Building transit oriented development in established communities

Building transit oriented development in established communities

Material Information

Building transit oriented development in established communities
Julie Goodwill, Sara J. Hendrick
Wendy Castleberry ( cover designer )
University of South Florida
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Transportation -- Florida ( lcsh )
Local transit -- Florida ( lcsh )


General Note:
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.

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:
C01-00448 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.448 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
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 ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00448
0 245
[An un-cataloged item [C01-00448] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].]
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF]
4 856


BUILDING TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITIES J u lie Goodwill Graduate S t uden t Assis tant Princip a l Investigat o r Sara J. H e n dricks, AICP Co-Principal Inv estigator Co v & desig n b y W e n dy Castlebeny based on original graphic art b y the Atlanta Rapid Tr.msit Authority (.l\lfARTA ) Used with p ennission from MART A. N o v embe r 2002


CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH University of South Flol'ida 4202 E Fowler Avenue, CUTl 00 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 (813) 974-3120, SunCom574-3120, Fax (813) 974-5168 Edw.ud Mie(7.ejewski, Ph.D. P.E., CUTR Director Joel Vo1inski, NCTR Director Dennis Hinebaugh, Transit Program Director The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for the facts and th.e accuracy of the informati on presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorshi p o f the Department of University Research Instintte Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.


TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITIE PAGE 1 RcponNo. 2. GcwemmootAooession No. 3 Rocip;ent's Catliog No. 473-135 4 Title and SUblllle 5 ReponD&!e Building Transi t Oriented Development in Established Communities November 2002 6. Orgorizalion Code 7 8 Author(s) 9. Orgorlzalion Repon No. Sara J Hendricks and Julie Goodwill 10. Performing Organizallon Name and Address 11. Work Unit No. National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research, 1 2 Cortract a Gran! No. University of South Florida DTRS98-G-0032 42 02 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100, Tamoo. FL 33620-5375 1 3. Sl:x>nsoorgAgoncy Nomo ondAdd,..s 1 4. T ype ol Repat and Period Office of Research and Special Progmms ezy,.red U.S. Depru:troeot ofTmn s pottat ion, Washington, D.C. 20690 1 5 Sponsomg Ag!n:.y Code Florida Deparnueut o f Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 26, Tallahassee, FL 32399 16. &Wemomary N"os Supported by a grant from the Florida Department of Transportation and the U S Department of rtation 17. This repott provides a synthesis of the steps that established car oriented communities have taken to transfonn into tmnsit oriented communities. The report identifies several approaches, such as the use of tl'ansit oriented design, focusing transit oriented development (TOD) around park-and-ride lots, malting changes to land development regulations, parking management, offering development incentives, coordinating stakeholdets, incorporating tmnsit into fumre development/redevelopment, co:afting TOD design guidelines, predesignating transit corridors, eusuring pedestrian and bicycle access, adapting to:ansit. services to the needs of suburban-styl e communities, offering location efficient mortgages and ideas for dealing with community resistance toward app lying transit friendl y measures to car oriented communities. This rep01t presents a literamre review with cottclusions an annotated bib l iogJai>hy and fhe case studies of that have taken steps to become tmnsit oriented. These commllllities include Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando, tbe Central Puget Sound Region in Washington and Denver. 18. KeyWords 19. Oisl.r1bUIIon Slatomcr'll Transit oriented development, Available to the public through theNational Technical Infonnation Service public transit, tronsit oriented (NTIS),5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22181 ph (703) 4874650 desi2n 20. Secu11y Clooslf. (of !his repon) 21. Secuity Classif. 22 No olpogos 23. Price Unclassified ( of this page) Unclassified Form DOT F 1700-7 (8-69)


Table of Executive Summary ...................................................... ..................................... ........................................... i Introduction .......... ................................................................................................... ...................... ................ 1 The Emergence of Suburbia ....................... ... .................. ............................................................................ 3 Characteristics of Suburban Land Development .............................. ........................................ 4 Implications of Suburban Development for Transit ............ ...................................................... 5 The Reestablishment of Transit Oriented Communities .......................................................................... 7 Reinstituting Trdllsit Oriented Design ......................................................................................... 7 Trends Supporting Transit Oriented De''elopment .................................................. .................. 7 Perceived Benefits of Transit Oriented Development.. ..................... ......................................... 8 Typical Transit Oriented Development Desigu Feanres ........................................................... 9 Perfonnance Criteria for Successful Transit Oriented Developmcnt... ................................. 10 Challenges To Transit Oriented Development.. ........................................................................ I 1 Financial Risk To Developer ....................... .............................................................. ......... 11 High Initial Publi c Investment Costs ...... ........................................................................... I I Unsuppottive Regulatory Framework ............................................................................. .. 12 Community Resistance ............ ................................................................................. .......... 12 Commtmity Approaches to Becoming Transit Friendly .................................................... .................... 14 Applying Financing Methods for Transit Oriented Deve!opment.. .... ................................. ... 1 4 Offering Incentives ............................... .............. ............ ............................................................. 14 Coor dinating Stakeholders ................................................................... .............. ......................... 15 Tailoring Land Use Regulations To Promote Transit Oriented Design ................................. 15 Crafting Transit Supportive Design Gui deli n es ........................... ............................................. 16 Providing Effective Pedeslrian and Bicycle Access ................................................................. 17 Managing Parking ........................................................................................................................ 18 Building Transit Oriented Development At Padc-AndRide Lolli .......................................... 19 Predesignating Transit Corridors ............. ..... ............................................................... ............... I 9 Jncor:porating Transit Service Into Future Developmeot/Redevelopment ............................. 19 Adapting Transit Services to Sllburbia ...................................................................................... 20 Offering Location Efficient M ortgage ....................................................... ............................. 22 Offering Car Sharing Programs ...... ........................... ............................................... ..... ............. 23 Overcoming Community Resistance 1hrough Public Education ........................................... 23 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 26 Appendix A: Case Studies ................................................................................... ..... .... ............. .............. 29 Charlotte, North Carolina ............. ................................................................................ ............. .. 30 Public Support ....................................................................................................................... 30 Corridor Transit Planning ................................................................................................... 30 Sooth Corridor ............ .................. ................ ....................................................................... 31 Transit Station Area Principles .......................................................................................... 32 Joi nt Development Principles ............................................................................................. 32 Pedestrian Overlay Districts ........................................................................................... .... 32 Transit Improvements .......... .... .......................................................................... ... 3 2 Conclusion .......................................................................... .................................................. 33


Denver, Colorado .............. .................................................................................................... ....... 34 Blueprint Denver ........ ...... ............................................. ............. ........................................ 34 FasTracks ..................................................... ......................................................................... 34 The T-REX Project.. ................... ........ ............................................................................... .. 34 Examples of Transit ..Oriented Development ......... .................. ......................................... 35 The Point Project .................................................................... ........................................ 35 l-25 and Broadway .................................................... .................................................... 35 U nion Station .................. ............... .......... ...................................................................... 35 Conclusion ... ...... ......................................................................... .......................................... 35 Atlanta, Georgia ........ ...................................................................................... ............................. 36 Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) ..................................................... 36 Atlanta Regional Commission lnitiati ves ......................................................................... 36 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transi t Authority TOD ........................ .... ........................... 3 7 Lindbergh City Center ............ ...... .......... ........................................... ............................ 37 Medical Center ..... ........................................... ..... ... ................................................. ...... 38 Conclusion ............................................................. ........................................ ....................... 38 Orlando, Florida .......................................................................... ................................................ 39 Land Development Code .................................... .. .............................................................. 39 Bicycle Plan ......... .... ................... ............................................................................... .... ..... 40 Central Florida Mobility Design Manual ............ .......................... .................................. 40 Lymmo .......................... ... ................................................................................................ .... 40 Examples of Trans i t -Oriented ................................................................. 40 Naval Tmining Center Redevelopment ...... .... ... .............................. ............ ............... 40 Southeast Odando Sectoc Plan ................... ...... .................................. ......................... 41 Other Examples .............................................................................................................. 4 1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................... .41 "The C e ntral Puget Sound Regio11, Washington ...... .......... .. .................................................... 435 Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority ... ....................... .................................. 45 King County Transit Oriented Development Program .................. .................................. 45 The Village at Over lake Station ......... ............. ..... ........................................... ........... 46 Metropolitan Place ....................................................................... .................................. 47 Station Area Planning ..................................... .................................................................... 4 7 L ocation Efficient Mortgage Progr.uu ........................................................................... 48 The Ave Street Project ................... ................................................. ..... ....... ................. ..... 4 9 Conclusi on .............. ............................... ................ ... .. ................................................... ...... .49 Appendix B : Annotated Bibliogr.phy ............................................................................... ........... .... .... 51 Endnotes .......................... ............................................................. ......................... ................ ............ ......... 57


EXECUTIVE SUMMAkY This is a synthesis of the actions and processes undertaken by car oriented communities that desire to transfonn into transit oriented communities. This report is part of the Public Transportation Syntheses Series, prepared by the National Center for Transit Research through the sponsorship of the Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation. This topi c addresses the fact that the majority of American communities developed after 1950 arc oriented to be served by private automobile transportation rather than tmnsit. Such orientation, as characterized b y factors like location, land use mix, and site des ign, have l'JUlde i t difficult for transit to serve these communities. Some ongoing efforts exist that serve as examples of the growing interest t o retrofit older communities to promote alternative rnodes of travel. This study has suomnarized information from available written sources, but with special emphasis upon direct contact w id! transit agencies and planning and land development depattments of selected local govemmeots. In addition to illustrative examples of community efforts provided throughout the repott, five detailed case study examples were develo ped describing progress toward transit orientation in Charlotte, Denver, Atlanta, Orlando, and the Central Puget Sound Regioo in Washington State. The report descri.bes the characteristics of suburban land d evelopment, the trends that reinforce suburbanization, the benefits of suburbi. a as perceived by those who choose to live there, and rbe implications of suburban development upon the delivery of transi t se.vice However, the perceived benefits of tr.msit oriented development (TOD) and shifting public po licy and demographic trends t hat lend support to TOO have helped to mal:e it a favored model for land development by land use planners and ll:ansit professionals. Reestablishing transit o r ientation includes a transportation system t hat is designed aod constructed to enable transit to navigate easily through communities and allow transit patrOns to safely and conveniently access transi t service. Reestablishing transit orientation also includes trausit oriented design concepts a pplied to the residential and commercial land development that is served by tbe transpottation system. However, the major challenges t o implementing transi t orient ed development incl u d e the real and perceived fJ.Uancial risk to the developer, higher in itial public investment costs, an unsuppottive land regulatory framework in many cities, and community resistance to changing the existing nature of subutt>an neighbolitoods. While fmancial return on investment to the developer is usually a deciding factor whether TOD is built, othe r criteria have been identified in the review of literature to meastu-e the performance and success of TOD. A noticeably absent crirerioo from considerati. on by tnlnsit professionals and land use planners is the market appeal of TOD to homebuyets. The individual homebuyer is the single most powerful decision making unit in shaping suburban land development. 'lltose who support the application of TOD cite more mubility choices, less trdffic conge.\tion, and improved air quality as benefits to residents of TOO; however, it is not clear that these benefits are motivating factors for suburban homebuyers and apartment lessees to relocate to a TOD. While it is the work of marketing professi.o.nals in the land development arena to assess and develop conununities that appeal to the hom e buyer market, professiooals do not share the same motivation as the land planning and transit service community to intluellCC society to embrace TOO development patients Therefore, this report suggests that it is up to the professionals who support the use of TOD to more proactively and carefully consider the perspective of the individual homebuyer in order to better accomplish TOD. Thi s report also suggests that good transit oriented design alone is not enough to make TOD work. I t must be supported by some combination of other tool s as described in this report, including: .r Developing financing methods .r Offering financial incentives to land developers .,Coordinating stakeholder s


v' Careful tailoring of land development regulations v' Crafting ttanSit supportive design guidelines v' Providing effective access by alternative transportation modes -' Managing padcing v' Predesiguating transit conidoo; and incorpo(llting transit se.rvice into future development v' Adapting transit services to suburban areas -' Pro,

INTRODUCTION There is a growing concern. in lhe United States about traffic congestion. long commutes, air pollution, green house gas emissions, foreign and domestic oil prices and availability, fannland and open space depl etion, and vadous other problems that have been attributed pattly to the nation's favored suburban developmen t style of the last 50 years. Wh.ile more empirical evidence is needed to verify cause and transit oriented development (TOO) pattems and major investments in tr.msit are seen as ways to combat or alJeviate these problems of lhe past half century. This report provides a synlhesis of lhc Steps that established car oriented communities have taken to transfonn into more transit oriented conuuunities. 1he majority of American communities. developed after !950, have been designed for service by lhe private automobile miller than public transportation. This sustained emphasis on de-sign, public policy, and io.ves!nleot favoring private auto travel has made .it difficu lt for transit to serve these communities. While new communities increasingly are considering features to improve transit access, this repo.ct focuses more opon how older, established communities bave begun to take st eps to retrofit their land development to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. This synthesis was developed through a literature review of professional and research journals searches of Internet resources and the Transportation Reseatch Information Services (1RIS) a review of studies conducted by olher research agencies and direct contact with transit agencies and municipal transportation and land use planning departments throngh tel ephone conversations and email conespondence. This report begins with a brief presentation about the dominant suburban land d evelopment pattern of the last 50 years. It is recognized tbat society has found certain positive benefits from suburban life while lessening the capacity of traditional transit syStems to serve the public. Undetstanding the forces behind the growth of suburbia sheds some light on those main areas to focus upon. n>is enables us to consider ways to reverse the fot-ces tha t have contributed to transit's deterioration. These include the considerntions listed in Table I. After a discussion abotll suburban land development, lhe report describe s what has been done to ''take back'' the suburbs and reestablish a transit orientation. This beginS not onl y with the incorporation of transit friendly design features to the tr.msportation to alJow a:ansit vehicle circulation within conununities, but also the incorporation of transit oriented development. Determining the success of TOD goes beyond good physical design to other criteria that measure project outcomes. Bel zer and Autler propose six criteria summarized here, including financial return on investment, location efficiency, value recapture, livability, choice, and efficient regional land use pattern s This report suggests that an additional important consideration that will dcte nnin e a successful outcome of TOO is it$ appeal to individual horoebuye(S who would otherwise invest .in property in the suburbs 1


Table 1: Considerations for Addressing that Thwart Transit Fnrccs and Trcndo;; that Thwart T1ansit Potential Rcsponsco;; to Support TOD I Developabl e land is generally less expensive on the Redirect the development focus i11waro through urban fringe where it is difficult to provide public regul ations, incentives aJ)d investments effective transit service. American homeowners genetally desire tbe Respond with land use planning and architectural spaciousness and other characteristics of subtu"bia. solutions With proper design and selection of building materials, dwellings and commercial properties may capture or at least suggest a sense of spaciousness, privacy, security, etc. Private automobile transportation is available and Manage parking carefully to control availability. afforoable to the majority of us The response may also be the removal or reduction of sources of auto travel subsidies. Government at all level s has supported investment Pro,'ide increased investment in transit services and in the roadway networ:lc_, wbile underinvesting in supportillg infrastrUcture. capacity for the last generation. Zoning ordinances tend to favor suburban Amend land development regulations to favor development pattems. TOO. There is inadequate trn11sit service in many Provide increased investment in transit services and subur ban communities, including a lack of supporting infrastntcture s idewalks, bicycle facilities and ot h er acc ess features for transit. '!be repott also describes the kinds of diftlculties that TOO must sunnollnt to create conditions supportive of transit To address these difficulties, 1 3 strategies that support TOO are described. The report concludes with several observations abollt the fu!Ure of TOO and what it will take to adapt TOO to established communities. Appendi< A provides five case study examples of United States cities that are experiencing success incorporating TOO into established communities. Appendix B provides an annotated bibliography for further reading. 2


THE EMERGENCE OF SUBURBIA It is useful to briefly consider how land development patterns developed in such a way that did not favor transit service. Uudw;tanding the causes of development that are unfavomble to transit-service may provide clues abca1t how to reverse such trends. In the early pan of the 20'b century, streetcar suborns emerged. Typically, one owner built the streetcar lines and the residential neighborhoods around them.1 Privately owned mass transit was built to provide a Jin.k between the uroan employment center and housing at the edges of communities. Essentially, the street railways "extended the boundaries of the 19' century walking c ity."" Small retail clusters often popped up around streetcar stops to conveniently serve conm10ters and residents and are thought to be a precursor to today' s version of transit oriented development.3 In the 1930s, the interdependence among housing, jobs, and transit staned to deteriorate as travel on highways became more popular than raiL Following World War 0 there was a major decline in transit use, and many rail systems closed down. Buses became the primacy mode o f the tmnsit services still in operation. It was also in the post World War ll em that the land development patterns took on the low-density, spread-out suburoan style that is so common today. There were thee major waves of growth for American suburbs4 Initially, families with middle and upper class incomes started moving from the city to the suburos. Retail businesses followed their customer base out into the suburbs and located along conunercial strips and regional shopping malls. The first two waves occurred in the post-war years. The third wave occurred in the 1980s, with the decentralization of jobs out of the central city. There were several factors present in the post-war years that encouraged suburoan development instead of urban development and led to the decline in transit 5 The late 1940s and 1950s was a time of post-war bousi.og shortages, low gasoline prices, and major federal investment in the interstate highway system for national security and defense purposes. Housing and commercial development followed the new highways. Building increased on suburban pan:els of land, as lower property taxes and federal and state mortgage interests in response t o housing shortages gave people incentives to buy bigger homes o n bigger lots. As a result, housing was built fanher and farther away from transit routes. The environmental policies of the 1970s also supported suburban development. Much urban land is contaminated by hazardous waste, and the remediation of the land t hat is required before any redevelopment can occur is very expensive. This makes suburban land less expensive and more attractive t o developers. A new generation of publicly funded transit systems took form in the 1970s. Prior to this time, private companies were the primary owners of tmnsit But in tbe 1970s, th. e federal government stepped in to keep transit afloat as systems went out of business. While private streetcar companies of the previous cenncy rypically built residential neighborhoods around streetcar lines, government-funded transit agencies in the 1970s did not pUJ:Chase additional adjacent land to tie future development patterns to current transit investments. The primary emphases of these public systems were relieving traffic congestion and serving trips from tile suburbs to the central city .6 Funding for land acquisition was limited to meeting tranSi. t right of -way needs only. The stations, characterized by large parlcing lots or structures, were designed around cars because it was assumed that people would drive to the suburban stations to use transit. 3


Policies and conditions are now beginning to change, and more focus is being placed upon issues regarding growth management and quality of life. Despite recent favorable attitudes toward transit friendly development, a 50-year history of suburban development has challenged transit to serve development effectively. Characteristics of Suburban Lalld Development After World War li, there was a mass exodus of new families leaving the city to buy homes in the subutbs. Many of the next generation who grew up in the subutbs continue to choose to live there. Each homebuyer constitutes a powerful decision making unit that has, more than any other single innuence, shaped the built environment. Although subutbia with many costs discussed later, it also has positive auributes that make it attractive to horuebuyers. TI1ese include a sense of open space and fresh air, privacy, safety and secutit)'--attributes especiaUy important to families with young children. Alan Voorhees, engineer and founder of one of the largest international transportation planning firms, observed during his in cities all over the world the tendency of feople, regardless of culture, to gravttate toward and hve among othe(S of tbe same socto-economtc status. nus ts clearly observed by the way families move "upward, not just financially but physicaUy. Titey purchase a house and move to the subutbs, where there is both solid middte.ctass re.'pectability and socio-economic homogeneity. Families also strive to move from an older suburb to a newer or more affluent one. Tilis powerful status symbol of American societ y is generally not duplicated to the same degree by residential development in the city. Many people also tend to prefer new homes and bigger homes, which are more commont y found in the newest subutbs at the urban fringe than in older subutbs or downtown residential areas. Homebuyers perceive the suburbs as a better investtoent where the separation of homes from other land uses protects them from perceived threats of noise, litter. crime and blight. For many people, long commutes from their subutban homes, high automobile expenses, and tack of pedestrian and transit access are acceptable tr.lde offs for the amenities s uburbia has to offer. While a house in the subud>s may be the dream of the majority of American hornebuyers, this collective vote to live in the suburbs challenges public fucilities providers to extend services farther from the utban core At it s worst. transportation and land use professionals describe suburban land development on a large scale as "sprawl." Sprawl refers to "development that expands in an unlimited and noncontiguous (leapfrog) way outward from the solidly built--up core of a me{l'()politan area.'.a The most defming cbaracteri.sti. c of sprawl is low-density development spread out over large areas of land? The least expensive land for development, from the developer's point of view, tends to be t h at which is located on the periphery of existing development, where there are no hazardous wastes to mitigate and no existing development to raze, but for which there is also no established or planned transit services. Subutban land development is characteri2ed b y the segregation of land uses from one another into zoning districts in which only one type of use i s permitted, such as si ngl&famit y residential, shopping centers and strip commercial, industrial, or offtce parks. The initial re.1soning behind zoning was to shield any particular type of land use from the noxious or tmpleasant impacts of other land uses. In conhast to the concentrated downtowns and smatter town centers, where transit can easily serve development, subutbia is distinguished by its subdivisions, office parks, and malls spread over the landscape in a relatively even manner. Titere are generally fewer homes per acre and all types of development tend to be more dispersed as opposed to tbe more compact development patterns of urban areas. Subutban residents are usually completely dependent on the automobile for travel, since they taek adequate bus service and tr'avel 4


greater distances between dispersed destinations. The lack of continuous sidewalks and bike lanes often prevents walking and bicycling, which might otherwise allow access to transi t services. It is argued by some that suburban land development patterns have significant fmancial costs to both individuals and communities.' Commonly cited negative effects that are experienced by individuals include air pollution. traffic <:

traffic volumes increase as they approach minor, then major arterial roadways of increasing width and IJines. Hierarchical street systerns O(e often preferred by bomebuyers because it eliminates noisy througb traffiC from their neighborhoods. These characteristics of subtu:ban style development and travel paltelns have a number of major implications on the provision of transit services. First, suburban areas have much lower densities and cover far more land area than traditional urban cities. The lack of interconnected streets, greater distances traveled, and fewer origins and destinations within walking distance of transit routes mean less direct routing mtd more vehicle miles traveled per passenger for Second, iu suburban style development, buildings are set back farther from roads, requiring transit service to stray off the main route more often. Third, in contrast to a traditional urban city in whic h a mi" of activity (employment, retail, and service) in one place puts ewm demand on the same routes througllout the day, peak travel times in suburban :u-eas vary in different places (office parks, shopping centers, etc. ) at different times of the day. This may require transit providers to operate different routes and servi. ce patterns at different times of the day. Fourth there are often several agencies providing transit in suburban communities, such as a regional bus service, local suburban area bus services, and sometimes a rail operator16 The ability of these agencies to coordiuate services and policies is an important issue that must be addressed. 6


THE REESTABLISHMENT OF TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES The r e are many consequences of suburban land development to the provision of uansit service, as discussed previously. The previous section also described how suburbia emerged, its char.octeristics, the disadvantages of suburbia that TOD might be able to overcome, and the advantages of subUJ:bia that TOO should try to emulate in order for 1'00 to catch on in es tablished communities. Because of the challenges that suburban d evelopment pattems pose for public transportation, many communities have initiated eff01t s to become more uansit friendly. This section presen ts several identified approaches that have been used to accomplish this change. These include reinstituting transit oriented design, policies and investments; amending land development regulations; managing parl

Four major trends identifted by Cervero and Duncan have pushed dte TOO movement forwa!d. 18 Hrst, todays public policy environment has become more receptive to the integration of trmtsportlllion and land usc planning wi t h laws such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of !991, followed by t he Transpo1tation Equity Act for the 2!" Century (1EA-21) The "New Starts" funding by the Federal Transit Administration under TEA-21 has criteria that favorably reward transit.supportive local government policies and the attention projects give t o transit and land usc coordination. The second trend i s a shift in demographics. Young single adults, childless couples, "enlpty nesters" wanting smaller homes and immigrants are emerging new marlat are located within a larger comprehensive redevelopment strategy for an area. 4. those that require redevelopment for other reasons. Perceived .Benefits of Transit Oriented Deelopment It is widely believed that the benefits of transit oriented development accrue to the tr:'dllSit system, the local host govemrnent, society, and indh'iduals who live and work there. More 1'esearch is still needed to build supporting empirical evidence for this belief.19 Nonetheless, rnany assert that TOO has significant benefits foc transit, including more efficiency in transit service and increased transit ridership. Well-connected streets and destinations that are closer together can help achieve improved efficiency in the form of more di. rect routes aod frequent service. According to one source, people living ncar a transit station are up to six times more like l y to commute to work by transit than other people living in the same region?" Increased ridel'Ship will result in higher transit revenues. It is believed that local governments benefit fmancially from TOD. F'I!S!, c ompact development lowers the infrastnteutre costs associ. ated with dispersed deve lopment, such as roads, pru:kiug facilities, schools, sewer and water lines, and fire stations. Second, p.rope.rtie s close to transit stations and TOO often have increased property value. 21 Higher property values, plus the increase in econontic activity caused by TOO, create a larger tax base for local go eruments. 22 It is believed that society benefits from TOD due to compact d evelopment, integrated land uses, and a pedestrian friendly em-ironment that all contribute to a balanced transportation systent Clustering conunercial, public, and recreational services near transit stations and within walking distance of where people live aod work reduces tbe need to drive automobiles aud shortens travel time and distances, reduc ing overall traftic congestion For examp le. residential development near the Pleasant Hill BART station in suburban. Sao Francisco generates 52 percent fewer peak period auto trips than typical residential development and office development generates 25 percent fewer trips than typical office development.23 In addition, a reduction .in automob.ile use by reducing the need t o travel beyond the TOD community leads to decreased pollution and inlproved air qua lity. 8


Other goals include supporting local growth management objectives, maximizing use of existing transit service, and improving quality of life. These goals are societal goal$-<>nes that appeal to the sensibilities of local govemmeut s taff whose job it is to guide development in a way that is best for society as a whole. Making TOD successful will depend on how it can be effectively marketed to the indi v idual homebuyer and business owner. Lastly, many assert that individuals do beuefit from TOD due to the increase in accessibility and 1ransportation choice it provides to the busiuesses and within the TOO. While suburban residents might not perceive these as valuable benefits, increased transportation choice lranslates into more mobility, especially for low-income and transit-dependent peopl e?' The benefit of increased accessibility is not limited to the area arou.nd the TOO. Having transit facilities nearby connects .residen. ts and woxkers to the rest of the region. TOO may make having a car an option, not a necessity. Some households are able to reduce the number of cars owned as walking, bicycling and lransit become effective means of travel, translating into significant savings in transportation co&s. Additionally, TOO typically places that serve as town squares, where people can congregate and develop a sense of community. Typical Tr.msit Oriented De,elopment Design Featnrcs TOD involves a lllix of land uses, including commercial/retail, business, residential housing (various types and prices), and community amenities, such as childcare centers, schools, libraries, public services, local government oftices, and connuunity parks.25 Quite often a transit station is central to TOD with high-density developtnent surrounding the stations while getting progressively less dense as it Spreads outward. The development is compact. and the streets al.'e built io an interconnected urban grid pattern (similar to the street design of the downtown areas in older U.S. cities). Auto-oriented land uses, such as gas stations or restaurants with drive-through windows, are discouraged. A k ey element of TOD is making streets attractive, convenient, and safe for pedestrians and bicyclists? People are more likely to walk or bicycle in an attractive environ.ment they feel comfortable and safe in. Streetscape enhancements used to make streets more attrnctive involve trees, lighting, benches, building TOD Slreet systems art buill in a-weU w1>an grid pan ern. Drawing piYMd("

the street (on-street parking takes up much less land area than off-street parking), behind buildings, underground, and in carefully designed and located parking structures rather than large sutface lots. While these ..-e the traditional TOD characteristic s found in a general literature review, TOD approaches can differ significantly across regions due to vatious circumstances, such as differences in land development regulations and zoning ordinances, market factors, development/redevelopment opportunities, public transit services, resources, and the state of the and future regional economy.'8 These can determine whether a community can build large scale TOD or gradually implement smaller projects over time, whether TOD is built on vacant land or utilizes existing structures for redevelopment, or whether TOD is based around bus or rail stations. Every TOD project may not incorporate all of the design characteristics described above, but some features may he critical depending on the particular goals of that development. For that reason, it is important that the particular goals to be achieved by the TOD he defined early in the development of the TOO. Narrt>Ki tree lined streets 'M-ith v.ide sidem::zlkr. as 'Mf!ll os buifdin.gslocaled to the weet, help to a fiiendly envi.ronm,f.nt. Drawing prwide

mortgages) o nlOn> adequate housing stock, and reduced indhidual and community spending on ttansportation, whic h means greater discretionary spending The fourth performance criterion to be evaluated is livability, or quality of life TOD-rel ated measures of livability listed by Belzer and Auller include better regional air quality, l ower gas consumption, increased mobility choices. Jess congestion, personal time savings through shorter commutes, improved pedestrian access (to retail, public services, recreation, culture, and public (l'U'ks), improved pu blic health and safety, and better economic health. The fltlh performance criterion to evaluate is choice. TOD should provide people with a greater diversity of types and p rice ranges of housing to choose from, a large range of retail and commerci. al businesses within walking distance, and a balance of transportation options. One of the basic core problems of subu rban style development i s the l.ack of options it provides residents This is most limiting t o low and middle income residents The sixth perfonnance criterion is efficient regional land use pattents, which invo lves channeling growth to where it c a n bes t be handled. Results of efficient regional land use in. clude less loss of fanllland and open spaoe, a better balance between jo bs and housing, shorter commutes, less congestion and polllllion, and =re efficient delivery of essential community While it i s unlikel y that any single project will e xcel in aU the performauoe areas discussed, these criteria offer a more comprehensive definition of what TOD shou l d offer, may help i dent ify the chal lenges and necessary tradeoffs of TOO, and help fonn recommendations for future TOO. CbaUenges To Transit Oriented Developmen t While TOD has gained popu larity over the last decade, it is still not commonly practiced. For example, New Urban News reported that, {(}{ every one dollar spent in TOD, over $1,400 is invested in conventional suburban development. 30 With so many benefits believed to be associated with TOD, why hasn't it become a more conunon fonn of development? A review of the literature and cont act with local planning and transit agencies identified seve. ral cbaUenges F'mancial Risk To Developer AJthoogh TOO is gntdually gaining =re acceptance in the development community, it is stiU often bard to convince developers and fmanciers that TOD can be profitable.3 1 Many developers and investolS believe that TOD involves higher risks and c os t s than other types of development Some conservative lending institutions require the facilities they invest in to have automob ile orie. n t ed design featutes because they believe it will ensure a higher financi a l retum.32 High Initial Public Investment Costs It is widely viewed that TOO can lower infrastmcture costs in tbe long run but the initi. al TOO infrasi!Ucture needs can be considemble and can require extensive public investment There is no single source of funds for TOD; instead a number of funding sources are needed. Other municipal infrastructure development often comperes with TOO for the same fund ing sources. 11


Uusupportive Regulatory Framework One of the biggest challenges is that the regulatOry framework of most municipalities is not supportive of TOD. It i s common for cities to have zoning ordinances and land development codes designed for automobile oriented, single-purpose, suburban-scale development33 The physical requirements of zoning ordinances ofcen restrict the necessary developn-.ent densjty for TOD. through such provisions as maximums on floor area ratio (building floor area divided by lot area), height limitations, rnininaum front setback of buildings, landscaping requirements, lot coverage maximums, and minimum parking requirements. An incentive to use tnlnsit is removed when high rnininaum parking requireiiiCnts create conditions where parking is plentiful. Many zoninffi, districts require one stall per 20(}-250 square feet of commercial space and 1.5-2 stalls per housing unit. Land ttse restrictions in e.stablished suburban communities commonly segregate land use into single use districts. preventing the mix of land uses integral t o TOD. In many cases, the segregation of land uses also prohibits offering a full range of housing types, such as apartmeuts and townhouses, in addition to detached single-family units. All of these provisions prevent or discourage TOD and have contributed to the existing land use panems that arc not transit friendly. Community Resistance Rcsi.stance from the local neigllborhood can pose a challenge to the inaplementation of TOD. Such resistance comes from residents of existing neighborhoods that may be targeted for transit improvements. Residents often have concerns that TOD will take away from tbe character of the neighbothood, create locali2cd traffic congestion or lower property values.35 The resistance also comes from new residents, as expressed by choices made to buy homes in the suburbs rather than in TOD. Belzer and Autler's performance criteria described above outline a host of expected benefits that TOD must aspire to provide homebuyers in order to be successful. These include greater mobility and housing choices, greater household savings, beuer livability and quality of life. Why, then, aren't homebuyers clamoring to buy property within a TOD? The performance cdteria recognize abstract societal benefits to homebuyers collectively (whic h tt""dnsportation professionals appreciate), rather than the practical benefits that each individual homebuyer wiU carefully calculate for ltinaself before he makes a home down payment and takes out a mortgage., a homebuyer in a TOD should experience less trafftc congestion and a shorter commute. For ex.ample, large numbers of people moving into TOD might reduce regional traffic congestion and improve air quality but might practieally amount to some small increment of travel time savings for the individual homebuyer. The individual monetary savings 10 a suburban homebuyer might be several thousand dollars per year. Are these benefits worth the perceived trade-oft's? What may initially b e a shorter commute may not stay that way the next time the homebuyer changes jobs. The several thousand dollars may seem like pocket change, considering the anticipation of waiting daily for a bus that may be running late. Can the homebuycr afford to be late for work? While TOD might provide a host of benefits experienced by the community as a whole, each person will make the homebuying decision based upon the specific benefits he or she will individually anain. Th. e homebuyer's personal circumstances may reflect much more complicated considerations that are 1101. captured by the generalized benefits of "reduced traflic congestion" and "increased mobility choioes. The lack of transportation choice is truly a problem for lower-income persons. This group has the lllOSt. to gain individually from transit oriented development, especially if it results in more effective tnlnsit service. For middle class persons with the afOuence to own = and afford suburban living, a desire for mobility choices may be Jess valued, considering that the transportation system serves single-occupant vehicle traffic quite well. Private auto travel allows access to the vast assortment of retail s..-vices (including goods, 12


services, restaurants, and tecreation) available. moving from one destination to another using any route at any time desired. This is ttot so with transit. The customer m ust confonn shopping plans to what the trnnsit route and schedule allows. If someone already has purchased a car, he or she will be Jess likely to a second mode unless private auto travel cannot reach the desired destination. Middle class persons who have bought a home in suburbia have already chosen their preferred transportation mode. Suburbanites generally do not perceive Jack of transportation options as a problem. Suburbia is where many of today's homebuyers grew up. Homebuyers seek the separateness and space t hat low density development affords, where neighbor s arc close by but not "too close. R>r TOD to compete with suburbanization, it must appeal to the individual homebuyer. Yet living in a TOD is nothing less than a major change of lifestyle. 1 3


COMMUNITY APPROACHES TO BECOMING TRANSIT FRIENDLY Many of th.e approaches discussed here can sef\le as examples of solutioos to the challenges described above. The implementation of large scale TOD takes a considerabl e amount of time, planning, and investment While TOD projects may not be feasible in all locations, there are many things communities can do to gradually put the needed elements for TOD into place and adapt ttansit services to better fit the needs of the community. The following describes several approaches communities are taking to become more trdllsit friendly. Applying Financing Me.thods for Transit Oriented Development Municipalities have used TOD financing melhods sucb as local improvement distric t s tax increment financing, sales tax increases, public-private partnerships, and grants (federal, state, and local). In "Creating Transit Station Communities i n the Central Puget Sound Region: A Transit. Oriented Development Workbook," the Puget Sound Regional COWlcil pl'ovides a useful list of federal funding sources for capital infrastructure mat can be targeted for TOD purposcs.36 In "Land Developer Parucipation in Providing for Bus Transit Facilities/Operations," the Center for Ul'ban Transp01tation Research provides an inventory of mechanisms foc engaging the private sector in financing ttansit improvements.37 Offering lncettthes Most developers believe that TOD entails higher risks and costs than !)pica! subtuban style development. Local governments can demonstrate public support f01 TOO by provid .ing incentives to entice developers to engage in TOD.36 Incentives such as tax exemptions, an expedited permit review process, density bonuses, or a reduction or waiver of cenain development fees may tip the scat. e for a developer when deciding between TOD and some other development design. T ax exemptioos are one of the most powel'ful incentives used to encourage TOD. The state of Oregon passed legislation that allows local governments to offer a I 0-year pi'Opel1y t ax exemption on eligible projectS that include new multiple-unit housing or mixed-use developments located w ithin walking distance of a light rail station or tran. sit route .39 Similarl y projects in targeted areas of Seattle are eligib l e for a tOyear property tax excrnptiOtl on the value of housing construction or rehabilitation.4 0 T o qualify for the tax abatement, a projeet must create at least four new housing units through new construction. redevelopment of a vacant building, or adding on to existing buildings. and a minimum of25 percent of the new housing units must be resen>ed for households at or below 60 percent of the median income. The incentive has been popular among a partment developers in Seattle. A11 expedited permit review process is also an. effective incentive. The approval turoaround time for planned development in many cities can take up to two years. 4 1 Streamlining the pennit review process for projects that meet specific TOD related provides developers with strong encouragement to pursue TOO. The expedited review incentive has helped TOD around the Metro stations in Wasl1ingtou, D.C. In Bethesda, Maryland, when projects meet the requirements of the optional zoning standard around a Metro station, they are put on the fast track for permit approval.42 The quatif)>ing requirements include high quality construction, pedeskian friendly design factors, and the incorpocation of public amenities such as open space and public art. The Puget Sound Regional Council suggests five ways to make the review process easier on developers: 14


review or consolidate steps in the process simplify the process by mal

The creation of a new zoning classification is another technique used, in which land use regulations and development standards can be specifically custontized to achieve TOD objectives. For example, in Gresham, Oregon, four new zones were created around a ligbt rail station. 50 While each of the four zones encournged a certain type of development, they all allowed an intennixing of uses. The new zones also we..e required to contply with transit-supportive d e velopment standards. The city of Denver, Colorado, is in the process of adopting a transit mixed-use zone which allows mote floor area per unit of land than is generally typical of urban development. 5 1 This zone also provides for parking reductions, requires a general development plan, and requires each TOD site to be no Jess than 10 acres. Design guidelines are given for stn\ctures and surface-areas. While overlay diStricts are the addition of regulations over and above the underlying zone, an advantage of creating new zoning districts is to "wipe the slate clean" of earlier regulation. They can be dmfted more simply than overlay districts Another option involving land use regulations to suppOrlt!'llnsit oriented development and the use of tmnsit service is the adoption of tdp reduction ordinances. Trip reduction ordinauces are regulations passed by a local government, which require developers, propetty owners and/or employers to participate or in financing transportation management effortS. Ordinances may specify a target reducti.o.n. in the number of vehicle trips expected from a development based on the standardized trip generation rates. Trip reduction ordinances may also establish peak periods for travel reduction, establish tables for compliance, and penalties for noncompliance.'"' Trip reduction activities specified in ordinances can encompass a wide range of actions, including public transit promotion. There is generally no limit to what activities are conducted, as long those activities produce trip reduction results. Because the use of transit service is increased where persons rely less on private automobile tJ:avel, other efforts to release people from their reliance on cars may also bolster usc of transit. Such efforts may include propetty manager or employer provision of ridematching services for carpooling, provision of vanpool programs (which might also be a service offered by the public transit agency), and offering a guaranteed ride home progmm for emplo )ees of businesses located within tran. sit oriented development and who use commute altematives. A local govemment could develop a trip reduction ordinance with requirements to identify and e x .amine potential bus transit development effortS and implement them if they are deemed feasible as a means to mitigate traffic congestion. Crafting Transit Supporthc Design Guidelines Transit supportive design guidelines are another proactive approach communities are taking to encourage transit couside.rations in future development plans. A 1993 su..Vey showed that approximately 25 pen:ent of the transit agencies in the United States have some type of transit supportive design gnidetines,5 3 a percentage that has likely increased over the la st nin. e years. Tl:ansit supportive guidelines are to be used during a pCQject's desigu and development review stages by the architects, planners, landscape architects, engineers, local officials, and developers involved. They are a way of letting the involved parties know the needs of transit Included in the guidelines should be a transit checklist, which can be used as an aid to developers or adopted officially into a municipality's development review process.'4 One of the most effective and known sets of transit supportive guidelines comes from Snohomish County, north of Seanle, Washington. "A Guide to Land Use and Publ i c Transportation,'' developed by Snohomish County Transit (SNO-TRANS), uses graphics and illustrations in its guidelines for designing transit,friendly projects. The guidelines not only address new development but provide suggestions on how to retrofit eat-(Jriented suburban development over time to become more mixed,use and transit,orientcd. The Central Flodda Regional Tl:ansportation Authority also known as LYNX, took a proactive approach to transit friendly development by creating the "Centml Aorida Mobility Design Manual, a book of explicit 16


and detailed guidelines for integrating a balanced tl'rulsportation system into the ph)sicaJ design of new growth and redevelopment. 56 Based on the comprehensive plans o f the 2 6 cities and three rounties in tbe Central Florida region, the manual includes a mobility design checklis t and covers such topics as pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit circulation; u:ansit stops and temlinals; and building location and design. Providing Effective and Bicycle Access Another key element of building TOD ill established communities is malting communities more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. For TOD to be successful and for residents to lnlly rely on automobiles, it must be feasible to make most routine personal trips by foot. There will have to be a sufficient variety of retail establishments within walking distance of the TOD to meet resident needs. The suburban style development of e.\tablished communities is not conducive to other modes of transportation besides the automobile A number of communities are attempting to change this with su:eet ilnprovements a imed at making walking and bicycling viable modes of transportation. As alternative travel n:todes are improved. thi s reinfon:es the establishment of a transit oriemation. hupt"Ovements require having perlestrian, transit, and bicycle linkages that are aft(llCtive, continuous, diroct, and convenient. 57 In its attempts to become more pedestrian Charlotte, North Carolina adopted a new zoning category called the Pedeslrian Overlay Dislrict (referred to as PED). The PED provisions aint to improve to pedestrians and transit users, increase development potentia1, encourage a mixture of uses, and encourage the reuse of existing buildings and development that coropleroeut adjacent neighbodtoods. 58 R>urteen corridors have been identified as potential PEDs. Individual Pedscape Plans must be developed for each area before i t is zoned as a PED overlay district. The first of these plans to be developed, tbe &i Boulevard Pedscape Plan, sets requirements for new development and calls for improvements such as wider sidewalks1 cross walks. land'ieaping, planting planters, pedestrian lighting, medians, and bike lanes. 9 A pede$1n'anfriendly strea wide easily acct$$.ible tTWl$lt Slops. and bu ildings ll-ilh awnings /()(Xded close to the .ureeJ. Drawi11g provided b y the Puget Sound Regional Cowrcfl. TM/fic calmingfcallucs. such as Cr()JJ 'Olks, struss safer for pedestrians and biC)'CJisls. DraM-ing provided by d1< Puget Sowtd Regwoal CounciL Orlando, Florida, is a community whose focus on bicyclists has gone hand-in-hand with building TOD in established communities.00 In 1990, Bicycle magazine ranked Orlando as the second worst city for bicycling in the country. The ranking inspired City officials to develop a long-rnnge bicycle plan, with the goal of increasing bicycling as a mode of trnnsportation by "implementing a system of safe, economical and efficient bikeway facilities and by 17


supporting bicycle-related programs."61 Since the plan was completed in. 1994, the City has built over 150 miles of bikeways. The 2001 Plan update calls for the constntction of an additional 79 mi.les by 2006 and another 100 miles by 2010. Orlando also placed 94 bicycle tacks at public facilities throughout the city and now requires all new developments to provide bicycle padpace, then all parking provided by the employer lost its tax exempt status causing the employer and employee to be required to pay taxes on the value of the parking subsidy. That quirk in the legislation has been remedied so employers now can offer employees a broader choice of commute options without affecting those who opt to keep the parking benefit. As a result of parking cash-out, a significant number of will take the cash and choose to ride trnnsit, walk bike or carpool to work, thus reducing parking demand. According to case studies and researeb, parking cash out reduces driving to work by 20 percent or more. Benefits from reducing parking demand accrue to individuals, businesses and communities. Individuals benefit by receiving more equitable choices in how they choose to commute. Current federal ta.x law allows most employers to provide up to $180 per month per employee for parking and up to $100 per month for trnnsit aod vaopool co-payment< to employees. Businesses, especially small employers who must lease parking spaces, may be able to reduce parking costs. Parking cash-out works best for employer'S who lease, rather tilan own, parking although any employer who pays for parking can implement parking cash-{)ut. If employers were to negotiate lease agreements that ite.mized the cost. of parking, then employers would gain better control over the number of parking spaces they chose to lease. This can result in more competitive rent.< that may attract more employers to the transit oriented development. Employers can reduce their site parking requirements and save on payroll taxes by offering the parking qualified transportation fringe benefit and offering to cash it out. Redeveloping areas in cities, such as transit oriented developments, can 18


lessen their parlcing requirements if employees participate in thi s program. This will result in the use of city real estate for h igher, more profitable uses that supp01t redevelopment success. Building Transi t Oriented D evelopment At Park-And-R ide Lots Locating development around park-and-ride lots is a way for transit agencies and local governments to focus development around trnnsit and make more efficient use of the land they a lready own. King County's Transit Oriented Development Program began in 1998 and is based on the redevelopment of tmnsit centers and/or park-and-ride lots.ea The aim of the program is to control urban spmwl by building and other amenities on a n d around park-and-ride lots. King County hired Economics Research Assoc. i ates to rank their park-and-ride lots from a pri,

program and provision of other commute altematives (carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, bicycling) Chat reduce Che need for private auto ownership. The City of Orlando provides two examples of future and redevelopment projects that incorporate transit planning as a fundamental design component. Orlando is currently in the process of redeveloping its old Naval Training Cen t er (NTC) into a traditional neighborhood community called Lake Baldwin. The Lake Baldwin plan incorporates transit planning ainted at reducing automobile dependence. Tl'ansit plans for Che redevelopment include timely bus routes linking the community to downtown Orlando, the possibility of rubber wheel trolleys or buses to connect neighbod!ood centers to the Vi.llage Center and the nead!y business pad<, and provisions for a future light rail system which could connect tbe Village Center with Orlando's major activity centers. Another example is t be Southeast Orlando Sector P lan. The City of Orlando has identified the 19,300 acres of Somhcast Or lando as a Future Growth Center, with Che Odaudo International Airport providing the primary employment base The proposed uses for the area include a Town Center to serve as the downtown, village and neighbodtood centers, and Airport Support Districts. The plan includes a dense, well-connected street system to promote a balanced transpottatioo sy s tem 'lhe street system will be designed to allow transit to route directly through the communities or town centers to transit stations, which will be located in the center of mixed-use commercial and residential areas. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities connect all developments in tbe Southeast Area Plan. Adapting Transit Services to Suburbia In addition to retrofitting the physical environment and planning policy framework that will enable transi t to effectively operate in its traditional manner, tr.msit systems also are attempting the conve.r:se approach, by rewori

make line-haul service difficult. R>r example, in Allentown, Pennsylvania, the LANTA WhideyBird Mall Express circulator provides a link between popular shopping destinations and connects to LA.NTA's regular route network. Charlouc Area Transit System (CATS) in North Carolina provides another exarnplc.71 CATS recently launched smaller neighhorb.ood shuttles in suburban communities that transport customers to and from destinations within the neighborhoods. They stop at neighborb.ood "hubs" where customets can connect free of cb:u:ge to CATS line-haul routes that service downtown. In some communities, employers and other sponsors are contracting \11th transit agencies (public and private) for subscription bus or van senoices. In this type of :u:rangement, express bus or van service is offered to a closed group of riders. The sponsor determines the route and pays a set rare. In Texas, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) teamed up mth Campbell Centre Management to provide "E/Shuttle," which transports employees between Lovers Lane Rail Station and the Campbell Centre.'6 The shuttle is provided by DART, and the Campbell Centre pro,1des the shuttle operator. The Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), the transit provider for suburban Detroit, serves as an excellent example of a transit agency adapting its services to better meet th e needs of the community. In order to enhance employment-related transpOitation in the mid-1990's, SMART changed its focus from fixed route transit to a more flexible system that offered such services as employee shuttles, suburban-to-suburban pal'k and rid e routes, demand-response, and flexible ro11ting.'9 SMART also designed three programs aimed at helping individuals move from welfare to work. The "Get a Job, Get a Ridel'' program provides n ew employees with a free onc-month bus pass SMART's Joblinc is an automated telephone system that advertises job openings along SlvfART bus routes. The Job Express program uses small to take passengers from the line-haul route directly to the door of their work sites. Advancements in technology also have played an integral role in helping transit, particularly bus service, more effectively serve subutban communities. David Freedman provides a description of bus tran. sit technology advances in the United States, particularly in Montgomery County, Maryland.00 Freedman observes the common perception is that while buses are "old, smelly, noisy, bone-shaking, always late, and stuck in the same ... traffic as everyone else,'' buses are becoming much more sophisticated and efficient through "bigb-tecb makeovers. As an. alternative to major transportation infrn.\tructure projects that c

Bus View system that allows riders to access minute-by-m.inuce locations of buse- over th. e Ill!emet-They also include the MyBus system that aUows riders to access bus ardval times over U1e Internet or web enabled cell phones and hand held computers. Another advancement to bus service is the development of bus rapid transit (BRT) S)stems. A BRT i s an expr:ess bus with limited and widely spaced stopS that has its own travel lane, it to bypass traffic. Riding BRT can be compared to riding commuter or light rail. Because BRT offers a smaU number of stops, smaller feeder buses usuaUy supplement them. Cities that have recently implemented BRT systems include Washington, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh. Continually advancing technology holds great pOiential for what transit systems will be able to do in the future. Fteedman writes. Imagine, then, calling a transit company that setul.s a bus 15 mlnutes later to the comer 11ear your home, from which you re whisked to a BRT that takes you the 20 miles to downtown in just 25 minutes even in rush hour. Eventually the system may be smart enough. to automatically track your locatio" by cell pho11e, so that all you. need to do is say imo the phone, "I'd like a b1.s to the Williamstown Mall," and then wait a jew seconds to hear how soo11 your custom-programmed bus will pull up beside you. 31 Considering how rapidly bus technology is changing, that scenado may actually come true. For now, many transit agencies have strived to make their serv i ces more user friendly by c reating comprehensive websites where users can acoess infonnation such as routes, schedules, trip planners, service changes, and transit news. Commuter assistance programs also play a part in promoting tr'.msit U$8ge. fur example, the Commuter Assistance Program iu Arlington County, Virgiuia, provides a website called designed to encoura g e alternate modes of transportation82 offers a vast array of alternative transportation services suc .b. as daily commuter news, complete infom1ation on all the public transit systems and several private systems in the D .C. area, infoJll1ation about carpool and vanpool serv ices, weather conditions, air quality reports, traffic a l erts, and onl i ne ordering for transit passes. The site recently introduced Mobile Services, which allows users to access commuter news and schedules for Arlington 'ft'.msit and Arlington Meu'Obus from mobile devices such as Palms, Pocket PCs and web enabled ceU-phones. Couunuted' receives approximately 72,000 visitS per month.83 Otlering Location Efficient Mortgage In addition to physical design, regulation, and transit service approaches to creating transit friendliness in established car orien!ed communities, another approach uses monetary incentives for homebuyers to purchase homes near transit. Known as a Location Efficient Mortgage (LEM) program, it encow:ages th. e development of efficient, environmentally progJessive communities to reduce urban sprawl and dependence on the automobile.114 This program grants homebuyers larger loans and lower down payments than those for which they would nonnally qualify when they ch .oose to live in close proximity to public transit and major retail and employment centers. LEM takes into account how much money households can save each year by using public transit and applies that to their buying power, r:esulting in a potential increase in credit extension of sevenll thousand doUars. Th e "Location Efficient Value" of a home is calculated by a computerized Illltpping tool that assigns values based on resident i al density, automobile ownership, annual income, and access to public tran sportation and major retail and empiO)-nt centers.85 The LEM is an example of a tool that addresses the power inherent in the home purchasing decision made by individuals.


Whil. e TOD is touted for the good it does for society, the L EM creates a reason why it makes good sense for the individual to choose transit. It creates a personal benefit. Seattle, Washington, was the first. city to team up with Fannie Mae to offer I.EM. In order to participate in the program, homebu)ers must agree to owning no more than one car and live within one quarter mile of a bus line or one half mile of a train or light rail system.86 A$ an added benefit and an incentive to use transit, participants in the program automatically qualify to receive a 25 percent discount on an annual one-zone bus pass for two years87 The y also receive free. membership and discounted fees for the carsharing flexcar program. The LEM Program was developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, the Natural Resources Defense and the Surface. Transportation Policy Project, with support from Fannie Mae, with an aim of J.iJlking home ownership and public trattsit 88 'The prognun has also been J.aun.ched in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago. Similarly, !be Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Tr:ansit Authority (MARTA) is providing marketing supp(){l and transit passes for borrowers of the Fannie Mae Atlanta Smart Commute housing initiative. Offer i ng Car Shar i ng Prngrarns A service strategy that shows p romise in supporting the mobility of persons choosing to live in trattsit oriented development is car sharing programs. These are short tenn auto rental programs, either priv ate businesses or cooperatives, that make sense to persons who do not need a car to commute to and from work and who do not drive more than about 7 ,500 miles per)""" Car sharing programs enable persons to do away with private auto ownership by making available rental catS, vans and tmcks. Some survey data show that transit trip making of pexsons increases to 53 percent of total trips after joining a car sharing progmm, up from 35 percent of total trips prior to joining. 80 Members of car sharing programs can reserve a vehicle by phone or by Jntemet, usually 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and rent it for as little as an hour, or as much as a week or more. Members no longer have to be involved with repairs, insurance or parking. There are at least 46 cities in the United States and Canada that currently have c ar sharing programs. a<> Overcoming Community Resi>iance Through Public Education While progress has bee n made on many fronts in the areas of physical design, public policy, transit service improvements, and technology to build transit oriented development in established communities, perhaps the most difficult challenge is addressing resistance from the conununities themselves. Many suburban residents do not want transit services brought onto their streets. Their conoems are about safety, noise, fumes, and litter and a genetal fuar that public (('.msportation will biing an undesirable social element into their neighbodloods. Transit agencies have taken steps to make transit more acceptable to suburban communities. For example, employing public involvement processes in planning the TOD allows leadexs to address coUllllunity concerns and gather valuable input from citizens. Such input can result in design guidelines for both the land development a s well as the transit service itself, to preserve the distinct character of each neighborhood. To address community concems, u:ansit agencies have provided smaller transit vehicles, clean-fuel or electric vehicles, and improved bu s stop maintenance. For example, Arlington Tr:ansit (AR1) in Virginia supplements the regional Metrobus system with smaller, quieter, neighborbood-frieOOJy vehicles that operate on clean-buming nanltal gas.91 ART worl

Charlotte, North Carolina, implemented an public involvement plan when alternative transit options were being explored for ChaJ:Iotte's South Con:idor. During each phase of the Major Investment Study, residents and stakeholders were educated about the transit opportunities and challenges in the cooidor. and their input was gathered to identify community needs, issues, and concems.92 Similarly, Seatt l e's Station Area Planning Program also included a successful community outreach program. The outreach involved citizens in the station area planning process through the establishment of Station Area Advisory Committees in the area of each proposed light rail station. 93 A more extreme approach was taken in the Atlanta metropolitan area. TI>e Atlanta region is well known for the massive population growth and suburban sprawl it experienced in the 1980s and 1990s, tesultiJlg in some of !he worst traffic conditions and air quality in the nation. In the the 12 counties surrounding Atlanta put up strong resistance to creating a regional bus system, expressing fear that transit would bring city crime to tbeir commUldties.94 In 1998, Georgia Govemor Roy Barnes created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), giving it broad powers to deal with local governments. GRTA quickly proposed a regional express bus syStem and used a "cam>t and stick'' approach by making road money available to counties willing to patticipate. By April 2002, ll of the 12 suburban counties had adopted the proposal. Upon review of the perfom>ance criteria of Belzer and Autler, what seems missing is a measure of the broad appeal that TOD should deliver to homebuyers who otherwise move to the suburbs. The existing criteria frame the issues according to outcomes enjoyed by society as a whole rather than specific value to the individual. Ct'ite.ria assessing positive societal outcomes are useful for government planners in order to decide the best actions for the region.. However, these actions should be complemented with a criterion for assessing how the individual homebuyer or commuter will make Jocational and transportation decisions based upon what is best for him or bet-self. This is a perspective that has not been well explored by the li.terature addressing trnnsit oriented development. Developers will contiJlue to build large homes with three-car garages on one half-acre lot s until there is some indication that more homebuyets are willing to buy or lease into TOD. To compete with suburbia, TOD must offer suburban amenities-the sense of spaciousness, peacefulness, newness, privacy, exclusivity, etc., that suburbanites desire, and at the same time be dense enough to offer what suburbia cannot. That is, for example, the variety of land uses to enable comparison. shopping on as well as live!)' night life, and a stimulating arts and cultuJ:al scene. TOD may even be able to trump the in1age of suburbia being child friendly, as more suburban parents question the lack of sidewalks for children to safely walk and bicycle to school. The North Natomas Transportation Management Association in Sacramento, California, describes a community that is using an exteusive collaborative process to Cl

While it has taken more than 50 years of suburban development patterns to create the challenges of building transit oriented development in established communities, it is probably realistic to expect that progress will be slow and incremental as existing co .mmunities undergo redevelopment. It may take at least several decades, if not another 50 years to tum around the adverse impacts that suburbanization has made upon transit On the other hand, ever quickening access to reliable information in this age of telecommunications may serve to accelerate changes in cultural attitudes if not only to change investment decisions. Over the 50 years of suburban development, homebuyers have attempted to buy larger homes, as can be found in tbe suburbs, even though family/household size has continued to slU'ink. Howeve., real estate is not necessarily always the best investment vehicle, and the common fmancial advice to purchase "as much house as you can afford" may be a myth that has run its course. While st.orage warehouses have spn1ng up all across suburbia to contain possessions that no longer fit in poople' s homes, a countertrend has emerged in which there is a renewed interest .in simplified living. H this countertrend prevails, more homebuyers and tenants may consider anew the personal advantages of living in a TOD. Considering that, for every $1 spent on TOD, another $1.400 is spen t on conventional suburban development, the general public also may simply lack basic knowledge abom what TOD is and what it looks like. A T O D may not yet have been built in their urban area. As more TOD is built and advertised and more homebuyers are exposed to this option, the market may gain momenmm with increased awareness spurring more TOD borne purchases. Regardless of how these trends play out, the resistance of established car oriented communi t ies to adopt TOD features suggests that tbere i s a general lack of understanding of the suburban home buying and leasing market that transit visionaries hope to persuade. Tbis lack of knowledge can be initially addressed through focused market research to detemline how TOD can be provided to maximize its appeal. 2S


CONCLUSIONS This report provides a s)'lllhesis of !he major steps that established car oriented co.mmunities have taken to transfoml lhemselves into more transi t oriented communities. The majority of American communities !hat developed afte( World War n are served by privat e automobile t(aDsportation ratber than public transportation. Several communities have begun retrofitting effotts to encoumg e the use of alternative modes of transportation. Based upon this syothesis of conceptual i nformation about TOD as well as the experience and insights offered by municipal planners, transit professionals and other plliCtitioners, seve(a] observations and conclusions can be drawn: 1 ) The acceptance and adoption of TOO in established communities is an incremental. process lh. at may take decades to come to fntition. 2) Developing transit oriented communities will have a greatt( chance of success when a combination of tools are used together, including regulations such M zoning and parking onfutaoces, together with incentives such as tax exemptions an expedited pen nit review process, density bonuses, or a reduction or waiver of certain development fees. 3) For TOO projects to be successful, they must strive to capture mos t of the ll:aditional. suburban amenities that are so valued by subud>anites, such as the perception of quiet, spaciousn ess, light, privacy, safety, and security, while capi!alizing on its unique strengths nO( shared with suburbia These strengths include more stimulating commercial opportunities within walking distance and a cohesive sense of community. 4) TOO has the capacity to break groun d in our culture. While subud>i a offers socio-econontic homogeneity, TOD offers the opportunity to arrange cultural and sociOonontic diversity that is appealing. For exampl e TOO can be designed to increase livability for children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Development policies in TOO to intersperse affordable housing w ith ntiddlc-income and affluent housing can soften the demarcation between "us" and "them" and allevi.ate tbe desire to find socio-economic sanctuill)' in suburbia. Social programs, education, and services that elevare low-income persons from poverty and revitalize urban neighborhoods, have the potential to slow subud>anization. 5) ForTOD t o be successful and f or residents t o truly rely less on automobiles, residents must be able to make most routine personal trips by foot. There will have to be a sufficient variety of retail establishments to meet resident needs, within walking d istance from home or by uncomplicated transit trips This suggestS finding a workable balance between providing suffici ent development density while preserving other elements of suburban appeal. 6) TOO retrofitting has the best current chance of success in areas with initially amenable markets, such as high concentrations of single adults, "empty nesters," childless couples, and immigrants. 7) TOO approaches can differ significantly from place to place depending upon factors and circumstances such as land development regulations, zoning ordinances, market fJCtors, development opportunities, available public transportation services, resources, and the regional economy. For example, Atlanta' s Lindbergh City Center covers 47 acres is based around a rail station, and major housing, retail and office space. King County' s Village at Overlook Station, on the other hand, covers five acres, is built over a bus station, and includes rental housing units, a park and ride, and a child care facility. 8) New technologies add some degree of optimism for the future of tmnsi.t to betre( se.rve suburbia 26


as it exists today. This ,;eport included a brief presentation a bout the dominant suburban land development pattem o( the last 50 years. 1bis recognizes that society bas found certain positive benefits from suburban life while lessen ing the capacity of traditional transit systems to serve the public. Understanding the forces behind the growth of suburbia sheds some light on those main areas to focus upon. This enables us to cotsider ways to reverse the forces that have contributed to transit's dete.rioration. The forces and trends dtat reinforce suburbanization and thwart trou.>sit would not necessarily be a would argue that the suburban lifestyle, as chosen by many people through their home buying decision, should not be altered to aocommodate tr'dJISit, but rather transi t shoul d reinvent itsel f to serve the suburbs or stay out of the suburbs altoget her. However, this report has also identified concerns that suburban development may have created problems for individuals as well as society as a whole. Additionally, privat e automobile IC'dnsportation is available and affordabl e to the majority of us, but not all of us. 'l11ose not served by automobile transportation are sorely disadvantaged. And so it would seem that the so .lution must include eff01t s in bo t h directions. This includes transi t agencies maximizing tb.eir ability to extend effective services to sub urbia. It muSt also include attracting people back to urban life through t h e c reation of transit oriented development to enable transit to betler serve the public. 27






Charlotte, Nortlt Carolina Charlotte, North Carolina, serves a prime example of an automobile dominated community committed to moving towards transit oriented development and growth management. Over the past sevetal decades, Charlotte and its surrounding areas in Mecklenburg County have experienced massive growth. Charlotte was designated as the second fastest growing American city in the 1990s.96 Irs low density, subulban style land development pattems over the years have resulted in a classic case of subutban spmwl, with widespt-ead tmffic conge.'ttion throughout Mecklenburg County. The projected 50 percent increase in population over the next 25 years and the steadily increasing traffic congestion compelled the City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County to develop the "Centers and Corridors Concepts Plan" in 1994.97 long-term growth ltlllllllgement guide addressed traffic congestion, new development patterns, and creating new transit options. The major focus of the plan was to integrate tl'ansit and land use by concentrating transit supportive development and t'edevelopment along five major tmnsportation corridors. These are the Nonh, Nonheast, South, Southeast, and West COITidOI'S. Tite Cbarlottc/Mecklenburg area has a mdial, corridor structure that originates in the City Center and goes out to the comers of Mecklenburg County and into adjacent counties. Sixty rrcent of Charlot!e's jobs fall within the five con'idors.9 In 1998, tlte City of Charlotte and Mecklenburg 111e Charlolfe!Medclenburg area has a 1"(1(/iul, corridor structUre I /tal originates in tht City Center cmd goes out 10 the cornersi.Jj Mlde11burg Count) and inlo adjacent counlies. Gmplu'c pro1icltd by the Charlotte Area TrtmsiiSy:stem (CATS). County developed the 2025 Integmted Tmnsit/Land Use Plan, a long-range plan that. provides the f!'amewoJ:k: for developing mpid transit and tmnsit supportive land use plans for all five major corridors, in addition to trans. it improvements outside the corridor areas.99 This plan directs future high-density residential and employment growth around transit stations and major activity centers, where the growth can best be supported by tr:ansit services.'00 Public Support Once the necessacy agencies and governments endOI'Sed the 2025 Plan, the state gave pennission to place the half-cent sales tax referendum on the ballot to fund the plan. Since the city cannot officially endorse bonds, the Charlotte Chamber kicked off a campaign in suppott of the sales tax.10 1 In addition, a public education campaign to explain the components and goals of the 2025 Plan was led by Corporate Conununications. Since citizens were already aware of the traffic congestion problem, it did not take much cqnvincing. Public support of the Charlotte/Mecklenburg County initi.ative was made evident in November 1998 when citizens of Mecklenburg County passed the sal. es tax referendum to fund the implementation of a long-range plan that integmted land use and transportation. The sales tax generates about $1 million a week for expanded transit service and other transponatioo improvements. Corridor Transit Planning After the 1998 passage of the referendum, the Metropolitan Transit Commission (IV1TC) was created to manage the revenue brought in by the new tax and oversee transit service.102 The fir.;t step the MTC took in 30


) the planning process was to initiate Major Investment Studies (MIS) in all of the five major transportation corridors to choose a Locally Preferred Alternative (I..PA) for each corridor. The LPA defines the mode of transit (commuter mil, light rail, or bus rapid transit) chosen for a corridor and the route it will take. The MTS pt-ocess was a collaborative effort that involved the Charlotte Area Transit System, the ChadoneMecklenburg Planning Commission, the Charlotte Department of Traosportation, a program advisor, and corridor consultant teams. South Corridor TI1e South Corridor was the first corridor for which the MIC completed a Major Investment Smdy and started the preliminary engineering stage.103 The other four corridors are still being studied. A light rdil route that extends I I miles from Charlotte's Uptown to th. e Town of Pineville was selected for the South Corridor. The new light rail line will make use of an existing rail bed.104 The City of Charlotte owns pan of the necessary rightof-way and is negotiating with Norfolk Southern for the rest. The South Corridor Project is expected to cost $350 million, with a proposed combination of federal, state, and local funding.105 The line is expected to begin operating in 2006. An cxwnple afu/Ure $Quth Corridor light railMation area mighl look likll. Rendef'in$ provided by 1he Char/oue All'

Transit Station Area Principles In November of 2001, Charlotte City Council adopted t he Transit Station Area Principles, and included them as a section of the General Development Policies. The Transit Station Area Principles address land use and development, mobility, and community The principles serve as a guide for the development and redevelopment of areas around transit stations to permit increased land use density and encourage people to use transit. 11lc policies will be applied within a half mile of identified rapid transit stations, and will promote a of complementary transit suppo rtive laud uses, increased land use intensity, pedestrian and bicycle systems, interconnected street networks, reduoed parking requirements, shared p,arking, pedestrian ori. ented streetscape and site design, and open spaces to sene as activity centers. 12 More specific land use and mt>au design plans will be developed for each station area throughout the fiw!: rapid transit oorridors. Each station area will have different characteristics. Joint Development Principles In addition to the Transit Station Area Principles, the M'IC and the Charlotte City Council also adopted Transit Station Area Joint Development Principles. 11lc purpose of the principles i s t o provide a framework for local govemments to encourage transit supportive development at the transit stat ions. 113 The principles, which were developed by CATS in conjunction with the Charlotte Mecklenburg Planning Corrunission and other City departments,' 14 encourage placing public facilities at or near transit stations providing basic p u blic infrastructure in station areas, developillg a variety of affordable housing near stations, developing public/private partuerships aimed at encouraging TOO, providing TOO incen.tives to the pdvate sector, removing barriers to TOD, and promoting a healthy mix of business development around the Pedestrian Overlay Districts In its attempts to become more pedestrian-oriented, Charlotte adopted a new zoning category called the Pedestrian Overlay District (referred to as PED). The PED provisions aim to improve accessibility to pedestrians and tl'aUSit users; ir.lcrease development potential; encourage a mixture of uses the reuse of existing buildings, and development which complements adjacent neighborooods.116 Fourteen corridors have been identified as potenti al PEDs. Individual Pedscape Plans must be developed for each area before it is zoned a s a PED overlay district. The first of these plans to be developed, the East lroulevard Pedscape Plan, sets requirements for new development and calls for improvements such as wider sidewalks, cross walks, landscaping, planting strips, planters, pedestrian lighting, medians, and bike laues1 17 Recent Transit Improvements The flfSt line of rapid transit ( th e South Corridor Light Rail) will not open until 2006. rn the meantime, CATS has taken other steps to expand and enhance transit service in suburban areas. CATS recently launched small er, neighbodtood shuttles in suburban communities that tr.msport customers to and from destinations within the neighborhoods and stop at neighbodtood "hubs" where customers can connect free of charge to CATS Line-Haul routes tltat setvice dovmtown110 Th e neighborhood shuttles include fixed route and demand-response (Similar to taxi) services. Five of these routes were Slatted in October 2001, one was started in June 2002, and eight more are planned to start in October 2002. So far the response to this new service has been positive. Ridership along these mutes has been steadily growing and customers are urging CATS to expand the service to more places. CATS has also improved transit service in subur:ban areas by increasing the frequency of the Bus service from the suburbs into downtown Charlotte.119 They increased the headway of one route from 30 minutes at its peak to 12 minutes, and anotber route from every 25 to every 15 minutes. 32


The initiative to creat e new senices and enhance existing sernces came about through customer requests, bus overcrowding (on Express Bus routes), ru1d a Countywide Transit Servioe Study that took lace in 2000. These services are funded through revenues generated by f ate boxes and the half-cent sales t ax.' Conclusion It is clear Charlotte is taking proactive steps to become more tntnsit friendly through its conidor transit planning, pedestrian overlay districts, and transit service improvements. Charlotte' s 2025 fntegrated Transit/Land Use Plan i s a major unde.taking and the fmt leg of the plan, the South Corridor, seems to b e running smoothly. While it is too soon to gauge the results of Charlotte's TOO effot1s, there is much promise for future success. --------------------. .. Seccion 3a The se.c1Wtr oflhe EaSJ Pedsmpe Pkmfrom Charlotte Jo Kenil'OrthAvenue. Renderins created and proJ:ided by Gay Grayson of the Clwlolle Mecklenburg Planning C

Denver, Colorado The C ity of Denve.:, Colorado's Mile High City, is a vibrant business community that ranks among tbe nation's roost livab le cities. Denver also has the distinction of being the ninth most congested city in the country. With forecasts calling for an additional one million people to move to the Denver metropolitan area over the next twenty years, the overall population gro\\1h of over 38 percent will place a severe str

The ftndings of a !992 Denver Regional Council of Govenunents (DRCOG) congestion study revealed that expected growth in the conidor had already been surpassed and the I-25 highway had surpassed its estimated maximum capacity. Tite DRCOG study also revealed a pattem where traffic volumes were risiJ1g even faster than increases in population and employment in the corridor. The study conclusion was that futther expansion of the corridor's highway would not be adequate, that some fonn of mass transit clement, such as light rail, should also be included. The was a collaborative effort between COOT and RID that included funding partners from FHWA and FfA, with support by two locally approved bond issues. The ftnal project, a modem integrated network of highway and light rail options totaling $1.67 billion, was funded without any new or increased taxes.1 29 Examples of Transit-Oriented Development The RID is cun:ently working on seveo:al transit oriented development projects. The following three are representative of RID' s efforrs.':JO The Poilu Project Denver's Five Points neighborhood has become a showplace for TOD with its combination of distinct land use patterns and urban design to create transit villages at light rail stops. The Five Points residential and business community was plagued by eco.nomic hardship for seveo:al decades. Since the introduction of Light Rail in 1994, Five Points has been experiencing new development One example is The Point Project currently under construction. The Point consists of 68 residential un.its, half r ental and half for sale, with some offered at affordable rates, 16,000 square feet of office space and 6,100 square feet of retail. / 25 a>ul Broadway The 1-25 and Broadway Light Rail station is a busy station along RID' s Southeast Conidor. It also the terminus of a new light mil extension currentl y under construction. Due to Ibis light rail investment, a private d eveloper hns init;ated a master plan for a dense transit village for the 50+ acres of land acquil'ed adjaoent to the light rail station formerly owned by the Gates Rubber Company. Although in its formative stages, plans call for over 4,000 residential units and 2 miDi on square feet of commercial space. Union. Station The Denver Union Station is currently the subject of a study to transfonn it to become the premi e r transit and transponation hub for the metropolitan Denver area. Among the elementS included in the master plan are the additi.on of sever.U regional light rail lines, seveo:al high speed commuter rail lines, regional and local bus service, and bicycles. The potential for private development opponunities for the surrounding parcels is also being examined. Conclusion The Denver metropolitan area has taken proactive steps to manage the transponation issues and cltalleuges that li!SUlt in being one of the countty' s most desirable and livable areas. The RID was created to provide a regional frrunework to address public transportation needs. 11te metropolitan area has taken a comprehensive and balanced approach by developing an integrated land-use and u:ansponation plan. A unique, collaborative approach between highway and transi t agencies been undertaken to address the long-range transportation needs of corridors. RID's light rail projects have spun:ed transit-oriented development near its stations. 35


Atlanta, Geocgia The Atlanta metropolitan .,..a, an economic hub of the Southeast, i.s famous for U1e explosive population g)'Owth and suburban sprawl it experienced in the 1 980s and 1990s. Land development occurred at a much faster rate than population g)'OWth. Between 1990 and 1996 th. e Atlanta region's population grew by 16 percent, while the amount of deve loped land grew by 47 pet'Cent 131 The lack of geographic barriers, such as mountains, Jakes, or oceans has been a primary contributor toward the sprawling development Due to this dispersed development Atlanta has a ear-centered culture, earning the dubious rankings of t he highest vehicle miles traveled (almost 35 miles per day per capi ta)1 33 and longest daily commutes in the natio.n.194 1lle development pattern and resultant automobile use has had a severe impact on the region's air and water quality and green space.135 Due to having some of t he worst traffic congestion and air quality in the country in the mid 1990 s the Atlanta Metropolitan Area governments, including the Meti'Opolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), were pressured to do sorneth ing.13 6 MAR TA however, was limited to serving onl y those municipalities i n its tax base-Fulton and DeKalb Counties and the City of Atlanta Att empts to create a regional transportation system to serve the en t ire Atlanta regional area to help allevia te traffic congestion were mel with s lrong resistance from the subutban counties surrounding Atlanta. Th e countie. voiced fear that transit would bring city crime to their communities. Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) The 13 counties in th.e metropolitan area were issued a serious non-attainment air quality rating by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).131 As a result of the poor air quality rating, the federal funding for new highway projects was cut off for the Atlant a metropolitan area due to fuilure to attain Clean Air Act standards. The EPA action prompted Georgia's governor to create the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) in 1998. GRTA's mission was to reduce lr'oiftic congestion improve air quality, and direct new growth .1 38 The State granted GRTA broad poweJ:S to deal with local governments and the authority to finance mass transit and other pro j ects tltat aim to alleviate air pollution. GRTA approval beeame requi red for all land transportation plans and major developments th at affect the Atlanta region s lransf:ortation system, although loeal governments can oveo:ule a GRTA veto with a thn-fourths majority vote. 39 After its inception, GRTA quickly proposed a regional express bus system and used a "carrot and stick." approach by making road money to participating counties. By April 2002 II of the suburban counties had adopted the proposa!.'40 GRTA's preliminary Regional Express Bus Plan consists of 37 routes serving major activity centers connecting to l.\fARTA and loc al bus service 141 Where available, most of th e routes will originate at park and ride Jots and operate on high-occupancy vehicle (HOY) Janes. The majority of the routes will be implemented between 2003 and 2005. To pay for the new regional transit system., the counties will cover bus operating costs and GRTA will give each county bond funds provided by the State Road and Tollway Aut hority (SRTA) for road iroprovements. '!be progran> will include 48 arterial mad improvement projects valued at over $260 million, which were selected and prioritized by the individual counties. "2 Atlanta Regional Commission Initiatives The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) is the regional planning agency for metropolitan Atlanta. Through its Community Choices program, ARC has crea ted several initiatives aimed at promoting quality growtb.'43 One of the most no t able of these is the Livable Centers Initiative (l..CI). LCI, part of ARC's 25 year Regional Transportation P lan, began in 1999 and awards $1 million per year for five years to loca l 36


governments and nonprofit agencies to fund land use and tmnspo.rtation planning studies. ARC funding is awarded to studies that demonstrate the following concepts: 144 connecting homes, shops, and oftices; enhancing streetscape and sidewalks; em phasizing the pedestrian; improving access to cransit and other transportation options; and expanding housing options. ARC has an additional $350 million to he.lp implement the more promising findings of these studies. The Quality Growth Toolkit, created by ARC for local governments and the public, is important to the Community Choices Program. The toolkit offers techniques that address such topics as developing conservation districts, corridor redevelopment, tmnsit-orienred development. inflll developroent, mixed income housing, overlay districts, and traditional neighborhood development.1 4 5 The toollcit was developed from the best prootices at work both locaUy and nationally and attempts to create a set of strategies that. make sense for the Atlanta Region. Mecropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority TOO In its role as the primary regional transit provider, l.V!ARTA has embraced the TOO approach. MARTA currently bas six TOO projects either being planned, in the negotiation stages, or under construction around its Two major MART A TOD projects include the Lindbergh City Center and the Medical Center TOO. Lindbergh City Cemer The Lindbergh City Center, developed by Carter & Associates, is the largest TOO project under construction in Atlanta. Tite 47-acre master planned development surrounds MARTA' s Lindbergh station, and upon completion will include a twin tower office complex; retail space;

three business ce.nters located along MARTA' s rail line within easy walking d istance of A key goal of Bell South' s Melro Plan is to help alleviate traffic congestion and air pollution in Atlanta. Bell South is also consttucting parking decks at MARTA's end-of-line stations for its employees.1 54 As an added incentive to use publi c transit, Bell South gives its employees MARTA passes.165 Medical Center The Medical Center TOD, which is currently under consttuction, is a 17-acre mixed-use development located between lv!ARTA's Medical Center S tation and Saint Joseph's Health System campus.156 Plans c all for a three-building medical office complex, multiThe Lindbergh TOD a Main S treet abow: the wuJergnmnJ rmin staticm dining, slwpping. a movie theater, and a hotel. Rendering provided by the Melropolilan Atlmrla Rapid T ransiJ Authrm'ty (MART A). f amily housing, an expanded pedeslrillll plaza with retail potential, direct aocess to MARTA's Medical Center Station and Saint Joseph' s campus, and an underground c irculation co. rti d or for physicians and employees. Tbe project is a public/private partnership between l.\>!ARTA, St )ooeph's Health System, Carter & Associates, and the Harold A Dawson Company. Conclusion The Atlanta Metropolitan Area offers an illustrative example o f how unplanned and unrestrained developmen t creates transpot:tation problems. While the threat of loss of federal h ighway funding provided the impetus to create GRTA. t h e 1-esultiug regional approach has already provided positive outcomes. MARTA aggressively pursued public-private partnerships in TOD projects. 38


Orlando, Florida The City of Orlando, the heart of the Central Florida Region, is located in Or:ange County, Florida. Orlando holds the region's largest conceou:ation of emplo}'lllent and population and serves as the hub of govemment, financial. legal and corporate businesses. The Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, also known as LYNX, provides transit service to Omnge County as well as Seminole and Osceola Counties. LYNX provides over 70,000 rides each day, and has been recognized as the fastest growing transportation system in the United States.157 One of the challenges LYNX faces is that because i t serves a trl-<:ounty area it has no dedicated funding source.158 Annually, it is up to each individual jurisdiction within the service area to provide funding for transit service. The City of Orlando commits 50 peroent of it Gas Tax Revenue (about $3.5 million) per yeax to LYNX for tmnsit service.159 The City of Orlando has attempted to talre a multi-modal approach to transportation. Through its land use codes transportation planning and strong transit system, Orlando is working hard to encourage walking, bicycling, and public tl"dllSit as viable modes oftran'(lortation. LAnd Development Code Through the City of Orlando's LAnd Development Code, efforts are being made to encourage a mix of land uses and higher development densities .160 Instead of having sttaight commercial zoning districts Orlando has Activity Center Districts that promote a mixture of conunercial, office, and residential uses. Some zoning districts also require minimum densities (for example, 12 dwelling units per acre) to encoumge higher intensity developroent The City's LAnd Development Code also promotes the usc of alternate modes of trnnsportation. While most cities only require a minimum number of parlting spaces for development, Orlando sets the maximum number of parking spaces for retail at four spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area and the minimum number of spaces at 2.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area. The City also limits the addition of new long-term parking spaces in the downtown core. To encourage bicycling. all new development or redevelopment is required to install bicycle racks and lockers. In addition, the City of Orlando's Bicycle Advisory Council and LYNX are working together to incorporate bicycle racks iJ.lto bus stop designs. To tmhance pedestrian safety, the City's approximately 500 miles of sidewalks are required to be at least five feet wide along aU development and wider in high pede.strian areas and along major roadways. In order to main.tain the pre World War IT de\elopment patterns within Orlando's Traditional City (the part of the city built befO

Bicycle Plan Orlando's Bicycle Plan has played a key role in Orlando's multi-modal approach to tr.msportation.161 In 1990, Bicyck Magazine ranked Orlando as the second worst city for bicycling in the country. The ranking inspired City officials to develop a loog-mnge bicycle plan, with the goal of increasing bicycling as a mode of transportation by "implementing a system of safe, economical and efficient bikeway facilities and by supportin g bicycle-related programs.''162 Since the plan was completed in 1994, the City has buil t over 150 miles of bikeways, and the 2001 Plan update calls for the construction of an additional79 miles by 2006 and another 100 miles by 20 1 0 Orlaodo has placed 94 bicycle racks at public facilities throughout the city, aod now requi res all new developments to provide bicycle parlring close to the main entrance. The city's bicycle facilities had improved so much by the year 2000 that the League of American designated Orlando as one of 52 "Bicycle Friendly Communi ties,. in the U.S. Central Florida Mobility Design Manual LYNX took a proactive approach toward transit friendly development by creating the Central Florida Mobility Design Manual, a book of explicit and detailed guidelines for integrating a balanced transportation system into the physical design of new growth and redevelopment 163 These guidelines are tueant to be used during a project's design and development review stages by the architects, planners, landscape atchitects, engineers, local officials, and developers involved. The manual includes a mobility design checklist and covers such topics as pedestrian, bicycle, vehicular and transit circulation; transit stops and temlinals; and building locati.on and design. The Mobility Design Guidelines are based on the goats, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plans of the 26 cities and counties in Central Florida. Although LYNX often coordinates with the jurisdictions in its three-county service area for development review aod provides guidelines, it has no development authority. The goal is to get th. e jurisdictions to adopt LYNX's Mobility Design Guidelines into their own land devetopmenc codes and transi t oriented development guidelines, so they will be ready when transit service e)(tends into their communities. None of the jurisdictions have officially adopted the guidelines yet.164 Lymlll() To encourage transit use in downtown Orlando, LYNX, in partnership with the City of Orlando, provides a free bus rapid transit service called Lymmo that runs along a three-mile circuit tltrough downtown.1 65 The Lynuno fleet consists of 11 low floor compressed natural gas buses that have their own dedicated lanes, aod control their own tr.u.tic signal s A Lymmo comes by one of the 11 stations and 8 stops every five minutes during normal office hours, and every 10 minutes after hours. Lymrno is advertised as being able to deliver passengers w ithin a block of any location downtown in 10 minutes or less. A Tax Increment Trust Fund of the Orlando Community Redevelopment Agency fund s this service.166 Examples of Transit-Oriented Development Naval Training Center Redevelopmenl Orlando is currently in the process of redeveloping tlte old Naval Training Center (NTC).167 When the final decision carne to close down the NTC, the City of Orlando proactively initiated a Reuse Plan to guide redevelopment of the base and its faci lities in a way that woul d support loeat economic and conununit:y development. An important part of the design process was citizen input. A Visual Pteference Survey was 40


administered at three public meetings to fllld out what type of development the citizens preferred, and a u aU day workshop was held for citizens to brainstorm and put their ideas for the redevelopment down on paper. The resulting Concept Plan that was created included a mixed-use (retail, office, and residential), pedestrianoriented village center surrounded by high-{!e.nsity residential areas, and open space parks. A traditional neighborhood community called Lake Baldwin i s the planned redevelopment for the main base, which is I ,093 acres in total area and located approximately three miles east of downtown Odando and next to the City of Winter Park. According to the City of Orlando Transportation Planning Bureau, the development "presents the Cit y and developers with a rare opportunity to n ot only redefllle a major in-town site, but to also create a model for Orl.ando's future."166 The Lake Baldwin plan incotporates an effective transi t pLm aimed at reducing automobil e d ependence. Transit plans for t h e redevelopment include timely b u s routes through tn e community that wiU link to downtown Orlando, the possibility of rubber wheel trolleys or buses to connect neighborhood cen ters to t be Village Center and the nearby business park, and provisions for a future light rail system which could co .nnect the Village Center with Orlando's major activity centers Southe

Nefshbothood ltotlx.MUW Apcrb:ncnu .,..,,_ SolaU)Ot Sltlglt hlNJy Slllndlld.lot 5iin&le hml!y Sd>ooi/CI"' N'cl$bborhood P.ull Neiglrbcrhood UltiSII'QJionjrom the Sot4lheasr Orklndo Sector PIM. Dm""ing pi"'Vided by 1hc City of Orkmdo TranspoMllon Plarmi11g BureazL 42


2 Way Local Circulator Svlc. Local Scrvfce EXpreas Bll8 Pottnttol Ral Couldor NOTE : Although specific transit routes hav& not been identified on the Oriando International Airport property, adequate connections I transit facilities shd be provided to serve both the OIA (consistent with approved DRI development O sl Scctot Pld n I -The propr;sed tram;it plan fmm the S()utheast Sector Plan. provided by th4 Cily ()j Orlando TransportatkJn Pla11ninslJureau. 43


Bblane Bilte Path --Sl.-d Route NOTE : Although specific bicycle facilities have not been Identified on the Orlando tntematiooal Airport property, adequate sale connections shall be provided to se

The Central Puget Sound Region, Washington The Cento:al Puge t Sound region, in the state of Washington, provides an excellent example of a region making efforts to become more transit friendly. Home of Seattle, the Central Puget Sound region has some of the worst traffic congestion in the nation and is facing significant population growth. The following case study provides a description of what i s being done on a regional, county, and city level t o alle, iatc traffic congestion and become more transit oriented. Ccn.tral Pugct Sound Regional Transit Authority Traffic congestion led the Washington Legislature to pass legislation in 1993 that allowed the creation the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (RTA), also known as Sound Transit.171 Sound Transit was given the responsibility of planning, building, and operating a high-capacity regional tJansi.t system. In 1996 voters in King, Pierre and Snohomish counties approved Sound Transit's 10-year "Sound Move" plan, which called for bringing express buses, commuter trains, and light rail into tbc region. In approving the Sound Move plan, th e three counties agreed to tax themselves to constrUct this new mass uansit system. Under the plan, the express buses, commuter trains, light rail, and local conununity buses are meant to operate in a "seamless" lnlnSportation network. There are currently seveo:al express bus routes t hat link the major activity centers of Bellevue, Everett, SeaUle, and Tacoma with Other communities in the Cento:al Puget Sound Region with more service to be implemented in th e future as ridership grows.172 At this time tbere are two commute r trains traveling in tbe morning and evening between Tacoma and Seattle. Seveo:al more tnrins will be added once uack and signal improvements are made. Upon completion, conunuter trains will service 82 miles of track between Eve.rett and Lakewood. The third important component of Sound Transit's regional transportation system is Link light rail, which is planned to be 24 .miles in length at completion, running from North gate to SeaTac The initial 14 mile central Link light rail line will serve downtown Seattle down to Sea Tac and is expected to start service by 2009. Early on, Sound Transit made TOO an important element of its r:egional tr:-dflsit system. In 1997, Sound Transit created the Transit Oriented Development Taskforce, made up of the agenC)'s board members, giving it the duty of clarifying Sound Transifs role and responsibilities in achieving TOD while working with local jurisdictions173 Sound Transit also had a working subcommittee in place for a few years to lay the groundwork for future TOD in the region through educational outreach and to address real estate and TOO issues as they emerged 174 So far, Sound Transit's TOD work has had a more suburban focus on park-and-ride JOts and transit centers for their bus program, and around stations for their commuter rail services.1 7 5 At this point, Sound Transit's TOD staff has mostly done feasibility sndies. The next step is implementation. They are now starting to look at real projects and hope to have development agreements within the next year or so. King County Transit Oriented Development Program King County's Transit Oriented Development Program began in 1998 and is based on the redevelopment of bus transit centers and/or park-and-ride l ots.176 The aim of the program is to control urban sprawl by building housing and other amenities on and around park-and-ride lOis. In 1999, King County hired Economics Research Associates to create a ranking of the county's park-and-ride lots from a private development which King County TOD projects have subsequently been based upon. According to the TOD Project Status Update of April 2002, "Three projects are completed, one is under 4 5


construction, developus have been selected for five, feasibility srudies are undeJ: way for 11 projects and initial discussions are going on for five."177 The following i s a highlight of two of the completed projects. The Village at Overtake Station Tite Village at Overlake Station, one of tbe first pilot projects for King County's Transit Oriented Development Program, is a join t development project between King County, the King County Housing Development. Auth01ity and a private developer.' '6 This project is the nation s fi tst housing development to be built over a transit station. The station development, which operates as a park-and-rid e lot and a major transit facility, includes two leve l s of covered parking with over 500 parldng stalls available to residents Att early artist's oftlte piJJnned Overlake TOD project in Redmond, lVashingroo. Rendering pruvidt-d by King County Departmr111 of 1'ransponation. and park-and-ride users, 308 rental housing units, and a 2,400 square foot ch i l d-are facility for residents and park -an d -ride users. The majority of the funding for the $38 million dollar complex was provided by the King County Housing Authority ($21.5 million in taxoxempt bonds} and Columbia Housing and Fannie Mae ($13.5 million in equity investments). The City of Redmond waived $1.7 milli.on in development fees and additional funding was provided by the King County Department of Transportation and the State Convention and Trade Center' 9 This helped keep tental rates affordable to households earning 60 percent ($35,000 to $40,000) or less of the median income. To top it off, a free bus pass is given to each household to encournge use of public transit The fim'shed lAerlake TOD projecJ c;()mbines a park-dnd rideltransiJ affordable housing, ond a chiklcare facitily. PltoUJ prcwided by the King County Department ofTransponalimr. One of the major challenges to the project came from the Federal Transit Administration (FfA).160 Under the temlS in which the FfA contributed funds to d evelop the original five-acre par k-and-ride lot, King County had to get the Ff A's approval for any incidental or non-transit use of the property o r e l se reimburse the money to the federal government The Ff A was initially hesitant to give approval because a project like this had never been done before. The Overlake commercial area in Redmond, Washington, is a major employment center with approximately 600 f1111lS and 22,600 employees. The Village at Overlake Station, located in the center of tbe area, is within walking distance of the main campus of Microsoft and several other employers, restaurants, and stores. Combining affordab le housing, childcare, and pltblic transit allows workers to live near their place 46


of employment and be less automobile dependent. According to Ron Sims of King County, "By locating the transit center with housing, and near jobs, more Redmond residents can take advantage of our countywide bus system.,161 Metropo/il(ln Place The second project completed under King County's Transit Oriented Development Program was Place, located in downtown Renton.' Metropolitan Place is across the street from the Renton Transit Center, and includes 4,000 square feet of ground nooc retail space and 90 apartments above a twostory, 240 pad

station area.187 Tite SAACs were involved in developing the Sta tion Area Co n ce p t -Level Recommendations, took part in a series of design workshops, and made sure the goals of Ute neighborhood plans were adequately addressed. Program staff also held SAP open houses, conducted over 150 iJtterviews and focus groups with community stakeholders, and held focus groups witn over 40 members of the development and financial community to hel p identify TOD opportnnities and obstacles.188 1be SAP process came to a close in July of 2001 when the City of Seattle passed its Station Area Overlay legislation, cteating Station Area Overlay Districts and rezones around eight future light rdil stations.189 The provisions of the Station Area Overlay Districts, which came from neighborhood plan recommendations, aim to encourage housing development and pedestrian activit y and discourage a utomobile oriented development near Ute planned light rail stations. While there is interest from the development community, it is still too soon to see major results from the SAP progmm.1&o It is expected that once light rail constntction actually begins, a net result will start to be seen in the station. areas. The Station Area Planning Program's ojlhe planned McCieJJan starion area, ii')Caled in the NqYlll Rainier VaUey Rtndering provided by rhe St!Arlle Departme ttt of Tmnsp011ation. The SAP team took some valuabl e lessons away from the throe-year planning experienoe.19 1 F'll'St, defmitiv e information on light rail alignment, station locations and property impacts is needed for the station area planning process to be most effective. Due to unexpected schedul e changes, Sound Transit often fmalized alignment and station location decisions after SAP work in neighborhoods had already started. 1bi s level of uncertainty limited the amount of TOD implementation that could be accomplished duriug the SAP process. Secoud, it is impo1tant for partneriug agencies to have cleady defmed roles and good lines of communication from the beginning. Sound Transit and the SAP team were necessarily focused on different things-Sound Transit on the engineering project and the SAP team. on "making the most of light rail investmenr for Seattle neighborhoods. But there was a lack of clear expectations about the responsibilities each agency would take on, and the SAP team felt they took on an unexpected amount of the community outreach and invo lvement work. 1binl, the SAP team learned the value of having a neighborhood planning process to build on. Because the neighborhood groups had been woddng on plans for four years, the SAP process co u ld go be)k>n d creating a vision and goals for the area to "identifying specific urban design strategies, rezones or capital projects needs." Location Efficient Mortgage Progmm rn 1999, the City of Seattle and the Fannie Mae Foundation teamed up to launch a pilot program called the Location Efficient Mortgage lnitiative.19 2 Through program, Fannie Mae and the City grant homebuyers larger loans and lower down payments than those for which they would normally qualify. rn exchange. homebuyers agree to own no more than on e car and to l i ve within on e quarter mile of a bus line or one half mile of a train or light rail system. The program takes into account how much money households can save each year by using publi c and a pplies that to their buying power resulting in a potential increase in credit extension of several thousand dollars As an added benefit and an incentive to use transit, p.11ticipants in the automati cally qualify to receive a 25 pereent discount on an annual on

The Ave Street Project The Ave Street ,eroject provides an example of what Seattle is doing to make streets more pedestrian and transit friendly' Uuiversicy Way Noitheasr, more commonly l

Simple concreb _.../ paving 'Pervloua" pavement ""'" ---..../ tree pit to absO



Beimbom, Edward, Harvey Rabinowitz, Peter Gugliotta. "lmplemeruarion Issues for Transit Sensitive Suburban Lantl Use Desigr" 1be Center for Urban Transportation Studies, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee. Prepared for th e World Conference on Transportation Research, Sydney Australia, July 1995. This paper add1esses the issues involved in implementing transit friendly suburoan land use approache.' such as traditional neighborhood development projects, pedestrian pockets, and cotridor based design. It provides guidelines "th at can be used to create situations where transit/pedestrian and bicycle f a c ilities are used as a basis for land use design," (pg 2). The guidelines are placed into three categories: administo:ation and policy, systems planning, and the design of tr.msi. t conidor districts. 'The paper also includes specific implementation strategies. Belzer, Dena and Gerald Autler. "Transit Oriented Development: Moving From Rhetoric to Reality." Prepared for the Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Great American Station Foundation, June 2002. This paper provides a good general overview of TOD. The paper starts out with a discussion of TOO's history and where it is headed in the future; followed by TOD perfoonance criteria; challenges to TOD; and recommended actions for transit agencies, local govemments, developers and lending institutions, and community organi>.ations. "lJuilduzg a Commu11ity Vision: Trar1sit-Oriented Development Case Studies." City of Seattle Station Area Planning Program, currently found at hup:f/www This rep01t is a collection of detailed case studies from ten cities that have had a variety of TOD experiences: Atlanta, Denver, Los Angeles, Po11land, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Vancouver, and Washington, D.C. A discussion of when TOD works best is provided, based on the findings of the case studies. Implications of the findings for Seattle are examined. "1'1te Costs of Sprawl Revisited Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 39. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C 1998. This report provides a working definition of sprawl and its associated costs, a historical overview of sprawl dating back to the 1920 's, and a review of the existing literature that addresses spo:awl. "Creating Transit Station Conummities u the Central Puget Somul Region: II Transit-Oriented Development Workbook." P ugetSoundRegional Council. June 1999. This workbook defmes transit station communities, describes the elements that make up a transit station conununity, and discusses the benefits of and obstacles to TOD. The workbook concentrates on the pragmatic implementation steps needed to achieve successful TOO. The three main sections focus on guiding principles for creating transit station communities, how to assess the market for TOO, and implementation tools for creating transit station communities. Freedman, David. "Magic Bus." Busiless 2.0. http:f/www!0.1640.16664.FF.html. August 2001. Currently found at This article provides a good descripti011 of bus transit technology advances in tlte Unit ed States, particularly in Montgomery County, Maryland. The discussion centers on global positioning system (GPS) technology. The author also addresses the advantages bus transit holds over rail transit.


Freilich, R.H., "The land-Use Implications of Transit-Oriented Development: Controlling the Demand Side of Transportation Congestion and Url>an Sprawl," Ud>an Lawyer, American Bar Chicago, Volume 30, Issue 3, August 1998, pp. 547-572. This article summarizes the results of a comprehensive survey of transit agencies throughout the United States, as well as a survey of case law and state statures on transit oriented development (TOD). While tl1e concept of 100 bas a sound legal rmd constitutional basis, i t raises some legal issues with regard to implementation. "Guideline$ for Enhancilg Suburban Mobi/Uy Using Public Transportation." Trans i t Cooperative Research Program Report 55. Transportation Research Board. Washington D C 1999. This report d iscusses the implications suburban styl e development has had on transit and identifies the current practices transit agencies are using to better serve subud>an travel needs Some of the various practices discussed include land-use strategies, enhancing line -haul services, local area circulators and shuttles, and subscription buses and vanpools. Katz, Bruce and Jennifer Bradley. "Sprawl: 11e Equal Opportuni ty Menace. In Volume 6, Ne w Jersey Transportation Planning Autbority. Cur:rently found at http1/njtpa.njit.edulpublic affairslintrans/spraw vol 6 final.hun. Tilis article provides a discussion of how suburl>an style development became the prefer:red form of lMd development and the consequences that come with suburban sptawl The authors promote metropolitanism as a means for addressing the problems of sptawl and supporting 'fOD. Koosoulis, Mary and Kathy Franz. "On Track: Tran .yit and the Americ a n City," TDM Review, Association for Commuter lVashiJgton, D .C., Issue 12002, UrbTrans Consultants, pg 1()-12. This articl e provides an overview of an exhibit from the National Building Museum in Washington, D C., called On Track: Trm>sit antlthe American City. The authors provide an overview of the hiStory of relationship between transit and urban form in the Unit ed States, from the electric streetcar suburbs of t h e ear l y 20., century to today' s transit/land t>SC trends. McCann, Barbara. ''Driven to Spend: The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses." Surface Transponation Policy Project and the Ce. n t er for Neighborhood Technology. This study el(amines the rising cost of transportation for American households, and concludes, "a major factor driving up transportation co sts is sprawling develop ment" (executi ve summary) The study found that i n the average American household, 18 cents out of every dollar spent goes to transportation expen$e$98 percent of v.ili ch goes to the purchase, operation, and maintenance of automobiles. It was found that transp01tation expenses are highest in coiJUilunit:ies chataeterized by sprawling development. The author provides recommendations to address this problem and improve transportation choices. Millard-Ball, Adam. "Putting on Their Parking Caps; Affordable Housing, TransiJ-Oriented Smart Growth, B ener Water Quality, Reduced Congestion, and More IYalkable, Livuhle CommuniJie," Planning, Vol. 68, 4 The American Planning Association, Aplil2002 This article describes h.ow severa l communities have been adapting parking policies in recent years t o tackle the issues listed in the t itl e of the article. Eugene, Oregon, Cambridge Massachusetts, and Gainesville, Florida are a few of the many cities discussed. 53


Morris, Marya. "Creating Transit-Supportive Land-Use Regulations: A Compendium of Codes, Standards, and Guidelines." Planning Advisory Secvice, Rep01t Number 468 American Planning A'ISociation. 1996. This report discU$ses regulati on guidelines concerning transit and pedestrian friendly s ite design, parlcing, mixed-use development, and increasing density to support. transit It contains sample code provisions from eommunities that have used creative and effective approaches to a more bala11ced or multi-modaltransportation system. Nelson, Dick, John Niles. "Measuring Success of Transit-Oriented De v elopment: Retail Market Dynamics and Other Key Detennill(m/s. Prepared for the 1999 American Planning Association National Planning Conference. TI1is paper provides a summary of recent empirical and modeling studies of TOO, and discusses how TOO success should be measured. Important factors to be considered before major transit investments are made are also outlined. Nelson, Dick, John Niles, Aharon Hibshoosh. "A New Planning Tempk1te for Transit Oriented Development." Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. September 2001. Tbe major focus of this report is the growing significance of nonwork tl"dvel and the implications i t has for TOD, and suggest$ the need for a new regional planning process. The report includes a general discussion of what TOD is what led to its in.creased popularity, and how to measure its success Porter Douglas R. Transit-Focused Development: A Synthesis of Tmnsit Practice," TCRP Synthesis 20, Transit Cooperative Research Progrnm. sponsored by Th e federal Transit Administration, Transportation Research Board, Nati.onal Research Council., National Academy Press, Washiogtou D.C., 1997. While not focused on applying trans .it oriented development concepts to established communities, this synthesis provides useful information regacding the more O:aditional application of TOO to the development of rail station areas. Siembab, Walter, Stephen Graham, Malu Roldan. "Using Fiber Networks to Stimulate Transil Orienred Development: Prospects, Barriers and Best Practices." Mincta Transportation Tnstimtc, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA. October 2001. This report examines the relationship between rail II3nSit, land development, and telecommunications. The researchers conducted a study to assess the level of interest of the development community in specific nctwodc based inoentives that transit agencies and rail authorities could offer through telecommunications policies as well as current and best pl"dCtices using networks as development incentives, and what the prospects and batriers are for providing netwOt:k incentives to TOO. The report includes a discussion of the definition of TOD, reasons TOO is important, inlpedirnents to TOO, and ways governments can stimulate TOO. 1'ransit-Frieru/ly Streets: Design and Traffic Manageme111 Strategies to Support Livable Communities Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 39. Transportation Research Board, Washingtou, D .C., 1998. This research report defmes transit-friendly streets and discusses techniques that have been used to balance street uses. Metbods and strategies for designing and managing more transi t friendl y streets are provided. Case studies are presented of five communities that have achieved transit friendly streets. 54


"Tran.sit Oriented Developm e ltt: Using Tran sit to Cre(Jie More Accessible and Livable Neigl!borl10ods." IDM Encyclopedia. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. CurreJllly found at hllo:/Lwww. vtp.Lorg/tdm45.htm The TOO section of the TDM Encyclopedia provides a description of what TOD is and how it can be implemented. Its subtopics include tmvel impacts, benefits and equity impacts, applications, relationships with other IDM strategies, stakehol der roles TOD barriers, best practices, and several TOD examples and case studies. "Transit-Supportive D evek>pmenl Guidebook. Mid-America Regional Council 2001. This guidebook provides an overview of transit supportive development princ iples, sce. narios of different types of tmnsit supportive design that incorporate the principles discussed in t h e overview, to success, and stmtegies to deal with the ob stacles. While the guidebook i s specifically designed for the Kansas City region, many of the principles discussed may be applied to other regions or communities. "Tran.sportation A.lte matives." From the KJng County, Washington Department of Transportation. Currently found at http :// This web sit e defmes TOO, explains its purpose, and describes the typical makeup of a TOO. The site provides links to TOD resources, such as case studies, research reports, newspaper articles, web s.ites, financial incentives progt'.mls, books and other documents. It also provides infonna tion on KJng County' s TOD program. Trischler, Thomas. 11ln Transit Gloria : How the J\1ass Transportation Conn.ection \Vorks." Development Magazine Online. Sunnuer 2000. Currently found at 1bis article is wriuen from the private developer's viewpoint. The author defines the concept of TOO and TOJO (Trllllsit Oriented Joint Development); discusses recent federal l egislat ion regarding TOJD policies; addresses the pros cons, and pitfalls of TOD/I'OJD; and looks at where TOJD is headed in the future. Also listed are areas that have TOO projects and provides detailed description of Portland's Cascade Station TOJD project as a successful example ofTOJD. Wambalaba, Fr'dllcis. "Snwrter Commuting: Frmdamentals About Applirotions of a Lowion EfficU!nt Mortgage Strategy." Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. This paper provides an in depth explanation of the Location Effici ent Mortgage (LBM) program and its alternative implementation stmtegies. Emphasis i s p laced on the potential .role IDM might pla y in the IEM program. "Tire Zoning and Real Estate Implications of Transit Oriented Development, TCRP Legal Research Digest, Issue 1 2. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January, 1999. This digest is from the report of the same title that was written by Mark S. White and prepared under TCRP Project J-5, "Legal Aspects of Transit and lntermodal Transportation Programs." It provides infonuat ion on legal and other issues with implementing tmnsit oriented development. 'The rep01t descri bes the k ey elements of local land u s e and zoning that are used to promote TOD. Th. e report includes a description of tl1e terms, tools, and techniques that are typically part of TOD regulations, and the results of a survey about how TOD has been implemented in other jurisdictions. 55


Zykofsl-:y, Paul. "Building Livable Communities will! Tra11sit." Trllllsit california California Trdl)sit Association, May 1999. Currently found at httniJwww.Jgc. org l fQXm)IMand uselarticleslbuildeomm.html. This ru:ticle provides a useful descdption of the elements of good TOO. Land use mix and density, site design, pedestl'ian orientation, padting, enhanced streetscape, and transit amenities are among the l'llllllY TOO components discussed. 56


ENDNOTES 1 Dena Belzer and Gerald Autler, "Transit Oriented Development: Moving From Rhetoric to Reality," Prepated for the Brookings Institution Cent er on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and the Great American Station fuundation, June 2002, p. 4. 2 Mary Konsoulis and Kathy Franz. "On Tracie: Transit and the American City," TDM Review, Issue 1-2002, UrbTrans Consultants p. 11. 3 Dena Belzer and Gerald Autler, p. 4. 4 "Guidelines for Enhancing Suburban Mobility Using Public Transportation," Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 55, Federal Transit Administration, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, p. 4 5 Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley, "Sprawl : The Equal Opportunity Menace," In Tran.riti014 Volume 6, New Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, p. 3 cuneuOy found at http://njtpa njit edu/public affairslintran..,

13 Barbara McCann, Chapter One. 14 Bruce Katz and Jennifer Bradley, p. l. 16 "Guidelines for Enhancing Suburi>an Mobility Using Public Transpooation ," p. 4. 16 "Guidelines for Enhancing Suburi>an Mobility Using Public Transportation,'' pp. 4-5. 17 Michael Davidson and Fay Dolnick, "A Glossary of Zoning, Development, and Planning Tem1s,'' American Planning Association, Planning Advisory SVice Report Number 491/ 492. Otlter defmitions of TOO were found in several sources. See Appendix B for an annotated bibliogmphy of tile soun:es used in the literature review. 1 8 Robert Ceivero and !Vfichael Duncan, ''Ra il Transit's Value-Added: Effects of Proximity to Ught and Commuter Rail Transit on Commercial Land Values in Santa Clara County, California," Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Bedanism 'Reduce Traffic, or Increase It?" Journal of Planning Education and Research, Issue 15, Januacy 1996, pp. 117-126. Dueker, KJ., "Ideas in Motion: A Critique of the Urban Transportation Planning Process: The Performance of Portland's 2000 Regional Transportation Plan", Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., Washington, D.C., Transportation Quarterly, Volume 56, Issue 2, Januacy 2002, pp. 15-21. Higgins, T.J., "Parking Requirements for Transit-Oriented Developments," Transportatio11 Research Record, Issue 1404, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 50-54. Messenger, T. and R. Ewing, "Transit-Oriented Development in the Sun Belt," TransporUltion Research Record, Issue 1552, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Januacy 1996, pp. 1 45-153. 58


Miller, M.A., and S.M. Buckley, "Bus Rapid Transit Institutional Issues: The Route from Researeh to Experience," Transportation Research Record, Issue 1760, TranspoMtion Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 2001, pp. 3 4-41. Niles, J. and D. N elson, ''Enhancing Understanding ofNoo-Wotk Trip Making: Data Needs for the Determination ofTOD Benefits Transportation Research Circular, Transpor:tation Researeh Board Committee on Travel Survey Methods (A lD 10) and the Committee on National Transportation Data Requirements and Programs (A5016). March 2001, pp. 537-548. Thompson, O L and J E Frank, "B,aluating Land Use Methods for Altering Travel Behavior" Fanal Report for Task lB: Transit Patronage a.s a Product of Land Use Potential and Conoecti\1ty: The Sacramento Case. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, January 1995. 20 Creating Transit Station Communiti. es in. the Cen.tral Puget Sound Region: A Transit-Oriented Development Workbook," p. 3. 21 "Commercial Property Bene fils of Final Report," Federal Transit Adminislration, June 2002, p. currently found at http:l/www.rtd-denver/Pro jeco

29 Dena Belzer and Gerald Autler, pp. 6-17. 30 "Creating Transit Station Communities in the Central Puget Sound Region: A Transit -Oriented Development Workbook," p. 66. 3 1 Dena Belzer and C'.erald Autler, p. 18. Soo also "Creating Transit Station Communities in the Central PugetSound Region: A Transit-Oriented Development Workbook," pp. 10-11. 32 "Creating Trm .sit Stati.on Communities in tne Ce.ntral Puget Sound Region: A Transit-Oriented Development Workbook," pp. 10-11. 33 Dena and Gerald Autler, p 18. See also "Creating Trans .it Stati.on Communi.ties in the Central Puget Sound Region: A Transit-Oriented Development Workbook," p 67. 34 ''Creating Transit Station Communities in the Centr'.U Puget Sound Region: A Trmsit-Oriented Development Workbook," p 120. 35 Dena Belzer and Gerald Autler, p. 18. 36 "Creating Transit Station Communities in the Central Puget Sound Region: A TransitOri.ented Development Wodcbook," pp. 75-82. 37 "!..and Developer Participation in Providing for Bus Transit FacilitiesfOperations,'' National Center for Transit Research at the Center for Urban Tr.msportation Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, sponsored by Florida Department of Transportation and the U S Department of Transportation, March 2002, cunently found at h!tp:l/ 38 "Creating Station Communities in the Central Puget Sound Region: A Transit-Oriented Development Workbook,'' pp. 69,73-74,93-95. 39 "Creating Transit Station Communi tie. in the Central Puget Sound Region: A Transit-Oriented Development Workbook," p 97. 40 "City's Property Tax Exemption Program Begins," City of Seat!le news release, lmf99, currently found at See also City of Seattle's Department of web site, "Property Tax &emption for Multif.unily Housing," currently found at'rope!!VExemptions.htm. 41 Shane Lacgent, City of Orlando Transportation Planning Bureau, email correspondence, 6f21f02. 4 2 "Building a Community Vision: Transit-Oriented Development Case Studies," City of Seat!le Stati.on Area Planning Program, 5/17 rm, p. 6, currently found at hllp://www.cityof.

Kallman, Asst. Director Planning & Development Department, City of Hous ton, phone conversation, 7119/02. for amending regulations were found in "Creating Transit Station Communities in the Central l'uget Sound Region: A Transit -Oriented Development Workbook," pp. 69-70. 47 Walt er Siembab, Stephen G!'.tham, and Malu Roldan, "Using Fiber Networks to Stimulate Transit Oriented Development: Barriers, and Best Practices," MTI Report 0 1, Min eta Transportation Institute, San Jose State Univexsity, October 200 I, p. 15. See also "Creating Transit Station Communities in the Central Puget Sound Region: A Transit-Oriented Development Wo.drida Mobility Design Manual, Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX), prepared by Glatting Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc: in association with Herbert Halback and Associates, Inc, 1evised edition, 2000. 67 Marya Morris, "Creating Transit-Supp01tive Lmd -Use Regulations: A Compendium of Codes, Standards, and Guidelines," American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service ReportNumber468, 1996, p. 3. 58 Executive Summary of the Proposed East Boulevard Pcdscape Plan, November 27, 2001, currently found on ChaxMeck Planning home page,!! 59 John Cock, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, phone conversation, 61W02; Sandra Montgonlel.y, Cbarlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, e-mail co.crespondence, 7/1/02. 60 See Appendix A for a more detailed case study of Orlando. 61 Orland o Bikeways website, 6!3/02, currently found at 61


.. "Bllilding a Community Vision: Transit-Oriented Development Case Studies," p. 6 63 Shane Largent, City of Orlando Transpoltation Planning Bureau, email correspondence, 6121/02. 64 Edward Beimbom. Harvey Rabinowitz, and Peter Gugliotta, p. 11. 65 "Building a Community Vision: Transit -Oriented Development Case Studies," p. 6. 66 Patr ic ia RinconKallman, Assl Director Planning & Development Department, City of Houston, phone conversation, 7/19/02. 67 "Parking Cash Om: Implementing Commuter Benefits Under the Commuter Choice Leaden;bip Initiative," found at ee See Appendix A for a more detailed case study of Seattle/King County. 69 Regional Transportation District (RTD) website, ''Transit Oriented Development," currently found at htto:l/ 70 See Edward Beimbom. Harvey Rabinow itz, and Peter Gugliotta, p. I 0 71 See Appendix A for a more detailed case study of Charlotte. 72 Chris Hamilton, Program Manager, Arlington County Commuter Assistance Program. phone conversation, 7118/02. 73 "Strategies for Increasing the Effectiveness of Commuter Choice," TCRP H-25 Fmal Report, prepared by ICFConsulting et al., prepared for the Transit Cooperative Research Program. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, July, 2002 p.6. 74 See Appendix A for a more detailed case study of Or lando. 75 See "Guidelines for Enhancing Suburban Mobility Using Public Transportation, pp. 30-. 76 P01tAutbority of Allegheny County websile, 8!26/02, currently found at 77 See Appendix A for a more detailed case study of Chadotte. 78 DART websit e 712AI02, c urrently found athttp://www 79 "Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART)Welfare to Wodc. IVe/fare Information Practices, August 2000, currently found at http:l/ 80 David H. Reedman "Magic Bus," 2.0, August 2001. currently found at http:l/www .business2 .comlatticleslmag/Q.J640,16664.FF.html. a t David H. Freedman, "Magic Bus". ""Commuter website 719/02, currently found at 83 Chris Hamilton. 7/18102. 8 4 Francis Wambalaba, "Smarter Commuting: Rmdamentals About Applications of a Location Efficient Mortgage Strategy," Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. 62


85 "Mayor Schell, County Executive Ron Sims and Housing Leaders Welcome FmtHomebuyer into N ew Home Under Innovative Transit -Housing Initiative," F annie Mae news release, 811100, currently found at http-J/ 4 .jhJ:ml. &> Sam Benneu, "Prog,:am' s Goal is More Homeowners and Fe wee Drivers," Seattl e Daily Journill of Commerce Online &litio14 11110/99, currently found at http ://www.djc.comlnewslrel10060559.htm!?cgi. 8 7 Seattle Office of Housing website, "Location Efficient Mortgage,'' 7 !3/02, currently found at http:l/ 88 "Mayor Schell, County Executive Ron Sims and Housing l..caders Welcome FlfSt Homebuyer into New Home Under Innovative Transit -Housing Initiative. 89 S Shaheen. University of California, Berkeley. ao For more infonuation about carsharing, go to the Car Sharing Network at 91 Kelley MacKi.tmon, ArliJlgton Transit, phone conversation, 7118102. 92 See Appendix A for a more detai l ed case study of Charloue. 93 See Appendix A for a more detai l ed case study of Seattle. 94 Jim DuffY, "Back to Basi cs at MARTA," Mass TraiiSil, Vol. 28, No.4, Cygnus Busin ess Media, June 2002, p. 8 95 North Natomas Transportation lVfanagement Association, Sacramento, California, description of child centered TOD, currently found at 96 Richard Mascbal, Chadoue N .C., Embraces Prosperity and Builds a New Identity, Architectuml Record, May I, 2002. 9 7 David Leard, David Taylor, and Troy Russ, "Reshaping a Community 1ltroug)l. the Integration of Transit and Land Use: Success in a Southern City?" pg 1, currently fotmd at!adotte, 98 Uri Avin, Robert Cervcro, and Boyd Cauble, 'The Transit/Land Use Plan for Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Session Series: Integrating !.and Use and Transportation Planning: A Case Study of CharlotteMecklenburg", prepared for the 1999 American P l anning Association National Planning Confell'nce. 99 David Leard eta!, pp. 2-3. 1 0 Charloue-Mecldenburg Planning Commission's Transit Station Area Principles Brochure, currently found at hnp :/ 101 Jennifer Green, Sot 1th Corridor Community Relations Specialist, Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), e -mail correspondence, 7/15/02 102 David Leard eta!, p. 3. 103 David Leard et al, p. 7. 104 Jennifer Green, 1115/()2.. 6 3


105 CATS South Corridor Ught Rail Project website, "Chari one's F"JtSt Proposed Ught Rail Project On Track, 61W02 currently found at!U!P:/fwww.ridetr,msj t .org/planningisoutb/coJT des.htm 106 City of Charlotte, South Corridor Major Investment Study Report, currently fou nd at 1-7 .pdf. See also South Corridor Preliminary Eogineering/Environmeno:al Impact Statement Development Public Involvement Plan," Chari Cite Area Transit System, provided by Jennifer Green of CATS. 107 Jennifer Groen, 7/15/02. 108 'The draft Station Area Plans may Ctttrently be viewed at http://www.ridetragsjlorglplanninr/O!!thld(aftsta.btro. 109 David Leard et al, p. I I. 110 Jennifer Green, 7115/02. 111 J ennifer Green, &mail correspondence, 6/18102. 1 1 2 Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission's Transit Station Area Principles Brochure. 113 Jennifer Green, 6118102. 114 Wade Carroll, AICP, Post Buckley Schuh &Jernigan, e -mail correspOndence, 7/22102. 1 1 5 Charlott e Region Transit Station Area Joint Development Princ iples, provided by Wade Carroll. 116 Executive Sum111azy of the PropOsed East Boulevard Pedscape Plan. 117 John Cock, CharlOite-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, phone conversation, 6/28102; Sandra Montgomery, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission, e-mail correSpOndenc e 7/1102. 118 CATS website, currently found at http1/www. See also Jennifer Green, 6/18/02 119 Jennifer Green., 6118102. 120 Jennifer Green, 6/18102 121 Regional Tr.msportation District website "FasTracks" section. 7/26102, currently found at 1 22 Regional TranspOrtation District website "Fa c ts and Figures" section, 6125102, ctttrently found at figures.html 123 Center for Transportation Excellence website, 8/17102, currently found at denver. pdf 124 Jennifer Moulton and Bill Hornby, "Blueprint Denver Plan. for the future Melds Land Use, Transportation," The Denver Post, currently found on the City and County of Denver website at http:I/ Use and Trans00!1atinn PJao/J323news.a.


125 "About BtueprintDen...,.,., an informational broehuredelleloped bylheCny and County of Denver's CO!llmlnily Planning and Development Agency. 128 Regional Transportation District website ''FasTracb" section. 127 Tranportation Ex pan sion Project ('T-REX Project) websi t e, Metro Denver, 8/17KJ2, currently found ut chann e l s/ proj ect dcso 128 T-REX Project website. TREX Project website. 130 Detailed in Augustl9, 2002 email c01res p ondenoe from RID TOO Planner Chris Coble 101 Oeorgia R egional Transportation w ebsite, "About Us" section, 7 /1/02, currently f o u n d a t www,gt1;>.9I!!Iab9ut us/ about u s baclcground.h tm. 132 "Moving Beyond Sprawl: The Challeoge for Mecropolilan Atlanta," The B rookings Institute. 2000, Olapcer N, cum:ntly found at b!!p;!!!e.wrbanfat!anllliC!C9'tivesummart.h!m. 193 "Moving Beyond Spra w l : The Challenge for Metropolilan Atlanta," Chapte r m 104 Metropolitan Atl anta Rapid Trans i t Authority website. "C l ean A ir Act," 711100, c wrentl y found at h tmi/www. i ts martacornlnewrooml c leanai r.btm. 135 M oving Beyond Sprawl: The Challenge f o r M e tropolitan Atlanta," Executive Summary. 1 96 Jim Duffy, "Back to Basic s at MARTA," Mass T r ansit, Vo. l 28 No.4, Cyguus Business Media Jun e 2 00 2, p 8. 1 37 Georgia R egional Transportation websit e, "Abo u t Us," section, 819102, last updated May 2, 2000, currently found a t 138 "Moving Beyond Spra wl: The Challenge for Metropolitan Atlanta," Chapter VI see endnote #2. 100 GeOrgia Regional 'Dansponation website, "About Us." 140 Jim Duffy, "Back to Basics at MARTA," p. 8. 1 1 Oeo.;gia R egion al Transportation website, "Regional Transpo rtati o n A ction "Counties Make I Payments f or Express Bus Georgia Regional Transportation Authority press release, August 9, 2002, currentl y found at lillR;Uwww. gnaorg!new section/current payments 080902.htm. 1 3 Atlanta Regional Coun cil website, ''Communit y DuUding," 8/9/I.Yl, currently f ound at. btto:/ lwww.atlantmonal .cornlcorrununi!y build ioJ!LCS!mmunitvchoices.html. Atlant a R egional Council website "Comm unit y Duilding 145 A!lanta R egion al Council webs i te, "Communi t y Building."


1 4 6 Jim Duffy, 'Transit"Oriented Development in Atlanta," MrJ.$S Vol. 28, No.4, Cygnus Business Media, June 2 002, p. 21. 1 47"ARC Announces 2"" Annual Developments of Exeellenee Awards." Atlant a Regional Council press release, 2000, currently folmd at ht!p:/ 143 "Building a Community Vision: Transit-Oriented Development Case Studies City of Seattle Station Area Planning Program, p. 22. 149 Jim Duffy, 'Transit-Oriented Development" p 20 150 Jim Duffy, "Tmnsit-Orieoted Development" p. 21. 15 1 Jim Duffy, "Tra nsit-Oriented Developmenf' p. 21. 152 Jim Duffy, Transit-Oriented Development" p 20 153 Bell South Employees Begin Move In of First Metro Plan Building," Bell South press release, March 15,2001, currently found at http://bellsouthcorp.comlproactivelnewsroomlrelease.vtml?id=35622. (August 12, 2002) 1 5 4 Jim Duffy, 'Transit-Oriented Development" p. 21. 155 Jim Duffy, 'Transit-Orien ted p. 23. 156 "MARTA and Saint Joseph's Health Syst em Break Ground on Medical Center Station Transit-Oriented Deve lopment. Carter & Associates press release, April2, currently fo:tm d at http://www.carterusa.comlnews/pr 020402 a.htm. 157 LYNX website, 7/10/2002, currently found at 156 Tiffany Homier, Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX), phone conversation, 6/24102. 159 Shane Largent, City of Orlando Tmnsportation Planning Bureau, email correspondence, 6/21/02. 160 Shane Largent, 6121102. 161 Sban. e Largent, 6121/02. See also Orlando Bikeways website, 613/02, currently found at http://www.citvoforlando.netlplanningfl'rnosportatioulblkeyiays/default.hUp. 1 62 Orlando website. '63 Central Florida Mobility Design ManuaL 164 Tiffany Homier, 6124 /02 16s LYNX website. 166 "Land Developer Participation in Provi ding for Bus Transit Facilities/Operations. 167 Orlando Naval Training Center Redevelopment website, 7/10102, cunently found at http://www.cityofodando. qetlpJ.aoninrJntdntccloo.htm. See also Shane 6121/02. 66


168 Shane Largent, 6/21/02. 169 Southeast Orlando Sector Plan website, 7/10/02, currently found at Ntp://www.c.i!!lnning/deptpagelsesp!sespvisi.htm; See also Shane Largent. 6/21/02. 170 Shane Largent, 6/21/02. 171 Sound Transit website, 7/05/02, currently found at 172 Sound Tl:ansit website. 173 ''Creating Transit Station Communities in the Central Puget Sound Region: A Transit-Oriented Development Workbook,"Puget Sound Regional Council, June 1999, p. 104. 174 Ken Robenson, TOO Project Coordinator, Sound Transit, phone conversation, 8/5/02. 175 Ken Robel1son. 176 Henry Markus, King County Department ofTrnspo!lation, Transit Oriented Development Section, email correspondence, 7/9/02. See also King County Transit -Oriented Development website, 7/3/02, currently found at 177 King Cow1ty Transit-Oriented Development website. 17 6 King County Transit -Oriented Development website. 179 David Jackson, "All TOD, It's a Unique New Project," Daily Journal of Commerce, l0/19/2000, currently found at 180 David Jackson. 161 Herben Atienza, "Apanmcnts to Go Up at Overlake Park & Ride; Plan is to Combine Affordable Housing, Commuter Parking in $40 Million Project," Eastside JouriUII Online, 10/1912000, currently found at ht!p:// 182 King Corult)' Transit-Oriented Development website. 103 "Downtown Renton to get Transit Oriented Development: King County new release, 7/19/99, currently found at!9992.htrn. 1 84 Chris McGann, ''Combined-use Sector Aimed at Revitalizing Downtown Renton," Seaulepi.con 7/25/2000, currently found at http://seattlepi.nwsource.comllocallrent25.shnnL '85 King County Transit-Oriented Development website. 166 Seattle Depanment ofTI:anspottation, Station Area Pla.tming website, 7/5/02 currently found at sap home.asp. 187 Station Area Planning Closeout Report, City of Seattle, August 2001, p 19, currently fotmd at bllp:// tBB Station Area Planning Closeout Report, p. 19. 189 Station Area Planning Closeout Report, p. 15.


190 Ken Robertson, 8/5/02. 191 Stati .on Area Planning Closeout Report, pp. 20-22. 192 Sam Bennett, "Program's Goal is More Homeowners and Fewer Drivers," Seattle Daily Joumal of Commerce Onwu: Edition 11110/99, currenUy found at bUp:l/www. djc .con:Vncwslre/10060559.html?cgi. For a more detailed of the Location Efficient Mortgage Program, see the section of the literature revi ew entitled "Other Community Approaches to Becoming Transit Friendly." 193SeatUe Office of Housing website, Locat io o Efficient Mortgage, 7/3/02 cunently found at The Ave Street Project website, Seattle Department of Transportation, 8/15/02, cunently found at 1 9S Rob Gorman, Project Manager, Seattle Department of Transportation, phoue conversation, 7126/02. 196 Rob Gorman. 18 7 Rob Gorman. 198 The Ave Street Project website.


NuS tats BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAVEL: EXPLORATION OF COLLISION EXPOSURE IN FLORIDA FINAL REPORT September 2002 Center for Urban Transportation Research 4202 E FoWler Ave, CUT 100 University of South Florida, College of Engineering Tampa, Florida 33620 (813) 974-3120; fax (813) 974-6168 ; and NuStats, Inc 3006 Bee Caves Rd ., Suite A-300. Austin, Texas 78746 (512) 308-9065; fax (512) 306-9077; CUTR Project Manager: Patrtcla Turner Nustats Project Manager: C hris Simek


DISCLAIMER This report was prepared for the State Safety Office, Department of Transportation, State of Florida in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and/o r Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The conclusions and opinions expressed in this report are those of the subgrantee, and do not necessarily represent those of the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, State Safety Office, U S Department of Transportation, or any other agency of the State or Federal Government.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project team consisted of: Chris Simek, NuStats Project Manager Patricia A. Turner, CUTR Project Manager Michael B. Greenman, CUTR Graduate Research Assistant The project team would like to recognize the following individuals for providing valuable Input and comments du ring the preparation of this report Xuhaeo Chu, Center for Urban Transportation Research Christopher Hagelin, Center for Urban Transportation Research Dwight Kingsbury, Florida Department of Transportation Safety Office Pat Pieratte, Florida Department of Transportation Safety Office II


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.