail due to lower capital costs and greater flexibility. The Portland OregonVancouver, Washington urbanized area consists of Washington County, Clark County, Multnomah County in Oregon and Clackamas County in Washington. The firs t electric streetcars appeared in 1890 Portland Traction Company began to replace the streetcars with trolleys and buses in the 1930s. The initial light rail opened in 1986 called MAX Metropolitan A rea Express. With an increase of urban sprawl suburbanites began to want commu ter rail service aga i n in the 1970s. The Tri-met service area is currently 988,28 4 people. The Oregon urbanized area pop u lation is I ,004,676. The current max lines serve 30 stations The EastWest lines are being expanded and there are plans for a major North South route for 2002 There is free parking at Cleveland Ave, Gresham C it y Hall, 181 Ave, 122" Ave and Gateway. General parking is at the Lloyd Center and Coliseum stations. Rail service runs 21 hours a day and there are also 75 bus routes. In the early 1970s, Portland City official s wanted to build the Mt. Hood freeway but there was stiff opposition because several hundred homes would ha v e to be demolished. Businesses m oved out of the CBD in Portland in the 1960s and then there was a 1970s redevelopment plan to beautify t he CBD which worked Downtown needed retail, comme r cial, hote l s e n tertainment a transit mall, mixed use housing and office buildings which were easy accessib le. Balanced Transportation was needed in order to i nsure this Vancouver, Washington provides for small scale commerc ial uses within walking distance for i ts res idents These areas are scattered throughout the city and are adjacent to resident i al neighborhoods no more than one and a half miles apart. Areas are no bigger than two acres and have a minimal traffic impact. Gateway Station has a good b u s/rail i nterchange at this station. It also has kiss-and-ride and park and ride tacilities. This station has concessions, t elephones and newspaper stands There is also a mall built nearby and some other is olated retai l adjacent to it. 73

PAGE 77

The Lloyd Center area is mainly a shopping mall. There are also federal and state office buildings, the Portland Arena a convention center and two office buildings The Lloyd District near Portland has I, I 00 housing Wlits available for transit users of the MAX. Burnside Corridor has 18 projects over 5 miles and predominately were in the single-family home area. Most of the projects were apartment complexes but some were medical offices, general offices and retail. The Coliseum area has ten bus transit routes. It i s target as a major area for growth of housing and employment. Gresham Central Station is a bus/rail transfer station It is a small town commercial center without disrupting the local environment. Seven projects for $35 million dollars were created close to MAX stations. There are also a motel, Three small office complexes and a pedestrian retail arcade. There were plans for a huge retail mall built over a light rail station but the project failed. Downtown Portland has 30 projects with a value of$389 million completed, they were mainly office buildings. New or renovated retail space is also a key to the downtown area. Public investments included Ankeny Park, Pioneer Courthouse Square and Federal Office building and Pioneer mixed office and retail complex. In Hollywood, a new $500,000 Elks lodge was developed near the rail station. NW 23rd Avenue in Portland Oregon is a commercial district that is adjacent to single family homes and high-rise residences. Retail is on the groWld floor and the residences are built above the retail. The sidewalks were extended because people would double park and the buses would not be able to pull out. Also, people waiting for the bus would block sidewalk passage by pedestrians. The sidewalk widths range from 8 to I 0 feet. Pedestrians are now enjoying the new NW 23rd Ave. The number of upscale shops have doubled and now includes restaurants, coffee bars bookstores pubs and gourmet kitchen and designer clothing stores Beaver Creek in Portland will be a mixed-use retail and h ousing area near the rail station and will be aimed at pedestrian comfort. 74

PAGE 78

Gresham is also 15 miles from Portland and is a high-density complex linked to the light rail system. Light rail stations can have a good impact on the surrounding area financially. Examples are a 90-unit apartm e n t complex which look like townhouses. Stadium Station apartments-115 un i ts of affordable housing (less th an 60% of the median income) adjacent to two light rail transit stations i n the Goose Hollow neighborhood. Center Commons-312 units of housing includ i ng rentals for seniors and families market rate apartments and 24 for-sale rowhouses. This site is c l ose to a light rail station on 60'" Avenue. Russellville School Phase 1-282 units at I 02"" and Burnsid e Sam S lau sen-51 un. its at SE 162'4 and E. Burnside Street. Portland, Oregon has p lans and codes in order to zone certain types of businesses. The first zone is for a neighborhood conunercial zo n e which is intended for small sites in or near de ns e residential neighborhoods to serve the community. There is a variety of retail, services and other stores in the developm ent mix. The sto res are there to serve the community and not disrupt traffic flow or make pedestrians feel uneasy about walking along the streets. The second zo ne is applied in neighborhood commercial and mixed conunerciaVresidential districts. Each business is limited to 5,000 square feet of floor area not including parking NE 60" Avenue and Banfield Freeway Site is in Northeast Portland about three miles east of Downtown The site is 20 acres and is both north and south of the freeway. On th e north side, there are ware houses and i ndustrial sites; many of which are vacant. To the south side of the highway there are single family homes and a small commercial area. The freeway has had a negative impact on the property because of the high amount of noise and the visibility of the freeway The residential plan is to have roughly 76 dwelling units per acre 102 and E Burnside Site (Hazelwood ) is an area that could he a gr eat transit-oriented development site. On the eastern edge, there would he low-density reside ntial development and the houses would most likely be in the townhouse/rowhouse style. There is not much except an old school and playground currently on the site. On tbe northwest comer of the site is the existing MAX s tation, which is served by light rail transit. The Hazelwood Station is located within a quarter mile of a major 75

PAGE 79

shopping malL Along the southern side, there is some retail and restaurants. The space is basically wide open and would be a nice pedestri an-orien ted site. The develo pers would like to see diversity in the fonn of people who would work and live there, as well as the mixed use of office, commercial and residen t ial buildings Proposed development would be retail and commercial on the southern and western sides Above the retai l wou l d be o ffice and rental apartmen ts. On the northwest corne r there would be a civic plaza with a library and senior citizens center. Historic Downtown/Riverfront will potentially have a mixed -use commercial re s idential, recreational civic and educational center Kellogg Creek, Kellogg Lake and the many natural springs and watercourses will be in the parks and public spaces There will be one seven-story landmark hotel but the rest of the development will be two, t hroe and four story building s NE Sandy Boul evard from 12" t o 40 .. (Burnsid e to H ollywood) is a major part of the city that is ready to be developed. Within a close proximity of the Hollywood L ight Rail Station there are a number of under-developed open spaces oriented for the automobile and very little pedestrian accommodations Developments along Sandy Boulevard range from industrial plants to residences on the same block. There is a strong residential base that will support commercial or retail infrastructure that may come abouL It takes only 15 minute to walk 10 downtown and only 5 by bus. Los Ange l es California The Los Angeles region i s defined as Los Angeles, Orange Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernardino C ounties and is home to 15 million people. The Metrolink C ommuter Rail service currently has five lines and has plans to expand in the future. Amtrak also o ffers inner-city service Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) operates the light rail and heavy rail ( s ubway) in Los Angeles. There are also 12 different bus transit agencies in Los Angeles. The bus is the preferred method of t r ansportation at this time; but s t ill nothing replaces the car. In 1902, the Pacific Electric Big Red Car Lines opened up and were the biggest in the world. The Red Cars stopped in 1961 and the Metro Blue Light Rail opened service in !990 to Long Beach. The Metrolink Commuter Rail service opened it 1992 and Red Line service began operating in downtown in 1993 The Metro Green Line is berween Norwalk and El Segundo and begun service in 1994. Metro link Commuter Rail is th e operating name of the Southe rn California Regional Rail Authority 76

PAGE 80

and serves all five counties. It began serv ice 1992. It currently has five lines and 37 stations but hopes to have seven by 1996 and be using 330 miles of track. It acq ui red its track in 1989 and gained 667 miles of right of-ways. All lines offer colUlections to the inner city and other commuter lines tltrough Union Station. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority LACMT A (or MT A) operates bus, light rail and heavy rail within Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Me tropolitan Transportation Authori t y seeks out ventures with real estate developers for retail office, commercial and housing proj ec ts in order to encourage more ridership on the new rail lines. This will help provide revenue in the future for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportatio n Authority. Metro Blue Line is a light rail line running at grade from a red line connection in Downtown Los Angeles to Long Beach. It is a 22-mile route that serves 22 stations. The Long Beach line will be complemented by a light rail extension eastward from Union Station to Pasadena. There are some intermodal colUlections on the line. Metro Red Line is a heavy rail subway system in Downtown Los Angeles. It runs between Union Station and MacArthur Park. It opened in 1993 and runs 4.5 miles. There may be a second station opened for an additional 6 7 miles and eight stations and a third and fourth line is being planned for the year2000 with 6.4 miles and six stations and four miles and four stations respectively. Bus transit service is provided at all Red line stations. Parking is only available at Union Station. The red line also colUlects with the blue line. Metro Green Line is a light rail system that will extend 20 miles from Norwalk in the east to El Segundo in the west with 14 stations. Its closest point to Los Angeles I nternational Airport is two miles and future plans involve a connection. A major station o n the Green Line is the intersect ion with the Blue Line and the Harbor Freeway Transit way. Los Angeles Union Station is the central intermodal connection in Downtown Los Angeles. Union Station is the terminal point for five Metro link lines and Amtrak. You can change from the Blue Line to the Red Line to the Green Line if needed. There is bus and taxi service available at the station There are also 900 parking spaces available at Union Station. It is 622,000 square feet and is the 26 story headquarters for the MT A. Little Tokyo is within walking distance of Union station (El Pueblo) and is in the middl e of the Historic District. 77

PAGE 81

The Union Station Gateway Center is next to Union Station and is the bus terminal tor the El Monte Transit bus way. Retail space is available to serve passengers in the station. There is 2 million square feet of commercial space by the office towers in the Gateway Center. The MTA headquarters is in this space. It is also home of the Red Line!El Monte intennodal connection and has 2,500 parking spaces. It appears with all the included costs in the Los Angeles area, rail will not dominate transit service but along side of the buses; it should make it really complete. As more is opened u p transit-wise around Los Angeles more transit will be used because there will be more interconnectedness and a better ability to u-avel. The new Blue Line is 22 miles long and will be I 50 miles long by 2020. The new Blue Line has open-air stations and six parking lots. The Metro Green Line is 20 miles long and has I 6 stations along the line and carries 40,000 passengers daily. The Metro Red line (Phase J) is 4.4 miles long and will connect Union Station with somewhere downtown. TI1ere are five stations along this line. The Metro Red Line (Phase II) has two segments: the first segment is 6.8 miles long with eight stations and the second segment is 5.4 miles long. The San Fernando Valley Rail project will be 5.6 to I 6 miles long. It will be a subway in Downtown and will be aerial in commercial and industrial areas. Ridership is expected to range from 37,900 to 57,800 in 2010. The Pasadena-Los Angeles Light Rail project is 9.1 to 13.6 miles long and will carry 56,600 to 68,200 in 1998. The Metro Green Line extension from El Segundo to Westchester is 2 to 5.3 miles of light rail with aerial and subway. I t will have two to six stations and will carry J 0,095 to 16,000 passengers. The Metro Red Line East/West extension from Downtown to Westwood is 9.4 miles and Downtown to Eas t Los Angeles is 8.5 miles with 9 to 12 stations. San Bernardino to Los Angeles Commuter Rail will connect San Bernardino to Union Station. It will be 60 miles long with I 0 to 15 stations and 4,000 riders daily. Ventura to Los Angeles Commuter Rail will connect to Ventura C ounty 55 miles away. It would have six to eight stations and have 3000 riders daily. The Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) in Los Angeles has many plans for future development of about 80 stations. If the MTA shares land with companies both will prosper. Each plan encom pass es, market demand, highway, bus, rail connections, available land resources and community needs and characteristics. One specific plan at the SunsetVermont Subway Station in Hollywood demonstrates these plans. This site is at a majorroad intersection in a commercial section of town surrounded by three hospitals. All of the agencies worked together for an intennodallparking 78

PAGE 82

facility that would serve both transit and hospital needs. The MTA is hoping to be able to work with other companies for future retail, commercial and office projects. Th e Vermont/Santa Monic a Stat i on bas highly-occupied retaiVcommercial space in a lower-income multi-e t hnic area. T here i s a need for more retail/commercial spa ce and a grocery store. There is a community colle g e in this area but it appears not to have much of a major impact at this intersection. The development plan includes 300,000 sq u are f e et of retail/commercial space with parking at three I 000 square foot lots. The p l an call s for the possibility of newsstands, fast food, coffee shops a supermarket, a drug store, a dry cleaners and shoe repair. The housing plan calls for 595 at 43 dwellings per acre for large three or four bedroom apartments For smaller apartments there co uld be 1 2 4 0 units at 89 dwellings per acre. Willow Str ee t Stati on will have two types offamily h ousing-rental and ownership. Unit r anges will be from one to three bedrooms. There will also be private recreational space for the residential community and child-care facilit i es In regards to retail, there will be a grocery store, drug store and small community-serving stores The project will be developed in three phases : the first phase is going to be all retail and t he second two phases will be retail and housing A total of290,000 square feet of reside n tial space 202,400 square feet of retail space and 6,000 square feet of office space will be developed El Monte is a sta t ion along the Metro link that will have a commercial and h o using area (Valley Mall ) developed around the station. This area will try to attract mostly young employed adults who have left h ome to be on their own and some of the elderly There also will be some entertainment and restaurants n earby. The commercial will be on the bottom floor and the housing will b e on the upp er stories. Southern Long Beac h provides business and social functions for the Los Angeles area. The city is surrounded by t he ocean and ot her developed areas so new development is in the fonn of infill, densification or redevelopment. The city's southern portion has a net res i dential density of 22.5 dwelling units per net residential acre (residential areas only not including s t ree t s), and medium to high density housing is wide sp read thro u ghout the community Southern Lo ng Beach is a very pedestrian-oriented communi t y and there are 15,252 VMT per HH per year. The community is served by local and regional bus routes and a light rail line connects Long Beach to Downtown Los Angeles. 79

PAGE 83

Alhambra is a residential community located six miles east of downtown Los Ange les and is primarily low to medium density. Most of the shopping activity is concentrated in the older downtown, in a regional s hoppin g center and along two main arteries. Pedestrian access is difficult in some areas due to the lack of sidewalks, long blocks lack of four-way stop signs or stop lights at intersections. The community is served by 13 bus routes and each household averages 21,660 VMT annually Moreno Valley is also a residential suburb in which most of the residents commute to Irvine, Los Angeles or to employment along regional freeways. Overall density is 1.1 dwelling units per gross acre and only half of the city's 52 square miles are developed. Mixed-use is rare and residents are more than a m ile from the commercial section of town. Sunnymeade (the older down\0'.'-'n) is a two mile, auto-oriented retail strip. There are no sidewalks aod the blocks are very long. Residents live close to Sunnymeade but pedestrian access is difficult. There are plans to allow residential uses on the commercial boulevard and to create mid-block connections between the boulevard and residential areas. The city has a regional mall and community shopping centers. In Moreno Valley, there are approximately 28,700 VMT per HH per year. Sacramento, California Sacramento has a light rail transit system which was the cheapest to build using federal funds. The Sacramento area consists of Sacramento County, Yolo County, Sutter County and parts of Yuba County, E l Dorado County and Placer County. Population in the Sacramento area is booming. Sacramento is experiencing growth in agribusiness federal buildings, military construction and computer companies. Sacramento is a highway rail and river hub. In 1946, Ho using in tbe Sacramento area sprung up near the electric trolley lines. Sacramento is connected by rail with Stockton and Modesto. Most of the suburban growth is in the east west and southeast of Sacramento. The first light rail was used in 1987. More rail s and lines are being planned and added. Light rail helps minimize commuters, smog and congestion. The Sacramento service area is 931,146 people. RT light rail serves 29 stations: I-80/Watt Ave, 1-80/Watt Ave West, Roseville Road, Marconi! Arcade Swanston, Royal Oaks, Arden/Del Paso, Globe, Alkali Flat/ La Valentina, 12 &!, Cathedral Square, St. Rose of Lima Park 7th & Capital 8th & Capital, 13th St.. And 16' St., 23' 80

PAGE 84

St 29th St, 39th St 48th St, 59th St, Un ivers ity/65" St, Power Inn, College Greens Watt/Manlove, Starfire TiberManlove, Starfire, Tiber, Butterfield, and soon to be Mather Field Road. Light rail continues to serve warehouses, industrial spurs and the Sacramento Bee printing plant. To encourage pedestrians, the city has widened sidewalks, and made the roads vehicle-restricted except for emergencies. New stations have maps and show the locat ions of where people are heading: the plaza, the state buildings and bus stops. Rail and bus have good transfer lo catio ns within a few blocks of each other: Arden/Del Paso Watt/1-80 Un iversity/65th St, and Butterfield have 4 or more bus routes. D evelopm ent o f the Sacramento Ligh t Rail had good government funding and public support. The Transit Agency focused on: Traffic congestion relief, Air pollution mitigation, Regional mobility enhancement, Accessibility for disabled people, and improving the quality of life. Downtown has developed nicely with the light rail transit, there are more hotels and retail anchors stores around the transit area. Sacramento did not have the traditional housing spur that most other cities had. Downtown Sacramento Transit Mall Area is a 45-block area in downtown Sacramento that is considered the transit mall. An Old Department store has become state oflice buildings. Also, in the immediate area is the Sacramento Convention Center and City Plaza malleach one is at the end of the mall. South Capital: 8th & 0 Street and Archives Plaza Station Area has seen several new state office buildings built in this area. The light rail was built hoping to serve new potential state facilities. There are also a lo t of retail and private office buildings in this area. 29'" Street Station Area is the home of t h e Sacramento Regiona l Transit District Headquarters, Caftans and other state buildings within a few blocks of the station The station is under a freeway which prote cts people from the sun and the rain. There are plans for multi-family residences, office and commercial development. Laguna Creek Ranch in Sacramento is a medium-density, mixed use neighborhood which is oriented toward rail and express bus service. The goal this development was to have homes schools 81

PAGE 85

civic uses and shops within walking distances. The streets and common areas hav e been designed to be pedestrian-friendly. The streets, open and town center are oriented toward the future us e of a transit station. The town hall, shops, library, day care and a range of housing types are located in the town center. For town employment there is a business park and a light industrial area near the town center. Low density housing is located at the edges of the neighborhood. San Diego, California San Diego is the birthplace of light rail transit in the U.S.lt connected San Diego to San Isidro. San Diego had electric t rolleys from 1898 to 1949. 2.5 million people made 74 million annual transit trips. San Diego is only 18 miles from Tij uana Mexico. San Diego also has a great natural harbor which spurs employment and transit usage. Two development boards and SANDAL maintain San Diego ridership: North San Diego County Development Board (NCTD) and Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and SANDAG is the San D iego Association of Governments. San Diego has experienced a huge populat ion increase over the last 30 years and had decided that light rail would help curtail automobile congestion. A lot of new businesses are also relocating to San Diego for cost benefits. The idea of light rail transit was to use existing freight rail lines for most of the initial route for light rail transit. The San Diego Trolley is the lowest capital cost project in the U S. The trolley had a great impact on the city and has created a positive image. The Coaster" commuter rail service is a weekday commuter train which is 42 miles long between Oceanside and San Diego. The "Coaster" serves eight stations and six addi t ional stations are being built. San Diego like a ll cities experienced a decline in the 1960s and 1970s where businesses retail, office complexes and hotels moved to the suburbs. San Diego n eeded to revitalize its urban core so they built the Horton Plaza shopping mall/hotel complex the Seaport Village shopping/entertainment complex, and the restoration of the historic Gas Lamp district The are two main transit lines in San Diego: the North-South Line and the East Line. 37 stations are located on the two lines and some are shared. 23 on the North-South Line and 24 on the East Line American Plaza Station has bilingual signs, wheelchair lifts, bike racks and a good fare collection system This is a 565,000 square foot 29-story office building with trolley, bus and intercity rail 82

PAGE 86

access. This is the largest office building in San Diego with a good supporting retail base. American Plaza is a 912,000 square foot, $200 million mixed use development with hotels, retail and a museum. Solana Beacb Station replaces the former DelMar station used by Amtrak. Lack of adequate parking and limited space for expansion were the reasons to relocate to a bigger site. Old Town Station is a combined commuter/light rail facility with parking and easy pedestrian access to this historic district with its various tourist attractions. All stations except the Santa Fe Depot have parking facilities. Stations are well marked and include information on train schedules, local shopping entertainment, recreational activities and some stations have fast food restaurants inside. San Diego Trolley trains connect with buses at 23 of the 35 light rail stations. The San Ysidro Transfer Center has many iotermodal conn ections. There is one MTS bus route, Greyhound coach service, and taxis. National City, 24"' Street Station has an open, covered station with ticket machines benches car parking, sidewalks and bike lockers The light rail C Street Transit Mall has restricted auto traffic, has good intermodal connections and is close to the Santa Fe Depot and the American Plaza complex. A lot of redevelopment is happening around American Plaza, the Santa Fe Depot is a registered historical monument and an 22-story office complex has recently finished construction which has a rail line running through it. The Imperial and 12" Transfer Center is a good example of air-rights development. MDTB decided to run operations from a pre-owned on-site location. This is a I 0-story, 180,000 square foot office building, which is pan of the East Line. The Oceanside Transportation Center is a low-cost example of a simple intermodal facility. It serves buses, trains, restaurants and has storage lockers security and a plaza. It is an attractive, well maintained facility. 83

PAGE 87

San Diego Transit Vmages La Mesa Village Plaza is a mixed-use development containing residential, retail and office complexes in t he area. The development was planned before the light rail transit was designed for this area, but shortly after, a transit s to p was included as part of the plans Rio Vista West is the first planned transit-oriented development implem ented in 1992 by San Diego. The idea was to have high-density h ousing located close to transit stat ions with office complexes and retail shops close by. Rio Vista West is a 90 acre mixed use project It has 1000 housing units, 165,000 square feet of office space. 325,000 square feet of highway-oriented retail, whic h includes a 120 ,000 square foot discount superstore. Villages of La Mesa is a 380-apartment complex located close to the La Mesa-Amaya Light rail station. Other Main Areas Center City Area is a four square mile area is the heart of San Diego. Through public and private investmen ts i t has revitalized downtown San Diego with hotels, retaii, offices, restaurants and entertainment. The C Street Mall is a part of this development. Low, mid and high rise residential developments have been constructed close to the rail line. This i s part of the East Line The original plans for the Santa Fe Depot have changed but for the better. It was better incorporated as station with private and public interest. There would be hotels retail, commercial and neighborhoods built up around it and a rail museum built inside the station. This was a good move due to the historic nature of the area. It has connections with Amtrak, Santa Fe, San Diego Trolley and the Commuter rail. Mission Valley in San Diego was supposed to be an area with convention-oriented hotels, two shopping malls, and mid-rise office buildings. Six developers planned millions of square feet of office complexes, thousands of hotel rooms and high-density housing. The recession of the late 1980s changed those plans and now grocery stores and big-box stores replaced office buildings. The MTS!Mills building is 180,000 square feet of government office space with ground floor retail a nd a I 000 car garage. 84

PAGE 88

Bay A re a {San Francisco/ Oakland/San Jose) San Francisco has transit in the forms of: light rail, heavy rail conunuter rail, electric and diese l buses and cable cars. The San Francisco Bay Area is made of up nine counties. The San Fra ncisco urbanized area i s San Francisco Oakland and San Jose with a population of 5,094,535. Some other smaller ar eas add another 587,876 people to the urbanized area populat ion. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), San Mateo County Transit District (Samtrans), Santa Clara Valley Transportation (SCVTD), Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District and the A lameda-Con t ra Costa Transit District (AC District) all serve the Bay Area. 94% of about six million people live in an urbanized area. BART operates heavy or rapid rail over 80 miles in four counties SCVTD operates a 20-mile local lig h t rail line in Metropolitan San Jose. Peninsula Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) is a commuter rail 76 miles long. Muni in San Francisco operates two guideway modes: about 28 miles of light rail on six routes and four miles of cable car track. Great er San Franc is co has an overall density o f 9.7 dwelling units per gross acre. Conunercial uses l ine many of transit corridors and residential units arc infill between the transit corridors The majority oft he residences are within a half a mile of a school or neighborhood busines ses. Shopping districts are located in concentrated activity centers throughout the city The city has many more jobs than housing, so new development takes the form of converting old industrial areas into new office commercial and residential buildings. San Fr ancisco is connected by many pedestrian bridges so that people may get anywhere in the city tha t they desire. Travel survey s indicate that there are 1,270 VT (Ve hi cular Tri p s) and 5,950 VMT per house hold per year and 40% auto-driver mode share BART serves many co nun unities and transfers people from their residences to their place o f employm ent. BART was constructed betwee n 1964 and 1972. There are plenty of intermodal connections in San Francisco between trains, cable cars ferryboats and buses. Municipal Railway of San Francisco (Muni) operate s in t he city/county of San Francisco with a population of790 ,000. Muni has six routes with 61 bus r outes 1 1 trolley bus routes and 14 express bus routes. Three cable car lines are a result o f the five line restructuring, which serves 40 stations over 4. 5 miles of rou te BAR T /Muni Embarcadero and Powell Street Stations are good transfer stations for cable cars However no areas have parking lots. Muni connects with BART at Montgomery Street, Civi c Center and Balboa Park stations. 85

PAGE 89

Peninsula Joint Powers Board (CalTtain) opetates in the three peninsula counties of San Ftancisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara. CaiTrain routes operates on 76.8 miles of track. There are 33 stations on the CaiTtain line CaiTrains only direct intermodal rail transit li.nk is with the Santa Clara light rail system. Other int ermoda l station s are the San Francisco and San Jose Cahill station. Buses connect with Cal T rain at 25 stations Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) operates a 80.6-mile heavy rail route in four counties. There are 37 stations in all and includes 14 subway stations. BART also connects with some bus stations in the East Bay stations. The BART service area is in an X shape. The major ttansfer points are at Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell Street, Civic Center and Balboa Park. Richmond, El Cerrito del Norte Concord Walnut Creek, Oakland Colisewn/Airport and Fremont. Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates bus and ligh t rail in Santa Clara Counry and San Jose. The l igh t rail is 20 miles long and has bus connections at all 31 stations. A majorttansfer point is the Downtown Transit Mall in San Jose. VTA offers childcare at Tamien Station at the rail/bus interchange point in San Jose. BART/Muni lntermodal Connections Embarcadero, Montgomery Street, Powell Street and Civic Center stations are hi-level underground facilities. BART occupies the lower level and Muni the upper level. Most Stations have bus service within a couple of blocks. Embarcadero Station also connects to the ferry. Balboa Park Station is in the southern part of San Francisco and connects with three Muni lines. CalTrain/VTA is the only other intermodal connection in the Bay Area. CalTrains commuter line links with VTA s light rail at Tamien in San Jose. Some Urban Rail/Intercity Rail and Non Rail Ttansit station are: San Jose Amtrak/CalTrain Cahill Station used to be a bus/rail transfer station before Tamien was created. Amtrak also has a few train routes from here. Richmond Amtrak/BART Station connects with AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit bus service and intercity Amttak 86

PAGE 90

CaiTrain 4'" and Townsend Station, San Franeiseo is an intermodal facility for CaiTrain and downtown travelers. It is 1.2 miles away from downtown. CaiTrain Station, Palo Alto is a major bus/rail intennodal station with CalTrain commuter rail service linked to Sam Trans, SCVTD, Dubarton Express and Marquerite Shuttle bus service. CaiTrain Station, Redwood City has I I Sam Transbus routes connect with CaiTrain at this station. BART Station/Hayward provides service to II AC Transit, one BART express bus and one Sam Trans bus route. BART Station/Daly City provides service to nine Sam Trans and three Muni bus ro u tes BART Station/Concord provides service to four BAR T express and 12 "County Co!Ulection" bus routes BART Station/El Cerrito del Norte provides service to 12 AC Transit, two BART Express, three Vallejo Tran.s. it and one Golden Gate bus lines. BART Station/ Fremont provides service to 13 AC Transit and four SCVTD bus routes. BART Station/Oakland Coliseum/ Airport provides service t o six AC transit bus routes and the Oakland/ AirBART bus s huttle to Oakland I nternatio nal Airport. Amtrak S tation/Emeryville provides service to 18 Amtrak trains daily and Amtrak Thruway bus service to the San Francisco Ferry Building and Ca!Trai n 4'' and Townsend Station and one AC transit bus route. Amtrak StationfMartinez provides service to 18 Amtrak trains, threeAC Transit, one WestCat and one BART express bus routes. There is no direc t transit service to the San Franc isco Int ernational Airport, Oakland International Airport or San Jose International Airport. BART will provide rail service to San Francisco I n t ernational Airport in 2002, and perhaps to Oakland International Airport in the future Presently 87

PAGE 91

there is shuttle bus service to San Francisco International Airport and Oakland International Airport. The Market Street Corridor is a two-mile long strip between the ferry building and the civic center BART/Muni Metro station. It is a great intermodal example. There is ferry service, BART!Muni Metro stations, 26 bus and trolley routes AC transit, Sam Trans and Golden Gate transit express bus services. There are also street cars, cable cars Amtrak and Greyhound buses. Ironically, this was a non-planned intermodal exchange area. The BART Concord and Walnut Creek Station Area developments are succe s sful due to neig h borhood involvement. There is parking and bus transit access. New land uses are allowing for new business development, office and retail space. There is also medium and high-density housing. There are new s i dewalks and people feel safer walking to and from the station. Upper Market Street, San Francisco, California is at one end is the Castro District which is a v i bran t and diverse neighborhood Market Street is lined w ith restaurants bars, cafes and shops. It is very s imilar.to NW 23' Avenue in Portland except that the streets are very wide In the 1970s, Upper Market was beautified with street l amps, trees, and transit shelters. The BART/ Muni subway is constructed underneath Market Street. The Market Street Transit Thoroughfare project combined streetcar access with pedestrian and traffic improvements Some of which are two !!-foot moving lanes, I 0 foot parking lane, six foot wide bicycle lane and a beautiful median. The Castro District is one of the most successful retail shopping districts in the city. A lot of restaurants moved back into the district after t h e construction was completed. In San Francisco, residential projects range from 30 units per acre at Del Norte Place to 43 units per acre a t Park Regency. Pleasant Hill in San Francisco has over 1,600 housing units and 1.5 million square feet o f office space. In the San Francisco area, trans i t-based housi n g is really a hot idea. Some of the transit stations have over 98% rental occupancy within eight months and most have 30 to 50 units per acre. Most stations are being targeted at the more luxurious crowd over the typical commuters. Some of the developments have retail o n the bottom floor and some do not. The Crossings in Mountain View, California is a tentative plan to locate new housing on a failed shopping plaza site A new transit stop has also be opened in hopes of forming a transit plaza. High density single family houses (16 units1acre) have been built on this site. 88

PAGE 92

Northeast San Francisco includes Nob, Russian and Telegraph Hills, North Beach and F isherman's Wharf. Northeast San F rancisco has the highest density of all the San Francisco areas. Since the revitaliution and build up around transit stations in San Franc i sco there has been a lot o f infill and densification around BART transit stations. Northeast San Francisco is within easy walking distance of to the downtown business and commercial center Residen ts ofNortheast San Francisco roughly average 5,500 VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled} per household per year. Daly City primarily serves as a residential suburb of San Francisco, although there is some business employment, and region-serving retail Overall density for the city is 17 dwelling units per gros s acre and single family housing predominates. Some development is mixed-use with retail on the ground floor and apartments up above. In some b l ocks a shopping center is located at one end with condominiums at the other T h e r e are two reg i onal malls and several smaller malls located within the city. ln Daly City new development is also in the fonn of i nfi ll densification or redevelopment. There is more hous ing than jobs in Daly City, most of the people work in San Francisco, or at the San F r anc i sco Airport. Travel surveys approximate I ,920 V T and 14,500 VMT per HH per year, as well as 59"/o auto-driver mode share Richmond i s not a city with much employment so more people live there than work there. In Richmond new development is also in the fonn of infill, densification or redevelopment Overall density is eight dwelling units per gross acre, with denser development loc ated closer to transit stations and corridors. There are about I 930 VT and J 4,540 VMT traveled per HH per year, and 63% auto-driver mode share. Mill Valley is a residential suburb and, like Richmond, more people live there rather than work there Most of the people commute to San Francisco or other near by towns. The overall density is two dwelling unit s per gross acre, with downtown apartment density at29 dwelling units per gross acre and no mixed use is present. Downtown Mill Valley is where most people shop but it does not employ many people. The city has a lot of open space and encourages infill, densification and redevelopment People from Mill Valley average about1 700 VT and 14,150 VM T per HH per year and 60% auto driver mode share Fairfield functions as a residential suburb. Many people work at a local military base, but access between i t and residential areas are limited. Density is 1 3 dwelling units per unit acre and is constan t throughout the city. Most residences are located more than a mile from the shops, which does not 89

PAGE 93

employ many people at all. Commercial uses are located downtown in suburban style centers Most development is new because the city is not yet buil t out. Fairfield has joi ned other cities and Solano County in adopting a greenbelt plan separating city developments. T here roughly 2 500 VT a nd 19, 980 VMT per HH and 72% auto-driver mode share Oakland is a social, cu l tural, business and government ce nter Oakland s overall density is 4.3 dwelling units per gross acre but is m uch higher around transit stations Most residences are within walking dista n ces of commercial areas but are sometimes mixed in between commercial and i n dustrial areas. Oakland i s trying to strengthen its city core wit h t he development of City Center an office-retail complex around a rapid-rail BART station. Oakland is also deve lop ing middle-income housing next to City Center and is working to employ residents of the older neighborhoods in industrial areas. Most modem development is in the form of redevelopment, reuse or infill. U nlike San Francisco, Oakland h as an even balance of jobs and housing There are roughly 1 710 V T and I 0 770 VMT per HH per year and 55% auto-driver mode share. San Jose wanted to keep the city core strong so they invoked ligh t rail transit as a way to tty to prev e nt subwban business expansion This kept the downtown commercial and gove mment area strong. There is now 3.7 millio n square feet of office space, a new convention center six new hotels were built between 1980 and 1990. A 20,000-seat arena was opened on the edge of downtown. There i s also a new transit mall six blocks long. The Guadalupe Corridor lig ht rail line connects with buses and conn ects downtown with Silicone Valley. There is also a historic trolley loop on the weekends There is a definite positive impact of transit in San Jose. Economic housing development in the Santa Clara Valley (next to San Jose ) is in extreme demand due to the p r ox im ity and success of Silicon Vall ey. Transitorien te d development is now in demand along the Tasman Light Rail West Line and there is now a child -c are center at Tamieo St1ltion. There will be high-density housing at the Guadalupe Corridor Light Rail line at the Almaden park and-ride lot. Future plans include the same development at Chenoweth st1ltion to help promote transit ridership. Champion Station now serv es 180,000 emp l oyees as well as resid en ts of area housing and a mobile ho me park. Cities are now reclassifying land for residential use. Mountain View, California just switched 40 industrial acre s into a site for 520 hous ing units for development purposes at the Whisman Light Rail statio n. 90

PAGE 94

South Florida (Miami) The South Florida area being considered is Broward County Dade County and Palm Beac h County. South Florida has four transit agencies: Metro-Dade Transit Agency-Miami-bus rail and people mover, Broward County T ransit-Ft. Lauderdalebus Palm Beach County Transportation Authority West Palm Beach bus and Tri-County Commuter Rail Authoritya commuter rail i n all three counties Met r o-Dade Transit Agency The Metrorail system opened i n 1984 and extends from Okeechobee Station to Dadeland South Station I t has 21 stations about one mile apart. Tri-Rail service began in 1989 and the Metrorail has parking at 17 of the 21 Metrorail stations. Its closest station in 5.5 miles north of Miami's CBD. T he T ri-rail does not serve Miami but the Peoplemover does. The Metromover began service in 1986. Government Center Station is the main transfer point to t he Metromov e r system. Brickell Station is a new transfer station between the Metrorail and the Metromover since it opened in 1994. You do have to walk 150 feet from theMetrorail to the Metromover. The Metromover loop inc l udes nin e stations, seven stations serve the inner and outer loop. 12 stations have been added (six to eac h leg) bri nging the total to 21 stations. Transfers to the Metrorail can be made at Government Center Station and Brickell Statioo. Every Metrorail station is served by at least one Metrobus route. The Omni and Brickell extensions ha v e two new interrnodal Metromover-Metrobus locations. At the Omni location, I 6 routes accommodate a new 1 0 bay off-street bus terminal is next to the Metromover station. At the Brickell Station, the four route Metro bus station has five on-street bays a few feet from the Metromover station. The off-street bus stations have shelters and benches while the on-street stations have neither. The only intermodallink between the T ri-rail and Metrorail is at the 79" Street Station in Northern Dade County. TriRail was constructed in 1989 as temporary relief ofl-95 traffic during a construction phase. I t is a 67-mile route that services from Miami to West Palm with 15 stations. Three more stations have 91

PAGE 95

been added since the original plans: one in West Palm and two in Hollywood. The major intennodal linkage is with the Metrorail at 79" Street. Tri-Rail also had a dedicated feeder bus service. Broward County Transit is a fixed route bus system in Ft. Lauderdale and Hollywood. Some of the routes serve Dade and Palm Beach County. The Tri-Rail has a connection on Route Seven in Hollywood but none serve th e Metrorail. Pa lmTran is the public transportation bus service for Palm Beach County. The West Palm Beach/Boca Raton urbanized area contains 775,000 people. No routes served Tri-Rail until the J 996 expansio n There are a lo t of intermodal connections between the three public transportation services in South Florida: commuter railheavy rail (Tri-RailMetrorail), heavy railpeople mover (Metrorail Metromover), commuter railbus (Tri-Raillocal bus/feeder bus), heavy railbus (Metrorail Metrobus), people mover bus (MetromoverMetrobus), commuter raila uto (fri-Rail parking), heavy rail-auto (Metrorail parking), airport connections throughout South Florida Metroraii-Metrobus Each of the 21 s tat i ons are served by at least one bus route The big one here is Governrn ent Center with 21 ro u tes. Metromover-Metrobus The is little exchange (2%) between the two because the Metromover is already in the Center of Miami. Tri-Raii-Aut o mobile 15 of the 18 Tri-Rail stations have parking lots for rail passengers. There arc 1,738 parking spots but 75% of the spaces are at only two lots: Golden Glades and Cypress Creek. Metrorail-Automobile There is parking at 17 of the 21 Metrorail stations. Five stations have covered parking garages and there is a 2,000 space new parking garage at Dade land Nonh Station. 92

PAGE 96

Airports Tri-Rail offers bus service to all three airports but new extensions will soon serve the airport v.ith rail access. Boston, Massachusetts There are transit stops in the health care district and Boston bas developed a big retail center at Downtown Crossing. South Station revitalized Boston s retail and financial center. South Station serves commuter rails and buses. It is now a safe and very prosperous business center in Boston. There is 14 000 square feet of re tail that includes food, gift and service providers. The new Fleet Center is a sports arena for basketball and hockey as well as a subway station for the Ta great land use move. Industry and real estate are taking shape i n Boston and the markets are starting to redevelop again. Around South Station, vacancy rates are 27.4% and North Station and Fort l'oint Channel are both 24% vacant. Boston has converted the Charlestown Shipyard into a mixed-use project with I ,200 housing units, a hotel, two million square feet of commercial, office and research space and a marina. In Davis Square in Somerville a new Boston T-line bisected the comrnunity .lt used to be an old rail line passing through town which created a traffic backup whenever a train would come through This area prospered with community cooperation add i t i onal parking, an improved visual appearance and new development opportunities. Some ideas that were in mind were pedestrian safety wider sidewalks and roads, bike paths and working with an organization that would reuse the old rail line. There are also new brick pavings, upgraded lighting and is now a great meeting spot. Econom i cally, at first some retail stores became vacant but then were used for real estate offices and beaury salons. In 1993, a new I 00,000 square foot office and retail plaza was constructed. The Davis Square Transit Station rejuvenated Somerville and was a cata l yst to commercial development Davis Square is pedestrian-oriented and has no commuter parking for transit users; but there is a new plaza, restaurants and theater. The Southwest Corridor io Boston was a huge, very complicated project which required a lot of assistance from many communities and organiza t ions The Southwes t Corridor Project had to deal with the relocation of four and a half to five miles of track along the Orange Line. It included four commuter lines and Amtrak inner-city service. There are eight transit stations and three rail stations in this area. This spurred a new community college built along the line and two new high schoo ls 500 93

PAGE 97

new units of housing and 143 acres of parcel-to-parcel development. This also included a 4.7 mile long 52 acre-linear park with 20 playgrounds, 16 basketball courts and 90 community gardens. Once the community recognized that i t was nota transportation project but a community development project, they were much more willing to get involved. Mixed development was also a big part of the project making sure to revitalize aU parts of the community and realizing that ther e was a need to have in-place demographics. T o insure this an 850 000 squar e foot office complex hotel, apartment and parking construction with retail space was developed. The Back Bay in Boston is a la te 19'' century example of a high density, mixed-use neighborhood located along a rail transit line. Back Bay is positioned with Downtown Boston to the east and Kenmore Square to the West. This development has remained a highly desirable transit-and pedestrian-oriented neighborh ood for over a century. Because of drainage problems, it was deemed an 'undesirable' place to live. So the planners of Boston needing to accommodate the growing population by carefully locating major institutions, the construction of attractive public streets, parks and a variety of transit options there. Back Bay evolved from a horse-car to an electri c trolley service area. Retail, office and civic uses primarily occur along Boylston Street. Newberry Street has become a specialty retail center. High density attached townhomes and apartment buildings arc evenly distributed throughout t he Back Bay neighborhoo d. Higher density housing occurs at street comers and along Commonwealth Avenue: Back Bay timctions as a distinct neighborhood with edges and a concise system of s treets open spaces and housing Chicaeo. Illinois Chicago bas several stations located on the newly rehabilitated Green Line. The CaliforniaJLake Station has access to two sports arenas and an industrial park. Some potential ideas for the area around the Califomia/lakestationare low-cost housing after that moderate priced housing would then be implemented. Garfield Boulevard Station is a poor area today that needs improvement. It needs housing and some aesthetically pleasing sites around it. Union Station is a great home for local businesses after its renovation. Union Station is adjacent to many offices, retail and 65,000 people. Chicag o has transit that has plans that is will to incorporate hotels businesses, conventions and act ivities into their new transit routes. 94

PAGE 98

Lake Forest, Illinois is an affl uent community that focuses around t he importance of transit use and sews a community together in urban society. If transit is easy and accessible people of all i ncome leve l s a n d ages will use it. Elmhurst, Illinois is a commun i ty 15 miles west of Downtown Chicago of 42,000 people, that needed to b e revitalized in order to have better efficient use of its transit s tation. This, in turn, would also benefit the City of Ch icago. One improvement was the Metra Station, which has been remodeled and now ha s an ornamental setting of t r e es flowers and a congr egatio na l area for people to wait in when expecting the arrival of th e train. Downtown Elmhurst also was beautified by the addition of benches and flo wers Grass and trees were used t o shie ld the view of parkin g lots fro m inside some of the new open spaces downtown. A public/pri va t e ven t ureship also spawned a new 90-unit apartment b uilding called Elmhurst Place, wh ich was conv enientl y located adjacentto the railroad tracks an d 9 000 square feet of retail in a c ity parking s t ructure. TheY ork Theater was also renovated and made i n to three s ma lle r theaters A few years after the renovation some new retail moved in next store. To accommodate parking, two parking garages were built downtown. Other new editions in downtown i nc l uded a h i storic museum a 20-u n it condominium complex and a 60-uoit low income senior housing project. Burlingto n Northern Line/Proposed 1-355 Station was in 1995, a proposed bus/rail interrnodal connectio n so that peopl e could get i n to Downto wn Chicago quickly. The sit e was also a soft commercial market and it was decided that it would not be sufficien t enough to have a high density r eta il esta blishment, so a parking garage was constructed there inst ead. It was recommended that the Matra have individual parcels so t h at build-to-suit parcels could be developed in the future. Wisconsin Central Line/ Antioch S tation is a proposed site where Antioch is at the end of the Wisconsin Centra l Line. Antioch has two main areas: the first is a 1950s vint age str i p and a grocery store and the s econ d is two other "small downtown" streets. This area has the potential to grow from all the people comi n g in from Wisconsin, but Antioch has been classified as an "old t imer" place. Future plans include linking of the resident-orien ted transi t dev elo pmen t area do.,.ntown. The goal is t o have retail that is pedestrian-fri end ly and make peop le want to come there and enjoy their time while in Antioch. 95

PAGE 99

Rock Island Line/Brainard Station is a stop on Chicago's south side on the Rock Island Commuter line. it is an Ati:ican-American middle-class community that hopes to be transformed into a transit oriented community. The community wants to shrink the commercial area to less than half the present level and would also like to add a library to the area as well. The major shopping areas are along 87'" Street and along A s hland The community would also like to have traditional sing l e family homes in this area. The Riverside community in Chicago, Illinois is a low density, primarily residential neighborhood oriented towards transit. Riverside is a complex system of curvilinear streets and that was much different from the grid style of the current era. It was one of the earlier attempts to attract residents to the suburbs on a large scale. Riverside is a I ,600acre site located on the Des Plaines River, nine miles west of the employment center of Chicago. Riverside has a town center with a railroad station, hotel, comnwcial and institutional buildings and high-density residences. All of the curvilinear streets lead to the railroad station with nice sidewalks. Open space i s very accessible ftom the streets as a series of smaller parks and linear green space. A large park area along tbe Des Plaines River and a recreation area provides the open space for Riverside. Riverside is mostly made up of single family h omes There are offices, retail, and higher density residences as you get closer to the transit station. St. Louis. Missouri In St. Louis Wellston Delmar and East Riverfront Stations are currently undergoing changes. Wellston Station has the potential for 825,000 square feet of industrial operations in a pre-existing park. The Wellston Metrolink is prospering due to people and economic activity, hopefully it will spread to mixed-use commercial, industrial and housing area, which could also support some retail. Delmar Station currently has office plazas and would really be receptive to some landscaping and a transit mall. Some suggestions are a 80,000 square foot convenience center, parking and hous ing area. East Riverfront has created a whole new image for itself. It has potential for a waterfront entertainment center including a gambling boat, entertainment, retail, hotels and nature oriented activities. Dallas. Texas A n ew mixed-use project is being built next to Dallas Area Rapid Transit's (DART) Mockingbird Station. It will contain retail, restaurants 500,000 square feet of office space and a 96

PAGE 100

convention center is planned for the future as well as expanded retail and hotels. Denver. Colorado T he first light rail transit in Denver is a 5.3-mile central corridor project. It entails a 640 space park and-ride lot, a major shopping center a higher education campus for three colleges and the 16"' Street T ran sit Mall in the central business district. Lac Am ora is a neighborhood in Broomfield, Colorado, in the northern part of the Den ver metropolitan area. It is bounded on the south and west by the Burlington Northern Railroad. It includes a residential subdivision, an industrial employment area and a commercial strip of retail shops, restaurants and auto-oriented services There are no complete sidewalks in this are11. There are roads which break up the streets and lead to industrial and commercial employment centers. There have been about 1,000 dwelling units built in Lac Amora and two-thirds of them are single family homes. The rest are a mixture of apartments and townhomes. The resident population is about 2 600 (1995) and has 260 acres with a gross density of 2.8 units per acre. Employment in the commercial and industrial area is 7,000 peop le. There is about 3 7 million square feet of commercial and industrial space built in Lac Amora It is expected that infill and development will continue in non-residential areas. There is a park-and-ride in the development since most people commute to work Las Vegas, Nevada Las Vegas is becoming a very popular spot for tourists and businesses. A $25 million p rojec t has been completed on an experimental monorail for the MOM Grand Hotel & Theme Park. It can transport 4,000 people per hour along a 3.5-mile loop and it's free It has no direct access to the airport but could be the start of something big for Las Vegas. Memphis, T ennessce Memphis is going to build a pyramid along the Mississippi River with the same hopes that it will do for Memphis what the infamous arch did for St. L ouis. There wi.ll be a 22,000 -seat convention center inside the pyramid. Along with this new development comes tourism, new d emand for office space, 97

PAGE 101

hotels retai.l and a trolley line. There is presently a theme park near downtown Memphis, but it is losing money year after year M emphis also hopes to draw the American Music Awards Hall of Fame, National College F ootball Hall of Fame and a Hard Rock Cafe in the future. New York, Ne w York The New York/New Jersey area has decided to renovate its subway system. This is going to improve the transit police, signaling, architecture and will include retail to help boost station area profits They are tr y ing to get r i d of the homeless people from sleeping in the transi t stations and will be removing graffiti. They are also trying to get the forty-odd types of businesses to move back to the subway stations. If new companies e n courage transit, workers get fare cuts and employers get tax breaks Columbus Circle Market is a subway station plaza in New York City. New economic development opportuniti e s are present in the plaza. Safety and cleanliness can raise transit numbers and lower people fears New York City hopes to have a station manger at each of the 469 stations Forest Hills Gardens in New York is an early 20"' century medium density, primarily residential neighborhood loc ated in Queens. It is loc ated 15 minutes by rail from Manhattan Forest Hills Gardens follows the Garden City example from the Hampstead Garden Suburb. I t is a sequentially organized neighborhood based on a continuous line of movement from the cailroad station to Forest Park. The Russell Sage foundation wanted the appearance of the country but s till w i th i n commuting distance ofNew York' s employment centers. This was done by the arrangement of streets structures and open s pace s Three pri ncipals guided this development: the first was that the main tbrougbfares should be direct, ample and convenient. Second all other roads mus t be quiet attractive residential streets The final principal was that the entire neighborhood should be organized around smaller units with quiet streets and small-scale public open spaces The combined train station and subway stop estab lish the main center. The main civic open space is carefully defi ned by buildings, located at the transit station. An elementary schoo l and tennis club are a lso located within the boundaries of this garden suburb Hote ls, retail, civic/institutional, and reside n tial use s are located within Forest Hills Gardens. The highest densi t ies are loca ted around the transit station. The irregular blocks, uniform lan dscaping, housing types architectural charac ter and station square separate Forest H ills from the surrounding areas of Queens. 98

PAGE 102

Buffalo, New York Buffalo is seek in g federal funds for a new rail station. If successful, they will abandon the current one a nd build a new s tation close to the Crossroads Sports Arena and Inner Harbor development. This would also transform Lower Main Street into a prime recreational, commercial and tourist area. The former home of the Buffalo Sabers hockey team, Memorial Stadium, will become an aquarium research center, l arge film format theater and a planetarium. In Buffalo, the new rail system has helped convert Buffalo from a declining manufacturing and port city to a service-oriented city. Northern New Jersey Woodbridge Station in New Jersey created and developed a sense of place for a town where people could gather togethe r and relax before work. Woodbridge Station is at a major highway intersection. People wanted to feel safe and clean they wanted either a coffee shop or newspaper shop in the station. Ask the people what they want and then they will patronize your establishment. Some of the communities have commuting vans that bring people to and from the rail station, which will reduce park-and-ride and congestion. This is a very good and popular idea Four other stations that were studied included Bradley Beach a tourist location, Maplewo o d a suburban station in a residential/business district, Netherwood, a historic station in a depressed urban center and Rahway a station with a high volume of passenger usage. The North ShoreofNew Jersey is a changing place due to new ferry and bus service. In 1994, about 500,000 square feet of office space was leased at the Jersey City Waterfront at Exchange Place and the Newport office towers. There has also been some new retail activity at the Newport Mall. Also several new large stores opened up on the A venue of the Americas near the 14th Street Station and the 23"' Street Station. Pla ns are in the works for the Meadowlands for a $850 million sports-theme complex, a busines s/r etail and entertainment center as weU as a regional transportation hub. There is 1.4 million new square feet of space for a passenger rail station, a 600-room hotel and 100 000 squ ar e feet of office space. There will also be an elevated passenger rail station to accompany the proposed Secaucus transfer statio n. 99

PAGE 103

I n 1992, the state agreed with Allied Junctio n Corporation to operate a 50,000 square foot rail station at the Secaucus/Allied Junction. This station would link together a great part of N orthern New Jersey Allied realized that they had a great potential for land development and wanted to build office complexes. Some 70,000 commuters arc expected to use this station throughout the day. Amtrak also serves this station and they are working on a new signal detection system that will allow for an increase in departing trains from 18 to 30 per hour. There are plans for four, 20 to 40-story office towers (3 million square feet), a 600-room hotel and conference center 115 ,000 square feet of retail and 4,400 parking spaces. It will be a $1 billion project on 28 acres. Seattle. Retail development is being encouraged at the new Tacoma Dome Station. Current plans have 74 stores waiting to move in. Seattle express riders will also have a new six level I ,200 space parking garage. It will be added value for the passengers and will provide an e conomic boost to the community. There is also a Freighthouse Square shopping center nearby and there are hopes that the many closed warehouses and businesses will reopen. This new station will have bus connections and will connect to the SeattleTacoma airport. Wasbjogt9n, D.C.N A/Man land area Washington, D.C. has more edge cites than any other city in America, 16 to be exact. The most notable are Tyson's Square and the Rosslyn/Ballston area. Tyson's Comer has 5,000,000 square feet of office space and over 600,000 square feet of retail. Tyson's Corner sponsors KRS Associates of Reston for development advice. KRS is calling for development at transit stops. It is thought they will recommend three new rail routes. One to the eastWest Falls Church Metro Station one to the west connecting Tyson's Corner to the DullesWashington D.C. to the west, and another could be to Bethesda. Also three new I 00acre complexes each with up to I 0 million square feet of office space and u p to 5,000 dwelling units. The Metro in Washington, D.C. definitely has an influence on pulling compan ies out of the expensive inner-city and to the cheaper oftice leases in the suburbs. At Lincoln Towers in Washington D .C.'s Ballston Station there are two-22 story towers for residences and 2,471 residential units and 3 7 million square feet of office space within a third of a mileall built since 1984. In Ballston, city planning and zoning ordinances really encourage transit station area growth. 100

PAGE 104

Tile Ballston Metro Center is a mixed-use reta il, commerc i al housing, hotel bus and rail station. The bus and rail station is underneath a huge 26-story building. It has 135 apartment units per acre 136 t o 210 units per acre for hotels and up to 1.9 million square feet of office space, contingent of at least I, 700 new unit dwellings there These are some of the deals that have happened to expand this area. There has been a lot of build up of other trans i t-related offices and retail. WMATA in Washingto n D.C. is encouraging joint stat ion area development. Joint development means development of land owned or controlled by the authority, at or near Metrorai l stations, often under long-term leases. Two stat ions t hat h ave been proposed ar e King Street M etro r ail Station and Van Dorn Street Mctrorail Station. The King Street Station is a residential project with 160 dwellings and 17 500 square feet of retail. The Van Dom Street Station would have 340 multi-family units with some retail and a new 410 spa c e parking garage Grand Union s tation is a very active station with subway and light rail and h as t urned into a huge retail market place. Metro Grove Station incorporated a chil dcare station facility in the station which will help attract new users. In Washington D.C. s i nce Rosslyn station opened up with a direc t line to National Airport there have been 2 500 residential units and eight million square feet of office space built. Chevy Chase Village is a trolley-oriented neighborhood from 1892 with several stops along a main street. The initial phase of development required the construction o f Connecticut Avenue and a trolley line for abou t five miles t o be able t o be connected to Washi n gton, D C. The neighborhood center revolves around Chevy Chase Circ l e and the trolley station. There are mos t ly single-family detached homes in this area. Com m ercial uses were sp e cifica lly included and a town hall and library are also part of the development. RF &P Corporation of Richmond is going to pay for a new s ubway station at Potomac Yard, south of Was h ington National Airport in Virginia The station will be at the junction of two Metro lines and will be part of a 342-acre development that includes 5,000 housing units, 500 000 square feet o f retail and several mid-rise office buildings. It will also link with Amtrak, commuter rail lines bus lines p e destrian and bike trails Arlington County, Virginja Arlington County is an urban county located across the Potomac River f rom Was h ington DC Arlington has m aintai ne d their high-quality resident ia l neighborhoods while suppo rting well-managed 10 1

PAGE 105

growth. T he areas central location in the Washington metropolitan area, its ease of access by car and Metrorail and the high-quality labor force have attracted an increasingly varied residential and employment mix which is good for the area. Arlington County has focused high-density commercial and residential development around Metrorail stations in the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor and in the Jefferson Corridor which includes Pentagon City and Crystal City. Arlington is an employment and residen tial center and had a 1993 population of I80,IOO.In the last 10 years, the office market has generated 15.5 million square feet of new space, bringing the total of office/commercial spac e to 31.4 million square feet. There are two corridors in Arlington, Virginia: the Rosslyn-Ballston (RB) and Jefferson Davis (JD). With regard to commercial development: 95% of more than 30 million square feet of office space in the County is within walking distance of metro stations; as well as I 00% of hotel rooms. In twelve years of residential development (1980-1991): out of the 13,207 new units built, 8,908 were built in Metro corridors; 88% of all new units built in the two metro corridors were mid-or high rise projects; and all of the 2,499 built in the JD Corridor were high-rise units. Carlyle is a contemporary example of a high detisity mixed-use development located next to the King Street Metro Station. Carlyle is an 86-acre site in Arlington, Virginia presently located by rail yards and industrial buildings. The scale of the neighborhood is based on a quarter mile walking distance to trans it Carlyle has been defined as an "urban quarter" which means that it has historic and baroque cityscape concepts, a legible pattern of streets, axial views and enclosed circles courtyards and plazas. There are two Metro stations located within walking distance of all portions of Carlyle. The use of transit and car pooling are very encouraged in this community. Five open spaces serve as centers of pedestrian activity. This high-density neighborhood has a balance of housing retail and office space. There is also a federal court house a hotel, day care, theater and under-ground parking. There is also retail on the bottom floor of some of the rental units. Monteomen County. Maryland Montgomery County is a mixrure of urban suburban and agricultural uses with approximately 750,000 people. Montgomery County is encouraging development along the urban ring of development adjacent to Washington, DC along the 1-270 corridor. The county is encouraging new 102

PAGE 106

transit-oriented development, but is disappointed in the fact that the increase of new housing is only 8% within walking distance of a transit station Dupont Circle in Washington, DC after receiving a Metro stop is in a great position to be assured mixed-use housing. The average den s ity housing of the Victorian townhouse s is 1 0 to 14 units per acre. These houses have been subdivided to range from efficiencies to 4-5 bedroom homes while the densities ranged from 22-40 units per acre. Few apartments buildings are taller than five stories and there is a lot of open green space. Activities around the circle include offices, retail, embassies hotels groceries cinemas and private clubs. Cleveland Park is an old streetcar suburb just outside of Wash i ngton DC. C l eveland Park is a mixed-use community containing shops, offices and apartment buildings along Connecticut Avenue and si n gle family homes on side streets. Densities of this area range from six to eight units per acrejust north of Connecticut Avenue densities range from 40 to 60 units per acre. Ellicott City, Maryland is an old mill town and site of the first passenger railroad stop in the U.S. A restoration effort has revived the town shops restaurants services and government sector jobs as well as single family houses and loft-style apartments The demographics could easily support a rail stop but unfortunately there is no longer rail service in this area. There are tracks leading stra ight to Balt i more but the potential for a stop does exist. The Bethesda Central B usine ss District's (CBD) latest master plan was developed by the Montgomery County P lanning Department and the plan was approved in 1994. This CBD has been the site of substantial recent development spurred by the presence of a Metrorail station and a strong office reta il and residential market. There is also a vibrant mixed-use activity center. The pedestrian oriented nature of Bethesda is a benefit for those who work live and visit Bethesda Some specifications concerning the development of the Bethesda CBD is that it covers 405 acres and has 7,000,000 square feet of existing office space and 2 300 000 square feet of existing retail space. There are 39,000 existing jobs with the potential employment of 45, 000 jobs. Housing presently has 5,000 units with the pot ential for 7 300 un i ts The NOAA in the Silver Spring CBD covers 268 acres in th e southern portion of Montgomery County and the plan was approved in 1993. Within the CBD there is a potential for approximately three million square feet of commercial development and for 5,600 dwelling units. Transit service is 1 03

PAGE 107

provided at the Silver Spring Metro station. A new Silver Spring MARC station will be located adjacent to the Metro station to form the Silver Spring Tr.msit Center. The bus transfer facility adjacent to the Metro station is plrumed to be enlarged. The planned station of the Georgetown Branch Transitway is also to be located at the Transit Center. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is located immediately south of the Metro/CSX/AMTRAK tracks adjacent to the Silver Spring T ransit Center. The N OAA de ve lopm ent area will have a total of five phases with 1,200,000 square feet of office space, 30,000 square feet of retail and 200 apartments. Rock Spring Centre will be one of the East Coasts premier office parks in Rock Spring Park. Rock Spring Park is bounded by the two spurs ofl-270, Democracy Boulevard and Old Georgetown Road. The North Bethesda-Garrett Par k Master !'Jan contains several ideas to improve the functional quality of this important area. This area will be served by the North Bethesda Tr.msitway. This elevated transitway will extend between the Grosvenor Metro station across Rock Spring park to the Montgomery Mall. Rock Spring Center is a proposed mixed-use center that will enliven this important area By combining the vibrant retail area, multi-family dwellings office space with civic and institutional uses ; this project will establish a transit-supportive center. Rock Spring Centre is 54 acres, and bas the poteotial office space of 830,000 to 900,000 square feet The potential retail space is 150,000 square feet and potential housing is I ,250 units. There will also be a community center institutiona l buildings (places of worship), and a theater or cinema. The Shady Grove area cannot underestimate the potential of future transit service The master plan designates that there will be three separate transitways as well as regional bus routes. In areas where there are lower intensity employment uses are recommended, the master plan suggests that there will be more buildings built toward bus routes. The land use design concepts are based on traditional neighborhood concepts. Housing employment, services, retail and public spaces are integrated at the neighborhood level and are tied together by transitways (rail or bus), streets, bikeways and sidewalks. There will be a potential total of 10,900 h ousing units and potential office buildings of24,850,000 square feet and 84,300 jobs. Transportation Demand Management was incorporated into the new Rockville Center in Maryland. By locating a new office complex adjacent to a transit station, it was decided that it would encourage employees to use public transportation; thus not encouraging any more congestion This philosophy 104

PAGE 108

increased the size of an office/retail project from 450,000 to 825,000 square feet. This region is served by the Metrorail system and by MARC-Maryland commuter rail system. The master plan for Courthouse Square in Rockville Town Center's was approved in 1993. The vision of the master plan is for it to be a "focal point of civic, social, business and government activity where people live, work and participate in entertainment and community activities" and it wi ll be pedestrian-oriented. The proposal is to replace a regional shopping mall which has closed with mixed use de velop m ent with traditional design concepts of grid streets and street level retail. There will also be a r etai l on both sides of a pedestrian plaza. The size of this development will be 8.4 acres I ,275,000 square feet of potential office space, 192 ,000 square feet of potential retai l space and 117 housing units. 105

PAGE 109

106

PAGE 110

References Southern California Associa t ion of Governments Prototype Transportation/ Land Use Ordinance and Report. January, 1987. METRO Magazine. Riders In Pittsburgh Have Many Commuting Options. January !February 1990. pp 32-35. Ross, Bruce Mass Transit. All Aboard at Allied Junction. April, 1990. Vol. XVII. pp. 22-23. Levine Lenny. METRO Magazine L.A Light Rail Opening Is Just the Beginning May/June 1990. pp. 22-36. Calthorpe Associates, Mintier & Associates. Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines. Sacramento Coun t y Planning & Community Development Department. Sep tember, 1990. Levine, Lenny. METRO Magazine New York Transit Rises From Deathbed With Vigor September/October 1990. pp. 23-53 Gallagher, Mary Lou Planning. A Pyramid Along the Mississippi June, 1991. pp 13-J 5 Pious, F.K. Planning. Suburban Choo-Choo June, 1991. pp. 24-30. ME TRO Magaz ine. US. Urban Transit Rail is having a Renaissance. September/October 1991. pp. 58-59 City of Portland, Office of Transportation. Designing Our Future: A Charrel/e at the Regional Rail Summit. 1992. Hamblen Matt. Planning. Frontier/and April 1992. pp. 16-21. Sacramento Regional Transit. Transit Master Plan: Transit/Land Use Coordination and Lon g Range Development. April, 1992. 107

PAGE 111

METRO Magazine. The Passengers are in Charge at Maryland's Commuter Rail Line. March/Apri11993. pp. 24-25. Regional Transpo rtation Commission of Washoe County, Nevada. Planning for Transit: A Guide for Community and Site Planning. June, 1992. Callhorpe Associates. Transit-Orienred Desig n Guidelines. City of San Diego. August, 1992. Greater Denver Chamber of Commerce, DRCOG and Regional Transportation District. Suburban Mobiliry Design Manual. February, 1993. Transportation Rule Working Group, Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Association. Recommendations for Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Friendly Development Ordinances. February, 1993. Montgomery County Planning Department; Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Transitand PedestrianOriented Neighborhoods Design Study: A Strategy for Communiry Building in Montgomery County, Maryland. March, 1993. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Transit-Based Housing Symposium; Emerging Designs for Transit-Based Communities: Case Studies ojThree Metro Stations. April 1993 Miller Richard M. Urban Land. Joint Development at Ballston Metro Center. June, 1993. pp. 2224. Gilson, James R. and F. Michael Fran cis. Urban Land. Planning/or joint development in Los Angeles. Jun e, 1993. pp. 30-32. Metropolitan Transit De velopment Board. Designing For Transit: A Manual for Integrating Public T ransportation and Land Development in the San Diego Metropolitan Area July, 1993. Bernick, M ichael. Urban Land. The Bay Area's Emerging Transit-Based Housing. July, I 993. pp. 38 -4 J. 108

PAGE 112

Fisher, Bonnie. U rban Land Seizing the Opportunity in Military Base Closures. August 1993. pp. 11. Anas, Alex and Armstrong, Regina Transit Access and Land Value: Modeling the Relationship in the New York Metropolitan Area. Regional P lan Association. U.S. Department ofTransponation (FT A). September, 1993. Clements Joe Urban Land. A Tale ofTwo Cities. October 1993. pp. 17-26, 83-86 Garcia, Raul. Urban Land. TDM at Rockville Center. November 1993 pp. 21 23. City of Los Angeles Planni n g Departme n t and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transponation Authority. Land Use/ Transportation Policy Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations for Implementations. Final Report and Appendix December 1 993. Sno h omish County Transportation Authority (SNO TRAN). A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation. Volume II: Applying the Concepts. Decemb e r, 1 993. Brennan, Henry H and Peter W. Dewes Urban Land Allied Junction/Secaucus Transfer Station, New Jersey. December 1993. pp. 29-31 Bernick, Michae l and Robert Cervero Passenger Transport. Transit-Based Development in the United States. January 10,1994. Vol. 52, No.2. pp 7-8 Sandlcr-Dretchmer Valerie and Deborah L Brett Urban Land. Allracting Tourists to Mass Transit. February, 1994. pp. 16-20. Bernick Michael and Cervero, Robert. TransitBased Residential Development in the United States Federal Transit Administration March, 1994. Major Michael J. Urban Land. Containing the Growth in the Pacific Northwest. March 1994. pp 15-18,44 Urban Land. Transit on the Move in San Diego. April, 1994. pp. 14-15. 109

PAGE 113

Hess Stephen and Meyer Paul I. Urban L and Santa Fe Depot-Repositioning an Urban Development Plan April 19 94 pp. 62-64. The Wa s hington Regional Network for Livable Commun i ties. A New Approach : Integrating Transportation and Development in the National Capital Region. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. May 1 994. Passenger T ransport. Atlanta Prepares to Transport Olympic Crowds in 1996. June 13, 1994. Vol. 52 No. 24. pp. 6 Passe nger Transport. New Cleveland Line Adds Service to N orth Coast. June 13, 1994 Vol. 52, No. 24. pp. 17. Passenger Transport. Buffalo Seeks Federal Funds for New Rail Station. June 13, 1994. Vol. 52, No 24. pp. 1 7 Bernick, Michael; Cervero, Robert and Gilbert, Jill. Market Opportunities and Barriers to Transit-Based Development in California August, 1994. Urban Land An entertainment complex for the Meadowlandt August, 1994. pp. 11-12. B e rnick, Michael; Cervero, Robert and Menotti, Val. Comparison of Rents at Transit-Based Housing Projects in Northern California September 1994 City o f Gresham, Oregon. Community Development Department Transportation System Plan Transportation Land Use Standards Pr oject. November, 1994 Reg i onal Transportation Authority Center for Neighborhood Technology Routes to Future Growth: Fostering Transit Oriented Development in Northeastern lllinois February 1995. Arrington, Jr. G B Beyond the Field of Dreams: Light Rail Growth Management in Portland. Tri-Met. March, 1995. C ervero, Robert and Menotti Val. Transit-Based Housing in California: Profiles March, 1995. 110

PAGE 114

City of San Jose Departmen t of City Planning and Bui l ding. Tamien Stalion Area Specific Plan March, 1995. Carter, John and Matthias, John. Transit Supportive Land Use in Montgomery County, Maryland. Montgomery Coun ty P l anning Department and Maryland-Na t iona l Capital Park and Planning Commission. April, 1995 C i ty of Vancouver and Clark County, Washington. Transit Overlay District. May, 1995. Bowar Jane. Urban Land. Taking the Train. May 1995 pp. 2730. Dagang, Deborah A and Terry Parker. Transportation Related Land Use Strategies to Minimize Motor Vehicle Emissions: An Indirect Source Research Study. California Air Resources Board June, 1995. Passenger Trans port. NYINJ Port Authority Investment Pays off In Ridership June 12, 1995. Vol. 53, No. 24. pp. 13. City of San Diego Urban Village Overlay Zone July, 1995. D unphy, Robert T. Urban Land. Transportation-Oriented Development : Making a Difference? July, 1995. 32-36, 48. Creating Transit Supportile Regulations: A Compendium of Codes, Standards and Guidelines. Complied by the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington. August, !995. Knott Sydney W. Urban Land The Las Vegas Real Estate Market: A Sure Bet. August, 1995. pp. 52 57. Passenger Transport. Teamwork Guides Light Rail D evelopment in Denver N ovember 13, 1995 Vol. 53, No. 45 pp. 8 Guideway Transit and l ntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness Case Study: New Orleans (Dr a ft), Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South florida, 1995. Ill

PAGE 115

Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function and Effective ness Case Study: Los Angeles. Center for Urban Transportation Research. University of South F l orida. 1995. Guideway T ran sit and l n t ermodalism: Function and Effectiveness. Case SIUdy: Portland. Center for Urban Transportation Research. University of South Florida 1995 Passenger Transport Retail is proposed at Tacoma Site. January I, 1996 Vol. 54, No. I pp. 7. Planning. Private Developer to Pay for Subway Stop. January 1996 pp. 19-20. Major Michael J METRO Magazine. Portland, St. Louis WIN; Seattle, Phoenix LOSE. May/June 1996 pp 2024. Denver Regional Transportation District. Creating Livable Communities: A Transit -Friendly Approach. June, 1996 Salvesen, David. Urban Land. Promoting Transit-Oriented Development. July 1996. pp. 31-35, 87 Dunphy Robert T Urban Land. New Developments in Light Rail. July, 1996. pp. 37-41,87-88. Howland, Libby and Robert T Dunphy. Urban Land Transit Sparks Redevelopment in St. Louis and Chicago. July, 1996 pp. 43-46 88-89. METRO Magazine. Chesrer get a station-and a life. Septemb e rfOc tober 1996. pp 8 Guideway Transit and Intermodalism: Function and Effectiveness. Case Study: Atlanta. Center for U rban Transportation Research. Univers ity of South Florida. I 996. Transit and lntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness Case Study: Sacramento. Center for Urban Transporta tion Research. University of So uth F l orida. 1996 Alschu l er, Karen B and Sarah B. Smit h Dunp hy. Urban Land. Transit and De velopment St. Louis Metro/ink. April 1997. pp. 38-41,77. 112

PAGE 116

Passenger Transport. WMATA Moves on Metro Station Joint Development Plans. June 9 1997. Vol. 55, No. 23. pp. 5. Passenger Transport Child Care, Police Services to Open at Baltimore Metro Stop. June 9, 1997. Vol. 55 No. 23. pp. II. Allen Judith C. Passenger Transport. Cleveland's Water}Yont Line is already a Favorite of Riders. June 9, 1997. Vol. 55, No. 23. pp. 14. Passenger Transport Santa Clara Valley Sets Ridership Records for Light Rail. June 9, 1997. Vol. 55, No. 23. pp. 25. Passing Dunphy, Robert T. Urban Land. Gridlock. July, 1997. pp. 39-42, 68. Dunphy, Robert T Urban Land. Passing Gridlock If. November, 1997. pp. 58 -61, 83 Guideway Transit and Jntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness. Case Study: Cleveland. Center for Urban Transportation Research. University of South F l orida 1997. Guideway Transit and Intennodalism: Function and Effectiveness. Case Study: Pillsburgh. Center for Urban Transportation Research. University of South Florida. 1997 Guideway Transi t and l ntennodalism: Function and Effectiveness. Case Study: San Francisco. Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida. 1997 Guideway Transit and Intermodalism: Function and Effectiveness Case Srudy: South Florida Center for Urban Transportation Research. University of South F lorida 1997. Transit Cooperative Research Program. The Role ofTransit in Crearing Livable Metropolitan Communities. TCRP Reporr 22. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C 1997. Urban Land. Dallas Transit Station Prompts Mixed-Use Projecr. January, 1998 pp. 20-21. Urban Land. A Metro Transit Station Becomes a Cultural Oasis. January, 1998. pp. 21-23. 113

PAGE 117

Guideway Transit and lntermodalism: Function and Effectiveness Case Study: Baltimore. Center for Urban Transportation Research. University of South Florida. 1998 T ransit Cooperative Research Program. Traffic-Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Managemenr Strategies to Support Livable Communities. TCRP Report 33. National Academy Press. Washington, D C 1998. Association of Bay Area Government s and Bay Area Air Quali t y Management District. Design Strategi e s for Encouraging Alternatives to Auto Use Through Local Development Review. Undated BC T ransit ( Victoria, Canada). T r ansit Friendly Subdivision and Development Guidelines Undated City of H i llsboro, Oregon. D owntown Hillsboro Station Community Planning Process. Undated. Southern California Association of Governments. Prototype Transportation/ Land Use Ordinance and Report. January, 1987. Calt horpe Associates, Mintier & Associates Transit Oriented Development Design Guidelines Sacramento County Planni n g & Community Development Department. September 1990 City of Portland, Office of Transporta tion. Designing Our Future: A Charreue at the Regional Rail Summit. 1992. Sacramento Regional Transit. Transit Master Plan: Transit/ Land Use Coordination and Long Range Development. April 1992. Regional Transportation Commiss ion of Washoe County Nevada Planning for Tran s it : A Guide for Community and Site Planning. June, 1992. Calthorpe Associates Transit-Oriented Design Guidelines. City of San Diego. August, 1992. 114

PAGE 118

Greater Denver Chamber of Commerce DR COG and Transportation District. Suburban Mobility Design ManUCJI. February, 1993. Transportation Rule Working Group, Oregon Chapter of t h e Amer ican Planning Association Recommendations for Pedestrian, Bicycle and Transit Friendly Development Ordinances. February, 1993 Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Transit-Based Housing Symposium; Emerging Designs for Transit-Based Communities: Case Studies of Three Metro Stations. April, 1993. Montgomery County Plann ing Departmen t ; Maryland Nat ional Capital Park and Planning Commission Transitand Pedestrian Oriented Neighborhoods Design Study: A Strategy for Community Building in Montgomery County, Maryland. March, 1993. The Washington Regiona l Network for Livable Communities. A New Approach: Integrating Transportation and Development in the National Capital Region. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. May, 1993. Metropolitan Transit Development Board Designing For Transit: A Manual for Integrating Public Transportation and Land Development in the San Diego Metropolitan Area. J u ly, 1993 Anas Alex and Armstrong, Regina. Transit Access and Land Value: Modeling the Relationship in the New York Metropolitan Area Regiona l Plan Associa t ion. U.S. Department of Transportation (FTA) September, 1993. City of Los Angeles Plann ing Department and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportat ion Authority. Land Use/ Transportation Policy, Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations for Implementations Final Report and Appendix. December, 1993. Snohomish County Transportation Authority (SNO TRAN) A Guide to Land Use and Public Transportation. Volume II: Applying the Concepts. December 1 993. 115

PAGE 119

Bernick Michael and Cervera R obert. Transit Based Residential Development in the United States. Federal T ransit Admin is tration. March, 1994. Bernick. M ichael; Cervero, Robert and Gilbert, Jill Market Opportunities and Barriers to Transit-Based Development in California. August, 1994. Bernick, Michae l; Cervero Robert and Menotti, Val. Comparison of Rents at Tran sit-Based Housing Projects in Northern California September, 1994. City of Gresham, Oregon. Community Development Department Transportation System Plan. Transportation Land Use Standards Project November, 1994. Regional Transportation Authority Center for Neighborhood Technology Routes to Future Growth: Fostering Transit Oriented Development in Northeastern I/linois. February 1995 Arrington Jr. G B. Beyond the Field of Dreams: Light Rail Growth Management in Portland Tri-Met. March 1995 Cervera Robert and Menotti, Val. Transit-Based Housing in California: Profiles. March, 1995. City of San Jose, Department of City Planning and Building. Tamien Station Area Specific Plan March, 199 5. Carter John and Matthias, John T ransit-Supportive Land Use in Montgomery County, Maryland. Montgomery Co unty Planning Department and Maryland-National Capital Park and P lann ing Commission. April, 1995 City of Vancouver and Clark County, Washington Transit Overlay District. May, 1995 Dagang, Deborah A. and Terry Parker. Transportation Related Land Use Strategies to Minimize Motor Vehicle Emissions: An Indirect Source Research Study. California Air Resources Board. June, 1995. City of San Diego. Urban Village Overlay Zone July, 1995. 116

PAGE 120

Creating Transil Supportive Regulations: A Compendium of Codes, Standards and Guidelines. Complied by the Mwticipal Research and Services Center of Washingt on. August, 1995. Denver Regional Transportation Distr ict. C reating Livable Com munities : A Transit-Friendly Approa ch. Ju ne, 1996 Association of Bay Area Governments and Bay Area Air Quality Management Di stri c t. Design Strategies for Encouraging Alternatives to Auto Use Through Local Development Review. Undated BC Transit (Victoria, Canada). Transit Friendly Subdivision and Development Guidelines. Undated Cit y of Hillsboro, Oregon Downtown Hillsboro Station Community Planning Process. Undated. Asse l, Henry and C Samuel Cra i g (Ed). The Relationship a/Advertising Expenditures to Sales: A n Anthology of Classic Articles. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York, New York. 1986. Broadbent Si mon. The Advertiser's Handbook for Budget Determination, Lexington BooksDC Health and Company. Lexington,MA.I988. McNiver Malcolm A. (Ed) How Much To Spend For Advertisin g?. Associati o n ofNational Advertisers Inc. 1969. Robinson Patrick, J. (Ed) Advertising Measurement and Decision Making. Allyn and Bacon Inc. Boston MA. 19 68 1 1 7

PAGE 121

118

PAGE 122

GLOSSARY Source: #II Cal thorpe Associates Mintier & Associates Transit-Oriented Development Design Guideli n es. Sacramento County Planning & Community Development Department. September, 199 0. Activity Centers: Any site that attrac ts a large number of trips. Activity ce nters can i nclude major employment centers commercial districts or malls, transportation hubs and educa t iona l institutions. Arterial Street: A m aj or street (typically with four la n es) that carries traffic to and from collector and loca l streets to a freeway. Bus Transfer Station: A transfer station at which pas se nge rs transfer fro m bus to bus (e.g local line to fe eder line, feeder line to trunk line). Core Commercial Area: A mixed-use commercial area locate d immediate l y adjacent to a transit stop containing convenience retai l uses, offices and public uses such as a community center post o ffice, library, and civic services. Densification : The practice of developing properties at higher densities than existing properties.' Express Bus Service: Bus service that runs directly between its origin and its dest ination with few stops. Feeder Bus Line Network : Network of bus routes providing service to light rail stops or bus transfer stations on the trunk lin e network. Gridded Street Pattern: A network of road and streets that a r e organized i n a gri d shap e (parallel and perpendicular) T here are no cui-de-sacs or dead-end streets. HH (Household) : A group of people who live in a sing le family dwelling or residence In fi ll Area: A n area contain ing one or more vacant parcels s urrounded by urban development. ll9

PAGE 123

Jobs/Housing B alance: A community has a jobs/housing balance i f the number of jobs and the number of residents are about equal Light Rail Stop : Any place where a light rail train stops to pick up or drop off passengers. Local Street: A small street that carries only loca l traffic through neighborhoods. Local Transit Center: A bus stop or a bus transfer station located on the feeder bus line network within a Neighbor h ood T OD. Mixed Use Developm e nt: A design approach that fosters inte grat ion of compatible l and uses, such as shops, offices, and housi ng and encourages them to locate c l o ser together, or in the same building to decrease travel distance. Neighborhood TOD: A TOD emphasizing residential and local-serving retail uses that is located on a feeder bus line. No n TOD Uses: U ses which rep l y extensively upon automobile or truck trans portation for their business (e g heavy industrial uses warehousing distribution facilities and freeway commercial c omple xes). Reuse Area: An area containing u nderutilized retail office or industrial sites. Rev italization Area: An urbanized area in which the land is underutilized and/or the existing development is significantly deteriorated. Secondary Area: An area which contains !lousing, office or industrial u ses that is adjacent to a TOD and is located with in one mile of a TOD transit stop. Thoroughfare: A major street (typically with six to eight Janes) d esigne d t o carry h igh traffic volumes. 120

PAGE 124

Transfer Station: A transit stop at which passengers can change transportation modes (e.g. from bus to li ght rail fr om feeder line bus to trunk line bus or from local bus t o feeder line b us ) Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): A mixed-use community or neighborhood desig ned to encourage t ransit use and pedestrian activity. Trunk Line Network: The major elements in RT's express regional transit system. Trunk lines are generally light rail lines but may also be streets wit h high frequency express bus service running at I 0 to 15 minute headways at night and on weekends. Urban Growth Area: An essentially undeveloped area identified for urbanization that is located on the periphery of the developed portion of the county. Urban Service Area: The area within which the County e xpe c t s all of its ultimate urban growth to o c cur Urban TOD: A TOD that is located directly o n the trunk line network at a light rail stop or a bus transfer station. Urban TODs have higher commercial i ntensities and residential densities and a higher petcentage of job-generating uses. VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled): The product of the number of vehicles at any given loca tion or throughout a roadway network multiplied by the number of miles e ac h vehicle travels between its origin and destination. VT (Vehicle Trip): A one-way movement of a vehicle between two points. 121

PAGE 125

122


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader cam 2200349Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 001931354
005 20080401120153.0
008 000823s1998 flu bt 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00128
2 local
035
(OCoLC)44865301
040
CBT
c CBT
d FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HE4487.F6
b T74 2000
0 245
Technical memorandum number one :
conditions of successful station area development.
3 246
Conditions of successful station area development
1
Enabling station area development in Florida :
towards more cost effective rail transit investment
260
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1998]
300
122 p. ;
28 cm.
500
Performed by Transit Solutions for the Florida Dept. of Transportation Office of Public Transportation.
"Project manager, Ronald C. Sheck."
"November 1998."
504
Includes bibliographical references (p. 107-117).
530
Also available online.
650
Local transit stations
z Florida
x Planning.
Land use
Florida
Planning.
Local transit
Florida
Finance.
rail transit
trt
700
Sheck, Ronald C.
710
Florida.
Dept. of Transportation.
Office of Public Transportation.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Transit Solutions (Firm)
994
C0
FHM
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.128