Transit-Oriented Development by Emily Tantillo

TRANSITORIENTED DEVELOPMENT A guide to smart growth strategy: Regional planning for better communities.

EMILY TANTILLO

Transit-Oriented Development A Guide to Smart Growth Strategy: Regional Planning for Better Communities

Emily Tantillo January 2013

TOD Table of Contents

1. Defining Transit-Oriented Development p.4 2. Background: How did we get here? p.10 3. New Urbanism and Other Solutions p.16 4. The TOD: Ideal Conditions, Common Problems p. 22 5. Toward a Sustainable Future p. 34 Afterword: Lessons Learned p. 38 Works Cited p. 46

Defining Transit-Oriented Development. . . . . . . “The classic suburb is less a community than an agglomeration of houses, shops, and oﬃces connected to one another by cars, not by the fabric of human life. These elements are the makings of a great cuisine, but they have never been properly combined. It is as if we were expected to eat, rather than a completed omelet, first the eggs, then the cheese, and then the green peppers,” Andrés Duany, an American architect and urban planner who collaborated with other architects in writing the Charter for New Urbanism in the early 1990s, opined about the development of the United States in the twentieth century (Rybczynski, 2007, p. 22). By the 1920s, the automobile had secured its place as the preferred mode of transportation in America; “driving had become a potent form of mass entertainment, and the automobile elevated to a much sought-after cultural icon…. It was psychologically as well as economically [many people’s] single most

important possession” (Liebs, 1985, p. 20). During that decade, the number of registered cars in the United States more than tripled, to twenty-three million by 1930 (Liebs, 1985, p. 20). From there, car ownership only grew, and as highways were paved across the nation, this new sense of freedom in mobility greatly impacted the way our built landscape looks today. Transit-Oriented Development, or TOD, is a type of regional planning that seeks to solve many of the issues caused by the rampant suburban sprawl that has covered the country like a parasite. Dena Belzer and Gerald Autler pointed out in their 2002 article “Countering Sprawl With Transit-Oriented Development” that US metropolitan regions are growing at twice the rate of population growth—“even

areas experiencing little or no population increase are continuing to urbanize new land” (p.52). This seemingly unending push-out of development has environmental consequences and it sacrifices our quality of life. For example, San Diego County is home to more endangered habitats

.............................................. and species than any other county in the United States, but during a population boom in the 1990s, new development led to a breaking point in which only ten percent of the land within city boundaries remained undeveloped (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 212). There are many reasons why suburban sprawl is harmful: 1. It is expensive: water, sewer, and road infrastructure costs more at low densities of development (Belzer & Autler, 2002, p. 52). For example, 10,000 workers who drive alone during a peak hour for fifteen miles on a freeway require seventy-five lane-miles of capacity; freeways cost $1.5 million per mile, so this costs over $112 million (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 115). 2. The cost of abandoning older developed areas leads to poverty, poor education, crime, and other social malaise (Belzer & Autler, 2002, p. 52). 3. It has environmental consequences, from the loss of natural habitats and farmland to

increased pollution due to more cars on the road and more miles driven (Belzer & Autler, 2002, p.52). Exhaust emissions are “the single greatest source of air pollution in the United States;” if Americans “used transit for just ten percent of their travel needs, we could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than onefourth of what would have been our target under the Kyoto Accord, we could reduce smog and carbon monoxide significantly, and we could stop importing the amount of oil that we buy annually from Saudi Arabia” (Haas, 2008, p. 66; Belzer & Autler, 2002, p. 53). 4. Our safety is threatened: the increase in pollution leads to health issues like asthma and respiratory disease, and traﬃc accidents account for 40,000 deaths every year in the United States (Belzer & Autler, 2002, p. 52-53). Peter Swift, a New Urbanist transportation specialist in Longmont, Colorado, looked at 20,000 accident reports in Longmont over an eight year period and found only one factor that was significantly linked

Transit-Oriented Development

to injury-causing accidents: the width of the street (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 8-2). Swift found that just a two-foot increase in street width correlates with a thirty-five to fifty percent rise in injury accidents; when the street width is thirty-six feet as opposed to twenty-four feet, injury-causing accidents jump 485% (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 8-2). Speed also factors in: “the risk of injury to pedestrians multiplied 7.6 times when the average speed rose to 30mph from 20mph” (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 8-2). 5. Our quality of life is impacted: “The

average US driver spends 443 hours driving every year, the equivalent of more than one eight-hour workday every week” (Belzer & Autler, 2002, p. 53). Duany and his New Urbanist architect wife, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, wrote in their article “The Traditional Neighborhood and Urban Sprawl” that the middle class pays the most due to suburban sprawl because they are forced to own cars; Duany and

Plater-Zyberk calculate that the average yearly cost of car ownership is $9,000, which equals $90,000 in mortgage payment—if these families were able to own just one less car, the money saved is significant and “is the single most important subsidy that can be provided toward affordable housing” (Haas, 2008, p. 66). Young people and the elderly also suffer due to suburban sprawl because when you can’t drive in the suburbs, you lose your self-sufficiency (Haas, 2008, p. 66). Peter Calthorpe, an architect and urban planner, put it succinctly in a 1988 essay in “Pedestrian Pocket Book: A New Suburban Design Strategy:” “A ‘profound mismatch’ between the suburbia of the last forty years and the needs of current society ‘is generating traffic congestion, a dearth of affordable and appropriate housing, environmental stress, a loss of open space and life styles that burden working families and isolate the elderly and singles living alone’” (Newman, 1991). “The result of this

era…is that both the city and suburb are now locked in a mutually negating evo-

lution toward loss of community, human scale, and nature,” creating congestion, pollution, isolation, urban disinvestment, and economic hardship (Calthorpe, 1993, p. 9). James Zullo wrote in an article in the July/August 2011 edition of “Mass Transit” that the first “smart growth generation”—kids of baby boomers—are “expressing a preference to live in urbanized environments closer to transit, jobs, amenities and entertainment” (p. 30). Despite the fact that in the year 2000, “more Americans lived in suburbs than in central cities and rural areas combined,” Zullo thinks that a shift is underway (Haas, 2008, p. 86). He cites the Great Recession, the Gulf oil spill, and “the realization of our excessive consumption” as reasons why the United States is finally recognizing “the need for more sustainable, dense, transit-dependent and economically viable communities” (Zullo, 2011, p. 30). Katherine Perez, the executive director of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Los Angeles, goes so far as to say that “TOD projects will be primary choices of private developers and governmental planners for decades to come” (Zullo, 2011,

p. 31). -

Transit-Oriented Development is a potential answer to America’s development problems. This method of urban planning—or rather, regional planning—is relatively new and thus current examples of it in the United States have serious issues. Laying out a detailed definition, including performance factors, is crucial for the future of TOD. A 2012 article in “Habitat International” summarizes Transit-Oriented Development well: “Tran-

sit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a planning technique that aims to reduce automobile use and promote the use of public transit and human-powered transportation modes through high density, mixed use, environmentally-friendly development within areas of walking distance from transit centers” (Wann-Ming & Chiu, p. 1). A half-mile radius, or ten-minute walk,

Transit-Oriented Development

around each transit stop is recommended, and density should be highest adjacent to the transit station “with gradually lower-density development spreading outward from the center” in a bulls-eye pattern (Holmes & Van Hemert, 2008, p. 4). Hank Dittmar and Gloria Ohland argue that the definition of TOD should be more than physical, however, and they add five performance-based goals: 1. Location eﬃciency, 2. A rich mix of choices, 3. Value capture, 4. Place making, and 5. Resolution of the tension between node and place (2004, p. 22). Belzer and Autler also add three main outcomes or goals to the definition: 1. Minimization of automobile dependency, quantified through measures like parking demand, automobile ownership, mode split (the percentage of people using a given mode of transportation), and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 2. Choice in housing, mobility, and shopping,

and 3. Value recapture/financial return for developers, communities, and households (2002, p. 55). Transit-Oriented Developments contain amenities like pedestrian-friendly shopping streets, high-quality design, more and better public space to compensate for smaller private spaces, and diﬀerent housing and transportation choices within the same development (Belzer & Autler, 2002, p. 56). TODs don’t eliminate cars entirely; they just make other options like walking, biking, and taking public transit viable alternatives by ensuring that those alternatives are safe and convenient for everybody. Zimbabwe, et al. wrote a benefit-driven definition in a 2012 report for the Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD) called “Families and TOD” stating that TOD achieves: 1. “Reduced automobile trips and greenhouse gas emissions; 2. Increased transit ridership and transit agency revenues;

3. The potential for increased and/or sustained property values near transit; 4. Improved access to jobs for households of all incomes; 5. Reduced infrastructure costs, compared to what is required to support sprawling growth; 6. Reduced transportation costs for residents; 7. Improved public health due to increased walking and biking; 8. Creation of a sense of community and place” (p. 2). There is evidence that America is ready to try this new way of life. A survey by Smart Growth America found that people favor suburbs that are close to cities over ones that are distant by two to one; six out of ten potential homebuyers would prefer to buy in communities with smart growth principles like mixed use, greater density, pedestrian usability, nearby transit, and less auto dependence; nine out of ten homebuyers say that a short commute is an important factor in deciding where to buy; and half of respondents said that being within walking distance of stores and restaurants is important (Troy,

2012, p. 253). For the past two decades, two thirds of large metropolitan areas have experienced population gains in their city centers, and since 2006, suburban growth rates have slowed for over half of America’s metropolitan areas (Troy, 2012, p. 246). Finally, according to the 2000 census, six million households live near public transit, a number that is expected to rise to sixteen million by 2030 (Holmes & Van Hemert, 2008, p. 4). Increased immigration, more empty nesters, and a growing number of non-family households (which today is one-third of all households) will be most in demand of TODs (Holmes & Van Hemert, 2008, p. 4). Tigran Haas wrote that “good design can have

a measurably positive eﬀect on one’s sense of place and community” (2008, p. 42). The design and implementation of a Transit-Oriented Development must be more than just a good mix of retail, oﬃces, and housing around a transit stop to be most successful; it also needs an intangible feeling of “place” and community. It needs to feel safe, it needs to feel like a destination, and it needs to feel like home.

Transit-Oriented Development

Background: How did we get here? . . . . . . . . . . . “The congested, fragmented, unsatisfying suburban sprawl and the disintegrating urban centers of today are not merely products of laissez-faire, nor are they the inevitable results of mindless greed. They are thoroughly planned to be as they are: the direct result of zoning and subdivision ordinances zealously administered by planning departments,” Andrés Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk describe the developed United States (Haas, 2008, p. 64). Duany and Plater-Zyberk go on to write that the ordinances described have three criteria for urbanism: the “free and rapid flow of traﬃc,” “parking in quantity,” and “the rigorous separation of building use,” all of which have resulted in a car-centric society and urban development planned around the automobile (Haas, 2008, p. 64). The duo label two types of urbanism: the “neighborhood” before World War II, and “suburban sprawl” after (Haas, 2008, p. 64). Throughout history, the size of a town has been determined by transportation. First, entire cities

were walkable; then they expanded as technology advanced—horsecars, trains, trolleys, and eventually automobiles allowed people to live further away from the ills of dense cities—the pollution from industrial uses, the overcrowding, the noise, the crime (Troy, 2012, p. 249-250). The population slowly moved further and further out as time went on—at least, those that could aﬀord to move went as far as they could. From the end of the Civil War to the beginning of the Depression, streetcars played a very big role in the development of dozens of American cities like Boston, Philadelphia, and San Francisco (Liebs, 1985, p. 12). In fact, by 1900, Boston’s residential land area had increased sixfold due to streetcar routes (Liebs, 1985, p. 12).”Twice as fast as

the horsecar and with three times the capacity, the new streetcars made it possible for traction companies to link up scores of little crossroads hamlets as they extended their lines out into the country….More than mere revenue from

.............................................. transportation…provided incentive for extending the trolley lines. With each new stretch of track, the land along the right-of-way—which had often been bought up prior to construction by company directors and other alert investors— grew exponentially in value. Now only minutes away from the center of the city, lots within walking distance of the nearest car stop sold rapidly, and within a few years clusters of houses and apartment buildings appeared” (Liebs, 1985, p. 11). By the end of the nineteenth century, commercial buildings began popping up along streetcar routes (Liebs, 1985, p. 12). Humorously, Edgar Chambless designed “Roadtown” as an alternative to development along streetcar lines: “an endless concrete building containing housing, stores, and a subway, and roofed over by a grand promenade” (Liebs, 1985, p. 11). By the 1920s, however, the automobile had per-

meated society and started changing development patterns faster and more drastically than any other technology had previously. The stores along the streetcar routes began accommodating automobiles by putting in parking lots, and a series of Federal-Aid Road Acts gave funding to trans-national highways; by 1925, “the coast-to-coast, all-weather highway network, as we know it today, had been firmly established” (Liebs, 1985, p. 19). Lewis Mumford’s “The Fourth Migration” in 1925 said that roads and cars would “free Americans

from the blight of overcrowded industrialized cities by allowing them to work in those cities while living in idyllic satellite garden villages” (Troy, 2012, p. 244-245). Mumford’s idealized “Garden City” was based on the Garden City Movement initiated by Sir Ebenezer Howard in 1898 in which a cluster of development, including areas sectioned oﬀ for housing, agriculture, and industry, would be surrounded by greenbelts, or parks (Jacobs, 1961). Mumford envisioned the move to the suburbs as a great opportunity for

Transit-Oriented Development

American society, and his landscape was covered in highways and smaller roads and the expansion of electricity, phone, and gas networks (Troy, 2012, p. 244-245). Similarly, John Nolen advocated the planned garden suburb; in 1927, he wrote, “If the move-

ment away from the cities assumes the formidable aspect of a hegira (and the magnitude of recent modern developments like the automobile and the radio makes this appear quite likely), then it is immensely important that it be organized and directed accordingly” (Rybczynski, 2007, p. 87). Nolen accepted that there was a collective escape from the city going on in the United States at the time and suggested garden suburbs as a means to control the “urban overflow” (Rybczynski, 2007, p. 87). Nolen and his friend Raymond Unwin, the author of a pamphlet titled “Nothing Gained by Overcrowding!,” believed that everyone was entitled to their own home and garden, as well as access to nearby parks and playgrounds (Ryb-

czynski, 2007, p. 87). Other methods of master planning emerged during that timeframe, including Le Corbusier’s Radiant City (skyscrapers surrounded by vast parkland) and Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City (one acre to every citizen and a comprehensive network of roads), but suburban sprawl couldn’t be stopped, slowed, or funneled into planned communities (Rybczynski, 2007, p. 114-115). Zoning laws played a large part in the creation of sprawl. Segregating geographic areas where there will be housing, retail, oﬃce space, agriculture, industry, and other specific uses leads to large areas of land necessary to provide all of the services people need to live; the car then becomes heavily relied on (Troy, 2012, p. 247-248). In addition, low-density, large-lot zoning pushes housing densities down to below-market level; without such zoning, density would naturally be greater; “constraining the market in this way spreads cities out farther, facilitating sprawl” (Troy, 2012, p. 248). “Between 1950

and 2000, seventy-five percent of newly

developed land and eighty percent of the added population were in jurisdictions located outside of established central cities” (Troy, 2012, p. 251).The 2000s have seen a slow reversal of this trend, but the twentieth century firmly established America as a nation of suburbs (Troy, 2012, p. 251). Unfortunately, sprawl feeds on sprawl. Peter Calthorpe wrote that “land-use patterns

dictate the need for travel, while at the same time the location, size, and character of our transportation facilities determines which land uses are likely to develop in given locations. Highways make suburban sprawl possible, and sprawl constantly requires more highways” (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 2-3). Duany and Plater-Zyberk claim that suburban sprawl “hinders socioeconomic diversity” by encouraging homogeneous clusters of housing (Haas,

2008, p. 64). It destroys the natural landscape by covering it with the asphalt of arterial roads and cul-de-sacs, and the entire development is planned at automobile scale, making it both unattractive and unsafe for pedestrians (Haas, 2008, p. 66; Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-4). Joel Garreau gave a name to the result of a century of sprawl: Edge Cities (1991). “Their broad,

low outlines dot the landscape like mushrooms, separated by greensward and parking lots. Their oﬃce towers, frequently guarded by trees, gaze at one another from respectful distances through bands of glass that mirror the sun in blue or silver or green or gold, like antique drawings of ‘the city of the future’” (Garreau, 1991, p. 3). According to Garreau, there have been three waves of “our lives pushing into new frontiers in this half century:”

Transit-Oriented Development

1. Suburbanization after World War II, when we moved our homes outside the city limits, 2. The “malling of America” in the 1960s and 1970s, when we moved marketplaces to where we lived, and 3. Now we have moved our jobs out to where we live—this has led to the Edge City (1991, p. 4). Garreau claims that the Edge City is an improvement over sprawl because it moves everything closer to the homes of the middle class, and he predicts that it is the future of cities—it is how America will grow in the twenty-first century (1991, p. 8). He defines the Edge City as having several characteristics: - “Five million square feet of leasable oﬃce space or more. - Six hundred thousand square feet of retail space or more. - A population that increases at 9am on workdays—marking the location as primarily a work center, not a residential suburb. - A local perception as a single end destination for mixed use—jobs, shopping, and

entertainment. - A history in which, thirty years ago, the site was by no means urban; it was overwhelmingly residential or rural in character” (Garreau, 1991, p. 425). By the mid-1980s, Garreau says that Edge Cities contained two thirds of all American oﬃce facilities, and each “city” was larger in area than downtown Portland, Oregon, Portland, Maine, Tampa, or Tucson (1991, p. 5). There are now almost two hundred Edge Cities in America, with good reason: “They are the culmination of a generation of individual American value decisions about the best ways to live, work, and play—about how to create ‘home’” (Garreau, 1991, p. 7). Ironically, even though Edge Cities are the result of a century of decisions about how to live with the automobile, people hate them. Garreau polled people on the street of Tysons Corner, Virginia, and found that people described it as “plastic, a hodge-

podge, Disneyland (used as a pejorative), and sterile. They said it lacked livability,

civilization, community, neighborhood, and even a soul” (1991, p. 8). Robert Fishman, a Rutgers historian, assures that the Edge City only appears “chaotic” now because it is so new, and he quotes Charles Dickens on London in 1848 as an example: “There were a hundred thousand shapes and substances of incompleteness, wildly mingled out of their places, upside down, burrowing in the earth, aspiring in the earth, moldering in the water, and unintelligible as in any dream,” to which Garreau replied, “That is… the best one-sentence description of Edge City extant” (Garreau, 1991, p. 9). Joel Garreau’s Edge City is a fair description of where the United States has ended up—“In the

unsettled, unsettling environment of Edge City, great wealth may be acquired, but without a sense that the place has community, or even a center, much less a soul” (1991, p. 14).

Transit-Oriented Development

New Urbanism and Other Solutions . . . . . . . . . . “[The Congress for the New Urbanism’s] charter aspires to almost utopian goals, more than its proponents have been able to achieve on the ground: to equitably mix people of different income, ethnicity, race, and age; to build public architecture and public space that make citizens feel they are part of, and proud of, a culture and community that adds up to more than the sum of its private worlds; to be a responsible ecological force; to weave a tighter urban fabric that mixes land of different uses and buildings of different architectural types within a well-connected network of streets and green spaces; to utilize regional public transit, revenue sharing, planning, and governance to better tie together the metropolitan area,” Tigran Hass describes (2008, p. 42).

New Urbanism is a design movement that began gaining momentum in the 1980s. New Urbanists are committed to reducing sprawl, which they believe wastes land, energy, and time (Haas, 2008, p. 42). They promote mixed-use zoning as opposed to the single-use zoning that has contributed to suburban sprawl, and advocate urban planning that provides a sense of “place”—a “compact,

transit-friendly, walkable city with a hierarchy of private and public buildings and places that promote face-to-face social interaction and daily physical activity” that is “denser than conventional American sprawl” (Haas, 2008, p. 42). The Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) was founded in 1993 by six architects: Peter Calthorpe, Andrés Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Elizabeth Moule, Stefanos Polyzoides and Dan Solomon; Peter Katz was their first executive director (“Congress for the New Urbanism,” n.d.). Their charter states their purpose and reiterates why New Urbanism is so desperately needed: “The Con-

.............................................. gress for the New Urbanism views disinvestment in central cities, the spread of placeless sprawl, increasing separation by race and income, environmental deterioration, loss of agricultural lands and wilderness, and the erosion of society’s built heritage as one interrelated community-building challenge. We stand for the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and the preservation of our built legacy” (“Congress for the New Urbanism,” n.d.). Calthorpe wrote in 1993 that the “quality of our shared world, aesthetics of place, and the social health of our communities” depends on a few key things: land, energy, and resources should be

conserved; traffic should be reduced; homes must be affordable; children and the elderly need more access; and working people should have reasonable commutes (p. 10). He writes that suburbia is actually “out of sync” with today’s culture because average family wealth is shrinking, the makeup of the average family has changed, the workforce has changed, and serious environmental concerns have forced us to rethink how development is effecting the environment (p. 15). Building at pedestrian scale, as opposed to automobile scale, is imperative (Calthorpe, 1993). Richard Bernhardt, who heads the Nashville-Davidson County Planning Department in Tennessee, lays out seven principles of New Urbanism: 1. The building block of community is the neighborhood (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-2 – 1-3). 2. The neighborhood is limited in size—the walk from the center to an edge should be no more than a quarter mile, or a five minute walk—and have a well-defined edge and center, as well as a mix of uses (live, work,

Transit-Oriented Development

shop, entertain) (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-2 – 1-3). 3. Corridors (like avenues) are boundaries, and they serve to connect and define neighborhoods; districts are streets or areas with special activities like a theater district (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-2 – 1-3). 4. It must be built to human scale (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-2 – 1-3). 5. There should be a range of transportation options—walking, biking, driving, taking public transit—to relieve congestion (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-2 – 1-3). 6. There should be a hierarchy of streets— broad boulevards to narrow lanes to alleys— and they should be laid out in a network that allows for many diﬀerent routes to get to the same destination (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-2 – 1-3). 7. Civic buildings like town halls, churches, schools, libraries, and museums are landmarks and therefore should go on preferred sites, like on a square or where a street terminates (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p.

1-2 – 1-3). At the neighborhood level, New Urbanism is often called “Traditional Neighborhood Development” (TND), and Steuteville and Langdon point out that it revives “ideas and practices that were at the heart of American community building from the 1600s until the Second World War” (2003, p. 1-2). Steuteville and Langdon recognize that it is important to take modern living into account, however, and write that new Urbanism is not re-doing history; it is reinterpreting it (2003, p. 1-2). It is suggested that these TNDs be infill rather than new development, to reclaim “marginal and abandoned areas” (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-8). New Urbanists stress the importance of making a TND feel like a community, with a sense of “place.”

“[They] dwell on the fine details of what makes communities enjoyable—such as gridiron street patterns well suited to walking, prominent civic spaces that draw people together, tree-lined ‘skinny

streets’ with curbside parking and backlot alleys, commercial cores within walking distance of most residents, generous amounts of open space, and pleasant vistas” (Cervero, 1998, p. 78). Duany and Plater-Zyberk oﬀer details as to what New Urbanism looks like: - The neighborhood has a center—a square, green, or even a memorable street corner— with a transit stop (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - Most dwellings are within a five minute walk of the center (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - There are a variety of dwelling types available, so young and old, singles and families, the poor and the wealthy all may live here (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - Shops and oﬃces are at the edges of neighborhoods (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - A small building is permitted in residential

backyards for an oﬃce or a rental (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - An elementary school is walkable for most children (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - A small playground is convenient for every dwelling, within one tenth of a mile (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - Streets are in a connected network, with many routes to the same destination for both cars and pedestrians (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - Streets are narrow and shaded by trees to slow traﬃc (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - The buildings in the center of the neighborhood are placed close to the street, creating an “outdoor room” (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - Parking lots and garages are hidden behind buildings and accessed by alleys (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). - Civic buildings go on prominent sites (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4).

Transit-Oriented Development

- The neighborhood is self-governing (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 1-3 – 1-4). As Duany and Plater-Zyberk say, “By providing

a full range of housing types and work places, people of various ages and economic classes are integrated and the bones of an authentic community are formed” (Haas, 2008,p. 65). New Urbanism’s tenants work toward solving the problems of sprawl and bringing the United States toward both more sustainable development patterns and an increased quality of life for residents. The biggest problem with New Urbanism, which Transit-Oriented Development seeks to resolve, is actually its TNDs, which often end up being self-contained communities that aren’t connected to the region at large; a few examples are Celebration, Florida; Seaside, Florida; Kentlands, Maryland; and Laguna West, California (Haas, 2008, p. 48). Realistically, what good is a walkable neighborhood if you need a car to get out of it? Coordination of

public transportation on a regional scale is essential to decrease our reliance on the automobile and work toward building smart growth communities. TOD, while sharing with New Urbanism many of the same foundational ideas about what a community needs, takes planning toward that regional level.

Transit-Oriented Development

TheTOD: Ideal Conditions, Common Problems. . Robert Cervero, a professor of regional planning at UC Berkeley, advocates Transit-Oriented Development: “By leveraging aﬀordable housing

and reducing the need for car ownership, a virtuous cycle can instead be set in motion, with increased transit usage helping to reduce traﬃc snarls and compact station-area development putting the brakes on sprawl—at least according to theory” (Haas, 2008, p. 124). According to Peter Calthorpe, Transit-Oriented Development looks like this: - Growth is organized on a regional level to be compact and transit-supportive, - Commercial buildings, housing, oﬃces, and civic buildings are within walking distance of a transit stop, - Street networks are pedestrian-friendly and directly connect local destinations, - There is a mix of housing types, densities, and costs, - Habitats, riparian zones, and high-quality

open space are preserved, - Public spaces are the focus of building orientation and neighborhood activity, and - Infill and redevelopment along existing transit corridors is encouraged (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 7). Buildings are oriented to the sidewalk with no setback, and they are of mixed use (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 70-74). Blocks are short, civic buildings are prominent, and surface parking is hidden or replaced with structured parking or street parallel parking (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 70-74). Dittmar and Ohland point out a few types of businesses that need to be walkable from home: grocery stores, restaurants, drug stores and pharmacies, banks, and personal retail like dry cleaners, hair styling, bookstores, and health clubs (2004, p. 117). Ideally, Cervero notes, a well-planned TOD incorporates

the three Ds: density, diversity, and design (1998, p. 72). TODs need high density to make public transit feasible. Current zoning laws keep density very low,

.............................................. so variances to code must be sought when planning a TOD. Cervero concedes that people think they don’t like density, but writes that it’s actually just the things that accompany high density that are hated—“congestion, noise, graﬃti, street crimes, overcrowded schools, and so on” (1998, p. 76). He writes that “the challenge is to create more attractive compact places, partly through high-quality design but also through community rebuilding that focuses on solving deeply rooted social problems as well” (Cervero, 1998, p. 76). Cervero oﬀers

a few suggestions as to how to make high density seem less dense: “extensive landscaping; adding parks, civic spaces, and small consumer services in neighborhoods; varying building heights, materials, and textures to break the visual monotony of structures; detailing rooflines; adding rear-lot, in-law units; and designing mid-rise buildings on podiums with tuck-under, below-grade parking” (1998, p. 76).

Cervero explains the need for regional planning:

“Islands of TOD in a sea of freeway-oriented suburbs will do little to change fundamental travel behavior or the sum quality of regional living. The key to making TOD work is to make sure that it is well coordinated across a metropolis” (1998, p. 4). Richard K. Greene, a senior consultant at The Williams Group Real Estate Advisors, writes in a report called “Transit-Oriented Development as Economic Stimulus” that “TODs are origin and destination centers, centered around transit-focused catchment, and capitalize on enhanced local and regional accessibility” (2009). Calthorpe Associates put together a handbook about TOD for the Metropolitan Council in Minneapolis and described what a TOD looks like in a romantic way: “Building design and site de-

Transit-Oriented Development

teresting and high-quality environments should be encouraged. The station or stop area, complemented with tree-lined streets, landscaped space, and seating areas, should be a gathering spot and a vibrant focus of public life and activity. Buildings should be set close to the streets and have multiple windows and entries to enliven places and increase safety” (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 7-7). The handbook also stresses the importance of walkability in TODs, as well as “around-the-clock activity” to encourage safety and a sense of community (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 7-6). Size guidelines are suggested: a circular development for a quarter-mile around a transit stop comes to 125 acres, and a semicircular development on one side of a transit stop is sixty-three acres (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 7-8). The TOD can extend further than a quarter-mile out from the transit stop, with a secondary ridership base—“single-family housing, oﬃce or light industrial uses with moderate

employment density, land-intensive schools, larger parks”—up to one mile out (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 7-8). Three of the hardest aspects to plan for in a TOD are its sense of “place,” parking issues, and

financing. Hank Dittmar and Gloria Ohland talk a lot about the importance of a community having a sense of “place” rather than just being a “node” of transportation (2004). “To create the great TOD

projects where people want to be, there must be a main street or town square feel with parks and gathering places, a variety of housing types and costs, community uses such as day care, oﬃces above shops, and structured or underground parking” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 101). Dittmar and Ohland liken investing in a town

square to investing in a brand, and oﬀer a few general standards for placemaking that could be addressed in code: - There are improvements between streets and buildings, - Building entries are oriented to the pedestrian, - Buildings have ground floor windows and attractive facades, - There are step-backs in the building line, - The location and design of parking is oriented to the pedestrian, - Drive-through uses are seriously restricted, - There is good outdoor display of signs, - Alleys are used to get to garages, - There are streetscape design standards and guidelines, and - There are standards for protection within historic or cultural conservation districts (2004, p. 79).

“A quality of design that fosters pride in ownership” will lead to a sense of community in a TOD and will make it a safer place for its residents

and visitors (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 79). As far as designing for a sense of place, the Char-

ter of the New Urbanism states that new developments “should respect historical patterns, precedents, and boundaries,” and architectural design “should grow from local climate, topography, history, and building practice” (Rybczynski, 2007, p. 150). Witold Rybczynski points out the trouble in that approach, however: the United States’ many regions don’t really have a specific historical type of architecture, as this country was founded by immigrants who were mobile; thus, “’historical patterns’ and local ‘building practices’ became hopelessly muddled” (2007, p. 150). As a solution, Rybczynski suggests planning the design of a neotraditional development in one of two ways: “theming” or “eclecticism” (2007, p. 151-153). In theming, all of the buildings in a community will have details belonging to the same family; an example is Rosewalk, a small group of houses that were the first built in the planned neotraditional

Transit-Oriented Development

development of Seaside, Florida: “[Rosewalk] was what visitors remembered, and it was what the first builders copied. Although the code did not specify Victorian brackets and pastel colors, thanks to Rosewalk, these quickly became the hallmark of Seaside” (Rybczynski, 2004, p. 152). Theming creates a “consistent and instantly recognizable sense of place” (Rybczynski, 2004, p. 153). The other option is eclecticism, which was used in Celebration, Florida: “Instead of mandating one [architectural style], they gave builders a choice: houses could be Classical, Colonial Revival, Coastal, Victorian, French, Mediterranean, or Craftsman” (Rybczynski, 2004, p. 153). The planners of Celebration put together an elaborate and detailed pattern book to let builders know exactly what they could and couldn’t do (Rybczynski, 2004, p. 153). While theming gives an immediate and certain sense of place and style to a community, eclecticism oﬀers buyers more selection and is easier to accomplish. Transit-Oriented Developments are diﬃcult to

finance because they go against the norm; banks and other investors are usually too scared to get involved. The only way to ensure funding

is to increase certainty for lenders—put zoning and permitting in place, partner with developers experienced New Urbanism or TOD, develop in an area that has already had success with TOD, get support from the community, put together a detailed business plan with strong market analysis, and secure public investment in predevelopment to get more private investment later (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 86-88). Show value capture for investors: - Local governments will get solid public returns including more livable communities, property taxes, sales tax increment, special assessments, parking fees, utility user fees, business license fees, and the “multiplier eﬀect” from new jobs and businesses; - Transit agencies will get to keep the land acquired with federal funds if it supports TOD,

and can use the income from renting it out for transit purposes (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 89-92). Transit agencies will also benefit from increased ridership, reduced parking requirements saving parking construction costs, and “revenue-producing joint development projects” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 89-92). Dittmar and Ohland also suggest phasing the project to produce early cash flows and breaking the projects into familiar-looking parts (2004, p. 93-100). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has a strong focus on infrastructure and supports TODs, and there are government agencies that will oﬀer funding for transit-related developments including the Department of Transportation, the Federal Transit Administration, the Department of Housing, and the Urban Development and Economic Development Agency (Green, 2009). Joint ventures are often the way to go; “The government partner can contribute its expertise in transportation, zoning, approvals, and public funding; the

corporate partner can contribute development and real estate expertise and provide private capital” (Green, 2009). Funding is needed for many things, including: - Design, engineering, and environmental analyses, estimates, and funding negotiations; - Land acquisition, relocation, demolition, and site preparation, including brownfield reclamation; - Foundations and substructure improvements for buildings over transit; - Open space, pedestrian connections, and access links between transit services and related new or existing development; - Facilities and infrastructure investments attracting private investment; - Safety and security equipment and facilities; - Facilities incorporating community services, including day care or healthcare; and - Parking that supports public transit (Green, 2009).

Transit-Oriented Development

Transit-Oriented Developments, by their very definition, are aimed at reducing automobile use due to their “location efficiency” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 116). TODs recognize that cars are a necessity in the United States, but they plan for them a little differently than what has been typical in the past. - Parking is configured “so it does not dominate”— there are no giant surface lots; parking is behind buildings or underground, far away from “the pedestrian realm” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 121). The increased density in TODs helps to offset the cost of structured parking (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 121). - Off-street parking can be reduced by up to thirty percent in a TOD (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 122). Codes dictate required parking ratios, so it is important to work toward gaining a variance from the start to avoid an oversupply of parking (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 125-127). An example of a ridiculous parking ratio requirement is at the Alma Place housing project in Palo Alto, California: “Just

two blocks from the Caltrain commuter rail station, peak-hour parking demand is just 4/10 of a parking space per unit, even though parking is free. Nonetheless, lenders and local planners often insist upon two parking spaces per residential unit (since… this is what time-honored parking codes say are needed)” (Haas, 2008, p. 125). - Charge for parking—it is “one of the most eﬀective ways to change travel behavior” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 121). “Appro-

priately priced parking can reduce parking demand between ten and thirty percent” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 122). - Enforce parking time restrictions with meters and residential parking permits (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 122). - Unbundle parking: rather than selling a condo with a parking spot, sell them separately

to accommodate homebuyers that don’t need the parking (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 122). This will create more affordable housing, too, by taking the parking cost out (Haas, 2008, p. 125). - Use “shared parking:” “Defined as ‘the use of a parking space to serve multiple land uses without conflict,’” this “maximizes the use of the parking area, reduces the amount of parking needed to be built, and financially supports the facilities’ capital and operating expenses (if parking fees apply)” (Zullo, 2011, p. 32). Also called “resource efficiency,” an example of shared parking is a lot that is near both offices and a theater—the lot is used by office workers Monday through Friday, nine to five, and by moviegoers on evenings and weekends (Cervero, 1998, p. 77). Shared parking can “shrink the scale of suburban activity centers by as much as twenty-five percent” (Cervero, 1998, p. 77). - Offer car sharing (Zullo, 2011, p. 31-32). Dittmar and Ohland suggest that combining land

use, transportation land management (TDM), and transit and infrastructure strategies together oﬀers the greatest potential to reduce single-occupant vehicle travel (2004, p. 121). TODs are designed around the pedestrian, so cars must be dealt with in a way to keep pedestrians safe. Traﬃc calming, therefore, is critical: “The

central premise of traffic calming is that local streets belong to their residents. The street is viewed as an extension of the livable space of one’s own home and yard—a place to walk, chat, and play” (Cervero, 1998, p. 65). There are different strategies for traffic calming: - Skinny, curvilinear residential streets with street trees, speed tables (wider speed bumps), and bumpy road surfaces like brick slow traffic; these are more common in Europe and the Dutch call them woonerven (Cervero, 1998, p. 65). Berlin tried these tactics out on commercial streets, rather than just in neighborhoods, and found that

Transit-Oriented Development

citywide accidents involving pedestrians decreased by forty-three percent (Cervero, 1998, p. 65). - Roundabouts will tame traffic (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 8-2). - Bulb-outs—the widening of sidewalk at the end or middle of a block so pedestrians have less distance to cross the street—work to “define parking lanes, slow traffic, and are relatively inexpensive ($5,000 to $20,000… according to ‘Environmental Building News’)” (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 8-25). - Use the perception of a narrow street to slow traffic: plant street trees in rows, and keep the building line close to the street (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 8-25). - Use curved streets to keep sight distances shorter, slowing traffic (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 8-25). Street grids allowing for many different ways to get to a destination reduce traffic and make streets safer for pedestrians, and street widths should vary from larger avenues separating neighborhoods to

small alleys leading to residential parking behind homes. A Transit Cooperative Research

Program (TCRP) study found that “TOD residents made forty-four percent fewer automobile trips than estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual” (Zullo, 2011, p. 31). Zullo stresses that parking must be planned during the planning phase for the whole project (2011, p. 32). Even though TODs don’t focus on automobiles, they are still a very important factor in the planning of any community. Johann von Thünen theorized back in 1863 “about the value of farmland as a function of the land’s relative proximity and, thus, its accessibility to the market place” (Bartholomew & Ewing, 2011, p. 20). Today, there is evidence that TODs add value to property: A 2004 study done by Cervero showed price premiums of 6.4% to 45% for housing located within one-quarter to one-half mile radius of rail transit (Bartholomew & Ewing, 2011, p. 20). Addi-

tionally, a 2008 study found that “consumers

seem willing to pay a premium to locate in New Urbanist developments that feature higher-than-average densities, a mix of housing types, commercial centers, interconnected streets, and prominent public spaces. Compact developments can command a price premium of as much as forty percent to one hundred percent compared to houses in nearby single-use subdivisions” (Bartholomew & Ewing, 2011, p. 27). Unfortunately, this benefit brings along with it the reality that these neighborhoods will become less affordable, highlighting the importance of affordable housing and the importance of government intervention to ensure that the housing will remain affordable even as the rest of the development increases in value. One way to make TODs more affordable for everyone is to offer location efficient mortgages (LEMs)—the idea behind this is that lenders should

oﬀer larger mortgages to people moving into communities where they would be spending less money on transportation (Belzer & Autler, 2002, p. 53). A 1990s study found that “residents of

highly accessible, transit-served neighborhoods in metropolitan Chicago spent about $3,400 less on transportation per year than residents with comparable incomes living in auto-dependant neighborhoods” (Cervero, 1998, p. 80). The so-called “gap market” would benefit most from LEMS: they are in a social tier that makes too much money to benefit from subsidized housing, but not enough to aﬀord decent housing for their own (Wilkinson & Marks, 2007). -

Collaboration and coordination are the keys to a successful TOD; putting together all of the pieces is impossible for just a planner, just a developer, just a transit agency. There must be a di-

Transit-Oriented Development

alogue between city planners and city transit organizations to plan transit stops and sites most likely to benefit from TOD, and the transit agency must be willing and able to ensure frequent, high quality service (Holmes & Van Hemert, 2008, p. 7-8). The transit needs to be coordinated throughout the region, with a “coherent vision of high capacity transit connections between regional centers” (Holmes & Van Hemert, 2008, p. 7-8). All parties must work together to draft appropriate street standards and design guidelines, foster the establishment of business improvement districts (BIDs), and link public improvements with private investments (Holmes & Van Hemert, 2008, p. 7-8). A good way to force regional collaboration is to have regional tax-base sharing like in Minneapolis-St. Paul—then, towns won’t fight for big box stores and avoid lower-income households that “demand more services than their tax base supports” (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 2-8). Tax-base sharing would allow for a more evenly distributed mix of housing and other uses like retail and oﬃces. The most successful developments also take the

public’s opinion into consideration. When Calthorpe Associates planned Envision Utah in Salt Lake City, they came up with four diﬀerent plans for a one million person population growth, ranging from low-density conventional suburban development (requiring 409 square miles) to mixed-use, higher density neighborhoods built close to existing development (requiring 126 and 85 square miles of new development) (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 2-2). Calthorpe Associates used “special newspaper inserts” to present all four plans to the public, and 18,000 Utahans responded, strongly favoring the higher density, mixed-use scenarios (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 2-2). It is important to teach the public about new types of development and New Urbanism’s benefits so they may make informed decisions.

Transit-Oriented Development

Toward a Sustainable Future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Belzer and Autler wrote in 2002 that since World

traveled than automobile-oriented cities” (WannMing & Chiu, 2012, p. 2). “TOD has become

War II, “mutually reinforcing processes have characterized US cities: decentralization and an increasing reliance on the automobile. Heavy investment in roads and other implicit subsidies of automobile use, combined with comparatively low levels of transit funding, have facilitated decentralized urban development patterns and ineﬃcient use of land…. Most Americans now have few, if any, effective transportation choices other than the automobile…. Our current land use and transportation patterns contribute to a range of environmental ills, economic ineﬃciencies, health and safety issues, and social inequalities” (p. 51).

governmental financial incentives have been required to achieve this degree of monotony, sterility and vulgarity,” leading to what she called “the new unurban urbanization” (p. 78; p. 7).Through the hard

A study conducted by Robert Cervero showed that Transit-Oriented Developments “have thirty percent fewer automobile trips and vehicle miles

Dowell Myers and Elizabeth Gearin of the University of Southern California highlighted a few factors that have led to the demand for walkable neighbor-

one of [the] key planning methods to manage urban growth smartly in the 21st century” (Wann-Ming & Chiu, 2012, p. 2). As Jane Jacobs wrote in 1961, “Extraordinary

work of Jacobs and other urban planners including the Congress for the New Urbanism, the concept of smart growth has taken hold in the United States and more and more planned communities are beginning to look at the ideals of New Urbanism and TOD.

.............................................. hoods: - Mounting traﬃc congestion, - Decreased crime, - Immigration and enhanced urban vitality, - Growth of the “café culture,” - Fashionable design of higher density for the middle class, and - Positive examples created by growing densification (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 13-3). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a Smart Growth Network, into which TOD fits squarely, with the following goals: 1. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities; 2. Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas; 3. Build compact communities; 4. Build walkable neighborhoods; 5. Mix land uses; 6. Provide a variety of transportation choices; 7. Create housing opportunities and choices; 8. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place;

9. Encourage citizen and stakeholder participation in development decisions; and 10. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost-eﬀective (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 21-2).

In 2002, Edward Gramlich, a Federal Reserve governor, predicted that the United States could save $250 billion over the next twenty-five years by adopting smart growth strategies instead of continued sprawl (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 21-2). Three-quarters of those savings would accrue to developers and occupants of future housing by means of lower development and utility costs, and one-quarter would accrue to state and local governments by means of reduced land and road costs (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 21-2).

“Less automobile use means less consumption of fossil fuels, less air pollution, and lower spending on transportation….

Transit-Oriented Development

If the benefits of transit-oriented development are so compelling, why is the number of transit-oriented development projects still relatively small? And why do many of these projects seem to fall short of their potential?” Dena Belzer and Gerald Autler ask (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 7-2). The sense of community, the increased quality of life—“TOD dwellers are buying into a

lifestyle, not a unit. They want stores, a good-looking park, schools, trees, and all the elements of a complete neighborhood. They don’t want a place that’s just convenient to hop on a train and ride to work,” John Fregonese explains (Steuteville & Langdon, 2003, p. 18-7; 18-8; 7-4). Americans will always have an attachment to the automobile, but people are beginning to be ready for more transit-oriented development. “In 2000,

roughly six million American households

lived within a half-mile of an existing fixed-guideway transit stop. [The Center for Transit Oriented Development (CTOD)] estimates that by 2030, nearly a quarter of those seeking housing, or over fifteen million households, will want to live near fixed-guideway transit…. The types of households who have tended to seek out TOD—singles, couples without children, the elderly and low income minority households—are also the types of households projected to grow the most over the next twenty-five years” (Zimbabwe, et al., 2012, p. 3). CTOD calls TODs “complete communities” because they strive to be “opportunity-rich:” “all people have access to quality housing, education, employment opportunities, open space and recreation, retail, places of worship, healthcare, and transportation” (Zimbabwe, et al., 2012, p. 5). The benefits from these communities are many, and

include: - â&#x20AC;&#x153;Reduced spending on transportation by owning fewer cars and driving them less; - Reduced childhood obesity through increased physical activity; - Reduced household stress through shorter commute times and more time for family activities; and - Improved educational outcomes through access to stable housing and a range of supportive and enriching activitiesâ&#x20AC;? (Zimbabwe, et al., 2012, p. 5). Transit-oriented development is still young and existing examples of it in the United States have issues, but with each new TOD we learn how to improve. Smart growth is the future of development, and transit-oriented development is it.

Transit-Oriented Development

Lessons Learned. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arlington County, Virginia: Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor The Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor is one of the first transit-oriented developments in the United States. It is a string of five rail stations going toward Washington, DC, placed two-thirds to seven-eighths of a mile apart (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 138). Each station is developed in a bull’s-eye pattern with the highest density around the transit stop, tapering out (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 133). Every point along the corridor is within a ten to fifteen minute walk of a transit stop (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 138). Lessons Learned: - “Rail development can be used as a catalyst for redevelopment” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 150). - “A predictable development and review process is important for both developers and the community;” it “assured stability and predictability over time” and “made the corridor a magnet for future development” (Dittmar &

Ohland, 2004, p. 150). - “A rich mix of uses promotes a balanced use of the transportation system” so “not everyone is arriving and leaving from the same place at the same time by the same mode” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 150). - “Continued public involvement is critical” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 150). - “Density supports transit use” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 151). - “Design is important; so are pedestrians” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 151). - “Historic preservation maintains community character;” this is something Arlington’s planners did not think about until it was too late (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 151). - “Economic diversity is important. Successful station area development and redevelopment can drive up land values and may ultimately limit the economic diversity of households and businesses. Proactive policies are required to protect aﬀordable housing and aﬀordable business locations” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 151).

.............................................. Dallas, Texas: Mockingbird Station and Addison Circle Dallas is a low-density city that has been making moves toward more sustainable land-use patterns. “The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex—sprawling, polynuclear, crisscrossed and encircled by beltways, expressways, turnpikes, and tollways—has at the turn of the century embarked on an improbable experiment: It is seeking to reinvent itself around rail—and transit-oriented development” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 156). Mockingbird Station and Addison Circle are both near existing or planned rail stations, and both are in aﬄuent neighborhoods (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004). Lessons Learned: - “Unless the TOD site is promising real estate, like Mockingbird station [which is next to a freeway, rich neighborhoods, and a university], the public sector has to share the cost of building TOD by investing in infrastructure and other public improvements” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 170). Addison

Circle was in the suburbs and suﬀered due to its isolation. - “If cities want to develop sustainable communities, they must play a proactive part in the development process. Visioning and master-planning exercises, and the development of special codes and design guidelines, help create certainty for both public and private partners” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 170). - “Having ‘facts on the ground’ is important, as is telling stories about other successful TOD projects” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 170). The success of a nearby TOD created more interest in these projects. - “TOD projects can be both auto-friendly and pedestrian-friendly…. Mockingbird Station works, despite the fact that there is ample parking, and Addison Circle functions well as a pedestrian-friendly environment even though it is unlikely that many, if any, residents use transit” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 171). - “Cities that are against multifamily housing can be persuaded if it is sold as TOD” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 171-172).

Transit-Oriented Development

- “Retail is the most diﬃcult part” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 172). - “Transit agencies need to site stations carefully if they want to encourage TOD;” for example, “if the station at Mockingbird had been built even fifty feet closer to the Central Expressway, there would not have been enough site to build on” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 172). - “TOD projects take time. Collaboration is important. Detail is important. For this reason, small developers are best suited for TOD” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 172). - “TOD requires expertise, skill, and relationships more than it requires a huge capital outlay” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 173).

Atlanta, Georgia: Lindbergh City Center Atlanta is a city of sprawl: in the late 1990s, its sprawl reached over twenty-two counties (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 176). One of the largest employers in Atlanta, BellSouth, triggered a transit-oriented development around Lindbergh City Center when it decided to consolidate in 1998 and move its many suburban offices into a million square feet atop Lindbergh Metro station (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 176).The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) and BellSouth worked together to plan this development, but took no input from the public (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 181). Lessons Learned: - “Community involvement is essential to creating good projects” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 189). - “Research shows that too much parking has a deleterious effect on transit ridership, aggravates traffic congestion, and drives up the cost of projects. Too much density is just

as bad” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 190). Parking cost Lindbergh about $10,000 per space, which drove up the cost of apartments considerably (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 190). - “TOD projects should be integrated into their surroundings. Investment in pedestrian infrastructure and streetscape improvement is key” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 190). - “Affordable housing needs to be a component of TOD. TOD planning should include measures to preserve existing affordable housing and incentives to build new affordable housing, because significant new investment in neighborhoods will drive up property values and price low-income tenants out” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 190). - “TOD cannot solve congestion and emissions problems without supportive policies and investments at the regional and state level” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 190). - “One TOD does not a livable community make” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 190). TODs need to be connected to other TODs

in the region, in a cooperating whole, to be successful.

Transit-Oriented Development

San Jose, California: Ohlone-Chynoweth Station The city of San Jose, its transit agency (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, or VTA), the private landowner of the site, and nonprofit developers worked together to build this TOD near the lightrail Ohlone-Chynoweth Station (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 195). The site was agricultural land, a twenty-acre plot wedged between two freeways, the rail station, and a station parking lot, but it was developed in an attempt to bring affordable housing to a region that sorely lacked it (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 194). Two affordable housing projects, Ohlone Court and Ohlone-Chynoweth Commons, were built in the 1990s and 2000s; retail and office space was also planned (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 194-195). In the 2000s, a market-rate luxury apartment complex was also built on the site (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 206). Lessons Learned: - “Affordable multifamily housing can help to pioneer market-rate multifamily housing

in suburban single-family neighborhoods” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 208). - “Include the community from the get-go…. Because the neighborhood did not understand what the VTA intended to build on the site, they were blindsided when the second project was proposed, which made them angry and served to delay the second project by two years” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 208). - “Balance the needs of all users…. Suburban TOD does not have the benefit of the high levels of pedestrian traﬃc that urban TOD does—where the continual presence of people creates a space that is self-policed. In suburban environments the flow of foot traﬃc into the station is sporadic, and the rest of the time there may be no one in the public spaces around the station” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 208). If there is no continual presence of “eyes on the street,” as Jane Jacobs calls it, safety is sacrificed (1961). - “Implement a comprehensive parking strategy” for all the nearby developments together to better spend your money (Dittmar &

Ohland, 2004, p. 209). - “Locate retail to succeed,” not just facing the rail tracks and out of sight of the actual community (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 209). - “Innovative public-private for-profit and nonprofit partnerships are beneficial in the TOD arena” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p.209). - “TOD projects like these have regional implications;” these projects are now “prototypes for transit-oriented infill multifamily development at the lower density edges of rapidly growing cities” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 209).

San Diego, California: Barrio Logan’s Mercado Project Barrio Logan is the “historic heart of San Diego’s Latin community,” but it had been neglected by the city and investors for decades because it was generally a poor area; it needed “basic public infrastructure like parks and recreational facilities, street improvements, more quality aﬀordable housing, and home-ownership opportunities” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 215). It was already well-serviced by public transit, with a trolley stop and two major bus lines going through it, and it was already mixed-use and live-work, with “jobs, schools, healthcare and social services, churches, houses, mom-and-pop grocery stores, and even a bank, all within walking distance,” but the Mercado Apartments, a neotraditional development built in 1993, was the only major development there in fifty years (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 215). The Mercado Apartments were built by a nonprofit as aﬀordable housing, and New Urbanist and TOD principles were at the forefront of its planning

Transit-Oriented Development

(Dittmar & Ohland, 2004). “At thirty-two units per acre the development is less dense than the fifty-two units per acre permitted by the city’s TOD guidelines; the higher density would have required that the units be constructed over a parking garage, driving up costs. The development is pedestrian-oriented, and built so as to promote personal interaction and public safety by allowing for… ‘eyes on the street.’ The apartments, which have porches and upper-floor balconies, are oriented toward the street or around private, semi-private, and two large public courtyards. The 212 parking spaces, many of which remain empty, were located in the interior of the development so as not to impede pedestrian flow or interaction with the community. The gates are seldom locked, intended more to extend the living space out to the street than to keep people out” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 217). Planners even asked for input from future prospective tenants—for example, the tenants wanted more storage space instead of dishwashers, gas stoves rather than electric (“better for heating tortillas”), and “architecture that respected their Hispanic heritage” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 216).

This development sounds like a success; there is even a long waiting list for the Mercado Apartments (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 216). The biggest problem was in finding retail to move into a neighborhood where forty percent of households had incomes below the poverty level (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 216). Lessons Learned: - “While there has been great eﬀort to get banks and investors to loan money for affordable housing projects, there needs to be a similar eﬀort to make money available for retail in low-income communities because of the shortage of financing sources, patient, long-term capital, and loan guarantees for retail” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 224). - The New Markets Tax Credit, signed into law by President Clinton in 2000 and designed to help finance retail in low-income neighborhoods “will help, but there are limitations” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 220-221; p. 225). Charlie Werhane of the Enterprise Social Investment Corporation explains why: “The

feedback we get from community development corporations locally is that the market information on low-income neighborhoods is unreliable. Information about the buying power of these neighborhoods hasn’t yet been put in a usable format to take to retailers” (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 225). - “Development partners should share the same vision and values;” for example, at Barrio Logan, Landgrant allowed a suburban strip mall to be built, which was against the wishes of all other parties but happened anyway because Landgrant controlled the money (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004, p. 226).

Transit-Oriented Development

Works Cited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bartholomew, K., & Ewing, R. (2011, February 11). Hedonic price eďŹ&#x20AC;ects of pedestrian- and transit-oriented development. Journal of planning literature, 26(1), 18-34. Belzer, D., & Autler, G. (2002). Countering sprawl with transit-oriented development. Issues in science and technology, 19(1), 51-58. Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the American dream. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. Cervero, R. (1998). The transit metropolis: A global inquiry. Washington, DC: Island. Congress for the new urbanism. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cnu.org/ Dittmar, H., & Ohland, G. (2004). The new transit town: Best practices in transit-oriented development. Washington, DC: Island. Garreau, J. (1991). Edge city: Life on the new

frontier. New York, NY: Anchor Books Doubleday. Green, R. (2009). Transit-oriented development as economic stimulus. Area development site and facility planning, 44(2), 57-61. Haas, T. (2008). New urbanism and beyond: Designing cities for the future. New York: Rizzoli International Publications. Holmes, J., & Van Hemert, J. (2008, January). Transit oriented development (Research Monologue Series). Retrieved from The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Web site: http://www.law.du.edu/ images/uploads/rmlui/rmlui-sustainable-transitOrientedDevelopment.pdf Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. Liebs, C.H. (1985). Main street to miracle mile: American roadside architecture. Boston, MA: Bulfinch Press.

.............................................. Newman, M. (1991, November 10). Focus; a transit-oriented approach to suburbia. The new york times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes. com/1991/11/10/realestate/focus-a-transit-oriented-approach-to-suburbia.html

Magazine of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering (15)9, 22-23.

Steuteville, R., & Langdon, P. (2003). New urbanism: Comprehensive report & best practices guide. Ithaca, NY: New Urban Pub.

Zimbabwe, S., Britt, K., Wampler, E., Vincent, J. M., Bierbaum, A. H., McKoy, D. L., & Rhodes, M. P. The Center for Transit-Oriented Development, (2012). Tod 205: Families and transit-oriented development (TOD205). Retrieved from website: http://reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/browse-research/2012-2/tod-205-families-and-transit-oriented-development-creating-complete-communities-for-all/

Troy, A. (2012). The very hungry city: Urban energy eďŹ&#x192;ciency and the economic fate of cities. New Haven, CT: Yale UP.

Zullo, J. (2011). Parking strategies for transitoriented development. Mass transit (July-Aug 2011), 30-34.

Rybczynski, W. (2007). Last harvest. New York, NY: Scribner.

Wann-Ming, W., & Chiu, Y. (2012). Assessing the walkability of pedestrian environment under the transit-oriented development. Habitat international, (2012), 1-13. Wilkinson, P., & Marks, T. (2007). Promoting transit-oriented development. Civil engineering:

Transit-Oriented Development