Transit-Oriented Development for Nashville: Learning from Europe

Initial Research Graduate Project

Thomas K. Davis FAIA University of Tennessee Spring 2012

Transit-Oriented Development for Nashville: Learning from Europe Thomas K. Davis, Associate Professor University of Tennessee Knoxville College of Architecture and Design Spring 2012

Project Abstract A popular movement in the past decade has been to implement transit oriented development in city planning. Transit-oriented development, or TOD, is nationally characterized as mixed-use development located within a 2,000 feet diameter from a mass transit center. However, the typical format for TOD in the United States, initiated by Peter Calthorpe and fermented in the West Coast, lacks consideration in sustainability and authenticity. On the other hand, TOD has been wildly more successful in European cities than in America (as is reflected in the percentage of individuals that use public transportation) by implementing an integrated transportation system that combines different modes of mobility (rail, tram, metro, bus, car, bike and pedestrian).

One of the assumptions designers often make is that a logical proposal, based on just regional and economic conditions found in America, will encourage individuals to utilize and increase rider-ship on public transportation. From casual observation, it seems likely that the various sustainable innovations cultivated in Europe could be implemented and modified for American cities.

Although many American urban planners are skeptical that sustainable city design approaches derived from European countries can be relevant to cities in the United States, similar concerns regarding the decline in the urban fabric and dependency on the automobile are simultaneously being addressed in Europe as well. While taking into account that the United States varies in climate, terrain, and demographics (not only within its different regions and States, but from its European counterparts also), the European policies regulating urban sprawl should be used as a starting point in reorganizing TOD in America.

Nashville, Tennessee is renowned for its successful collaboration between government agencies and city planners. The Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has undergone several studies and is currently on the brink of implementing a wide-scale bus rapid transit line along the Northeast Corridor. My intent is to activate the intersection of Ellington Parkway and Trinity Lane with a Transittransitoriented development that takes into account and adapts European planning schemes that are environmentally conscious.

Seattle King County Portland Washington County Springfield

Burlington Lowell Boston St. Paul Providence Buffalo Pawtucket Stamford Bridgeport New York City Chicago Harrisburg Northern New Jersey Cleveland Pittsburgh Philadelphia Baltimore Wilmington Columbus Northern Virginia Cincinnati Washington D.C. Silver Spring St. Louis Louisville Norfolk

Minneapolis Salt Lake City Sacramento San Francisco San Jose Santa Clara County

Weber County

Ft. Collins Denver

Johnson County

Las Vegas Los Angeles Orange County San Diego

Albuquerque

NWA?

Phoenix

Little Rock

Raleigh-Durham Nashville Charlotte Memphis Atlanta

Dallas Austin Houston

Jacksonville

New Orleans Galveston

Tampa

the future is now

Ft. Lauderdale Miami Prince William Wasilla Girdwood

Honolulu San Juan

More than 60 “new economy” regions nationwide have developed rail transit systems. Could rail transit help NWA to become the “Center of the New Smart South”?

These 60 regions compete for the same labor pool, business starts, and creative economic development as NWA. Will lack of planning foresight compromise our future economic sustainability when compared to peer regions?

More then simply a movement system, transportation is an ecology determining how cities function.

Rail communities consistently experience expansive economic and environmental returns. Rail will multiply lifestyle choices for NWA.

Typical “American” Transit Oriented Development Schemes

The NWA rail system would intensify urban living scenarios while also serving residents who choose to live outside the city in the region’s distinguished Ozark Plateau landscape—now threatened by sprawling development. Rail operates as a multiplier development force for creating more innovative and sustainable forms of living.

LESS EFFICIENT

EFFICIENT

MORE EFFICIENT

constellation cities

radial

cities

linear cities

KANSAS CITY

RALEIGH-DURHAM

GREENVILLES PA R TA N B U R G

TOD station types TOD Type

M E M P H I S

C H A R L O T T E

LIT TLE ROCK

Land Use Mix

Urban Downtown

Minimum Housing Density >60 units/acre

Frequencies

Office Center <10 minutes Urban Entertainment Multifamily Housing Retail _______________________________________________________________________________ Urban Neighborhood

Residential >20 units/acre 10 minutes peak Retail 20 minutes off-peak Commercial _______________________________________________________________________________

L O U I S V I L L E

N A S H V I L L E

N O R T H W E S T A R K A N S A S University of Arkansas. Visioning Rail Transit in Northwest Arkansas: Lifestyles and Ecologies. UACDC: University of Arkansas Community Design Center. The Rail Transit Design Studio. Web. 12 Sept. 2011. <http://uacdc.uark.edu/project. php?project=16>.

OKLAHOMA CITY

BURLINGTON

Suburban Town Center

Primary Office Center >50 units/acre 10 minutes peak Urban Entertainment 15 minutes off-peak Multifamily Housing _______________________________________________________________________________ Suburban Neighborhood

Residential >9 units/acre 20 minutes peak Neighborhood Retail 30 minutes off-peak Local Office _______________________________________________________________________________ Commuter Town Center

Retail Center Residential

>9 units/acre

Peak service Demand responsive

History of TOD:

Calthorpe Associates: Design Guidelines

Pros: Design takes into account potential growth.

Concentration on Infill and Redevelopment with affordable construction.

Cons: The established Transit corridors do not integrate with the surrounding environment.

Stations are designed primarily for efficiency but lack accessibility, thus discouraging individuals to use the facilities.

Mass Transportation is not reinforced due to the lack of secondary modes of transit and the limited amount of pedestrian-friendly zones.

Priority is given to reaching the maximum demand growth and achieving the most profit possible, instead of taking into account “the user.”

Calthorpe Associates. “SAN DIEGO TOD GUIDELINES | Calthorpe Associates.”

Urban Designers, Planners, Architects | Calthorpe Associates. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. <http://www.calthorpe.com/sd-tod>.

Feasability of the residential areas is marginal considering the plan is based on an “office park.”

TOD can be derived from principles established by Sir Ebenezer Howard, which are known as “the garden city.” Comprised of self-sufficient, pedestrian-oriented communities, these were then protected by natural green zones and connected by public railways.

Sir Ebenezer Howard: Garden City

Pros: Design formulated around “the individual.”

Improved the quality of life for residents.

Controlled growth (30,000 inhabitants), prevents overcrowding and congestion.

Resident, industry, Industry,and andagriculture Agricultureprovided providedforforin inthethe same environment.

Promoted recreation and leisure.

At the heart of “the garden city” stemmed cultural and civic institutions. Idea of the community is strengthened.

Seperation of traffic from the rest of the residential district.

Cons: Rural belt surrounding the community prevent any urban growth for future development.

Issue Analysis:

Guidelines Taken from Europe: â&#x20AC;&#x153;These are cities that are frequently cited in European planning and environmental literature and that have been engaged in a variety of innovative and cutting-edge local sustainable initiatives. Cities were favored that were doing a number of different things and that had adopted and implemented sustainable policies in a wide range of sectoral areas (ideally, these places were not simply doing one thing but were attempting more holistic strategies).â&#x20AC;?

Pros: Different design approaches since postwar WWII. Headstart - context of new urbanism and sustainability established early on while American cities have only recently begun to implement environmentally friendly features.

Traffic restrictions (including parking) - priority given to pedestrians and bicyclist instead of the motorist.

Coordinating Transit and Land use.

Beatley, Timothy. 2000. Green urbanism: learning from European cities. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Heidelberg, Germany Freiburg, Germany Berlin, Germany Zurich, Switzerland Stockholm, Sweden Linz, Austria Vienna, Austria Graz, Austria Helsinki, Finland Den Haag, Netherlands

Integrated Transportation System - multiple forms of public transit is provided along with various routes within the same system itself. (Therefore alienation to far-reaching communities is prevented.)

Issues Addressed by TOD:

Traffic Congestion Environmental and Health Concerns Energy Conservation Social Equity Quality of Life “Transit villages are not just physical entities.

There are important social and economic dimensions behind transit village design. By creating an attractive built environment, complete with a civic core and prominent transit node, people are more likely to feel a sense of belonging and an attachment to the community.

Transit villages must also be economically viable and financially self-sustaining. Creating attractive urban environments that have good transit access to the rest of the region should, by definition, produce economic benefits. By creating better quality neighborhoods in areas with superior transit services, private investors will return to these areas, putting them on a road to financial recovery.”

Re co

Tr

Rec o

ius rad ile

1/4

m

y Cit

rk

Pa

v

ule

Bo

ard

2 1/

t ec ns a r es T od ng i N d e il ac Bu Sp c bli Pu

Housing All market grades of housing with a mix of type, density, and cost should be developed in TOD districts to create social and economic viability.

m

Sta

ing

us

ius rad li e

e ck

o dH

. > 2.0

A

Transit Station Commercial uses, housing, employment centers and civic spaces should be within walking distance (half-mile) of transit stops. Transit stations may become activity centers within TOD districts rather than single-use constructions relegated to district margins.

.0

d

e ch tta

g

Blocks Block sizes lose their capacity to support pedestrian activity above 500 feet, or seven acres, and ideally should be less than three acres or approximately 400’ x 300’.

.>1

sin

u Ho

mm e

r ido

rr Co

R .A. dF

De

g

.R F.A ed nd

he tac

il Ra

de en

sin

ou dH

m m

it s an

d e h S

Streets/Public Space TOD requires pedestrian-friendly street networks with both high connectivity and proximity among destinations. Well-designed pedestrian facilities and civic spaces are important anchors in creating desirable public environments around transit stations.

Sq

res

ua

Po

ck

s

ark

P et

planning within the transit shed should support “accessible” development patterns

accessibility enhances walkability among land uses through mixed-use development, higher densities, and pedestrian-scaled street networks

TOD planning metrics P

Parking Since parking is often the largest land use, urban parking strategies attentive to footprint, street frontage, and location must balance parking needs with the creation of a desirable pedestrian-oriented environment. Outdated suburban zoning codes result in parking areas greater than the building areas they serve. For example, at 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of building, retail parking becomes 150% of the size of the enclosed building.

Employment Centers Residential and employment land uses are significant determinants in creating ridership. Substantial ridership increases occur once employment centers concentrate 125 employees per acre in TOD neighborhoods.

University of Arkansas. Visioning Rail Transit in Northwest Arkansas: Lifestyles and Ecologies. UACDC: University of Arkansas Community Design Center. The Rail Transit Design Studio. Web. 12 Sept. 2011. <http://uacdc. uark.edu/project.php?project=16>.

Commercial/Retail According to the Urban Land Institute, the primary role of retail and service functions in TOD districts is their “amenity contribution” in the creation of great places for living and working. Outside of large retail agglomerations like malls and big box power centers, retail on its own will not generate notable ridership…”retail follows rooftops”.

“…there is likely to be significant demand for housing within a half-mile radius of fixed guideway transit stations…over the next 25 years. Our market assessment shows that at least a quarter of all new households―14.6 million households―could be looking for housing in these transit zones… more than double the amount of housing in transit zones by 2025.”

Reconnecting America, Hidden in Plain Sight: Capturing the Demand for Housing Near Transit

Portland, Oregon

TOD as a new real-estate product Coincident with renewed investment in America’s downtowns, TOD as a new real estate product can improve housing affordability, revitalize downtowns, introduce mixed uses into single-use suburban neighborhoods, and augment public space in communities.

TOD success depends on the ability of the market to deliver high-quality real estate solutions responsive to consumer preference for urban environments. One recent study found that one-third of all residents living in conventional development would have preferred a more walkable environment, suggesting a mismatch between housing supply and demand.

Portland, Oregon

Four criteria are important in planning TOD: Location efficiency Increased mobility, shopping, and housing choices Higher value capture and return on investment Balance between requirements of successful place-making and transportation planning Success also depends on local government’s ability to implement infrastructural improvements supportive of TOD market investments.

Ten County Regional Context: Context:

Transit Development: 25 Year Plan

Potential Transit Station Locations along Corridor

Intersection at Ellington Parkway and Trinity Lane

Proposed Site

Downtown Nashville

Current Site Conditions:

Commercial:

Employment Density

Employment Density, BAU vs. Transit

Residential:

Population Density

Residential Density, BAU vs. Transit

Existing Land Use Within Corridor Study Area

Reevaluation of Site:

Table 3.2: BRT Characteristics Characteristic

Description

Person/Vehicle Capacity

40 to 60 seats; 50 to 80 passengers per vehicle

Vehicles per Set

1

Guideway

Mixed traffc but separate right-of-way recommended

Speed (Maximum)

70 mph

Speed (Average)

15-45 mph (depends on application)

Power Supply

Diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), hybrid; electric in some applications

Route

Suspension

Rubber tire on pavement

Station/Stop Spacing

Half mile to several miles

Annual Ridership (2035 with Annualization Factor of 311)

Capital Cost

$3 to $49 million per mile

Current Revenue Operations

Yes

Advantages

Current Site Condition from Ellington Parkway

t Can operate in mixed traffic or on

its own guideway; this can reduce the number of transfers for many passengers

t Moderate to high capacity system for less cost than LRT and other fixed guideway systems

t Bus operating speed and reliability is improved by eliminating various types of delay

t Can access both low- and highdensity land uses

Disadvantages

t Higher operating cost in very high-

Table 4.7: Comparison of Estimates of Probable Cost No-Build

BRT Build

LRT Build

CRT Build

3,540

5,514

6,535

4,743

1,100,940

1,714,854

2,032,385

1,475,073

Total Order of Magnitude Capital Cost (2010 $)

$0

$373,000,000

$1,964,000,000

$630,000,000

Annualized* Capital Cost (2010 $) Assuming 7% Annualization Rate

$0

$26,110,000

$137,480,000

$44,100,000

Miles

-

29.4

30.7

27.1

Cost Per Mile

-

$12,687,075

$63,973,941

$23,247,232

Annual* Operating Cost (2010 $)

$0

$12,722,000

$25,371,600

$24,288,134

Total Annual Cost (2010 $; Capital + Operating)

$0

$38,832,000

$162,851,600

$68,388,134

Average Weekday User Benefits

0

3,584

4,171

3,277

Average Annual User Benefits (2035 with Annualization Factor of 311)

0

1,114,624

1,297,181

1,019,147

Average Weekday Projected Ridership (2035)

t Travel times compromised in mixed

Cost Efficiency (NOT FTA Cost Effectiveness)**

NA

$34.84

$125.54

$67.10

t Wider guideway in station areas

Average Annual Cost per Annual Boarding

NA

$22.64

$80.13

$46.36

volume corridors traffic

The initial development will follow a strategic outline that emphasizes where transit centers need to be established and what kind of building programs will occur within a 2,000 feet diameter. As a premise, it adopts medium densities (12-18 dwelling units per acre), mixed-uses (day care, convenience retail, office, work/live, etc,) mixed types and prices of housing (including affordable), and reduced parking requirements (1.2 spaces per unit, plus park and ride accommodation). The intent is to produce a walkable, pedestrian friendly environment, where the design of high quality public space is prioritized.

The virtues of transit-oriented development are that it enhances quality of life for its residents, improves public health by virtue of encouraging walking rather than driving, leads to economic development, contributes to community character through the design of public space, is inherently environmentally sustainable, and increases transit rider-ship.

As suggested by the Nashville Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Regional Transit Authority (RTA), a potential transit station stop is proposed at the intersection of Ellington Parkway and Trinity Lane, in Nashville TN. The selected site is also capable of being an extension of the existing Music City Star commuter rail transit system. However, because the existing zoning on the site pre-dates the presence of a mass transit stop, zoning, parking requirements and building codes will be modified to maximize the transit-oriented developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s unique potential. Therefore, a knowing advocacy for variances of the existing legal parameters may be made to enhance the density of conventional development and will be consistent with â&#x20AC;&#x153;national best practices.â&#x20AC;?

Trinity Station

Initial Research Graduate Project

Thomas K. Davis FAIA University of Tennessee Spring 2012

Transit-Oriented Development for Nashville: Learning from Europe Erin Gray Post-Professional Graduate Program University of Tennessee Knoxville College of Architecture and Design Spring 2012

Existing Density

EXISTING DENSITY

Proposed TOD Development

PROPOSED TOD DEVELOPMENT

0

200

400

800

PARKWAY ELLINGTON TRINITY LANE

ELLIN

GTON

PARK WAY

TRINITY LANE

INTERSECTION OF ELLINGTON PARKWAY AND TRINITY LANE

0

100

200

400

POTENTIAL VARIATION

LIC PLAZA OVER THE INTERSTATE AND POTENTIAL TOD STATION

ROWHOUSE BLOCK AND PUBLIC SQUARE PARK

Public Plaza over the Interstate and Potential Transit Station

Rowhouse Section and Public Square Park

0

10

20

0

10

20

URBAN VILLA: PARKING STRUCTURE

POSSIBLE ROWHOUSE AND GRANNY FLAT OPTION

URBAN VILLA: TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN 0

5

10

20

Current Conditions

0

5

10

20

SAVANNAH MODELED BLOCK CONDITION

0

20

40

80

VIEW FROM WALKWAY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDOR

TOD STATION PLAN

0

10

20

40

URBAN PLAZA PLATFORMING OVER THE INTERSTATE AND TOD STATION

Current Conditions

0

20

40

80

VIEW FROM WALKWAY ALONG TRANSIT CORRIDOR

View from Walkway Along Transit Corridor