HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT| Planning Tucson's Next Corridor by Felicia Farrante

PLANNING TUCSON’S NEXT CORRIDOR

HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT PLANNING TUCSONâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S NEXT CORRIDOR University of Arizona College of Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture 2016 Urban Design Studio Tai An Ryan Fagan Felicia Farrante Alena Fast Minette Mahoney Daniel Martin Domenic Martinelli Yanan Liu

TABLE OF CONTENTS 01 PROJECT INTRODUCTION pages 6-11

History of Transit in Tucson Executive Summary Vision for Tucson Project Goals and Objectives

02 ROUTE AND MODE ANALYSIS pages 12-31

History of HCT Studies, Plans and Projects in Tucson GIS Suitability Analysis Route Alternatives Analysis Entire Route Inventory Final Route Selection Mode Case Studies and Alternatives Analysis Conceptual Roadway Engineering

03 POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION pages 32-39

Stakeholder Involvement Project Financing Transit-Oriented Development and Standards Encouraging Development Development Incentives Equity and Displacement Mitigation Strategies

04 URBAN DESIGN pages 40-47

Principles of Urban Design Station Site Selection Form-Based Code Overlay Zoning

05 STUDY AREAS pages 48-99

Wetmore Road / Stone Ave Miracle Mile / Oracle Road Speedway Blvd / Stone Ave 22nd + 29th Ave / South 6th Ave Irvington Road / South 6th Ave Architectural Concepts Station Iterations and Renderings Conceptual Designs

06 NEXT STEPS pages 100-112

Public Participation: History in Tucson Strategies to Maximize Participation Challenges to High Capacity Transit Plan Implementation Conclusion Resources Appendices A-C

01 PROJECT INTRODUCTION

HISTORY OF TRANSIT IN TUCSON

1879 - Public transportation in Tucson begins with horse-drawn carriage service from downtown to the Nine Mile Water Hole north of the confluence of the Rillito and Santa Cruz rivers. 1898 - The first rail transit service, the Tucson Street Railway, begins. Powered by a combination of mules and horses, the route extends from downtown to the University via Congress, Stone, and 3rd Street. 1902-1904 - Extensions north of the University and south of downtown to the Elysian Grove park open. 1905 - Tucson Street Railway becomes Tucson Rapid Transit, in preparation for electric streetcar service 1906 - Electrified rail service begins with five streetcar vehicles, later expanded to twelve 1925 - Buses added to supplement transit service 1930 - City Council votes to replace trolleys with additional buses, ending streetcar service 1969 - City of Tucson takes over operations of the Tucson Rapid Transit bus system 1975 - Bus system rebranded Sun Tran after a naming contest 1983 - Old Pueblo Trolley founded to revive street rail service using refurbished streetcars 1993 - Heritage streetcar line from 4th Avenue to the University of Arizona begins service 2011 - Heritage streetcar service ends in preparation for construction of the Sun Link modern streetcar line 2014 - Sun Link begins service, connecting the University of Arizona to the Mercado District via 4th Avenue and Downtown Today - Sun Tran operates 252 buses on 43 fixed routes; Sun Link operates 8 streetcar vehicles on a 3.9 mile fixed route Sources: Old Pueblo Trolley 2016, Sun Tran 2016, Smatlak 2011

By 2045, the population of the Tucson region is expected to grow by 30 percent, or approximately 300,000 people. Although most of Tucson’s growth has been low-density, suburban-style development, many western cities are tapping demand for more urban lifestyles with improved public transit and higher-density neighborhoods that have a variety of destinations and amenities within walking distance. Tucson’s SunLink modern streetcar, opened in 2015, has been credited with hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment adjacent to the line. New developments dot the landscape in downtown Tucson, with vacant lots and parking lots turning into multistory mixed-use buildings, hotels, and market-rate housing, while long-vacant buildings are being renovated to meet demand for real estate downtown. Support in official plans for expansion of high-capacity transit (HCT), public goodwill toward SunLink, a recovering local economy, and the success of HCT in spurring economic growth across the U.S. have combined to create a unique opportunity to change the direction of Tucson’s growth and meet the demand for a new way of living. Investments in new transit service coupled with appropriate policies and incentives can:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Improve mobility through better transit service and more accessible destinations • Attract new development around stations • Improve environmental outcomes by reducing reliance on fossil fuels and improving air quality • Benefit underserved populations by improving transportation options and encouraging/preserving affordable housing • Accommodate future population growth by encouraging denser development This book details the challenges and opportunities of creating a new HCT line for the Tucson region, providing ideas, plans, and designs to begin a conversation with the community.

A VISION FOR TUCSON

Tucson’s historically rapid growth has slowed in recent years along with the economy, but a 1 percent growth rate is projected for the near term, with a metro area population increase of about 30 percent (approximately 300,000 people) by 2045 (Arizona Population Statistics). Four percent of Tucson workers commute using public transportation, and nearly ten percent of South Tucson workers do, while the rate in many Census block groups exceeds 20 or even 30 percent (U.S. Census). In addition, Tucson has many parcels of land that are either vacant or are dominated by underutilized parking lots. The area’s pattern of growth has historically been one of unchecked outward expansion, but the recent recession, stagnation in population growth, and success at revitalizing downtown Tucson provide an opportunity to reevaluate and take a different approach to growth. Despite the similarities in form across cities of the Southwest, there is no natural or default land use pattern or transportation mode; the priorities of a region and the resulting policies and plans determine how it will grow and mature, and many cities are reconsidering the way they have expanded since the middle of the 20th century. Land use and transportation are inseparable; the simplest illustration of this is the example of an undeveloped swath of land that increases in value and attracts car-oriented development (such as single-family homes or a shopping center) as soon as a road is built through it. Tucson and much of the American west have been driven by sprawl, and in boom times that growth largely paid for itself through job growth and increased tax revenues. However, as car-oriented subdivisions age, the cost of maintaining infrastructure to low-density developments has become a growing burden on municipal budgets. Low density development means a low ratio of tax revenue to infrastructure, from lane miles of road, to miles of electrical, gas, drinking water, and sewer facilities. With so much vacant land in developed areas with access to existing infrastructure, and a demonstrated demand for housing and commercial space in urban core areas, many city leaders are questioning policies that effectively subsidize sprawl. Impact fees (which are levied on new construction to defray costs of providing services and infrastructure), are one way to address upfront costs, but they do not address future maintenance needs.

Why not allow a mix of land uses and encourage denser development while still building primarily for automobiles? This can be helpful, but there are limits to its effectiveness. Denser, more walkable development that also accommodates cars requires parking structures, which cost tens of thousands of dollars per space to build. This is often not cost effective from a developer’s standpoint. And while a person living in a mixed-use development may have access to shopping, recreation, and office space, Many factors led to the now-familiar patterns of suburban development the likelihood that all of these will be fulfilled in one place is very low; most that have dominated since World War II. Federal housing policies people will still need to travel around town for their daily needs. favored ownership of single family homes, and federal money subsidized High Capacity Transit (HCT) can be the missing piece of this puzzle. It highways. A booming postwar economy made car ownership accessible can link many smaller urban areas, effectively creating one massive mixed to the growing middle class, and clean, safe suburban developments use development that can be navigated conveniently without a car. Parkappeared to be the way of the future, in contrast to city centers with ing requirements can be lower because residents near one transit station declining populations and increasing crime. While human developments had historically contained a mix of uses that were easily accessible on foot, can take transit rather than driving, and visitors to the area who drive can the land use regulations that came to dominate in the U.S. after WWII were park in one place and take transit to reach multiple destinations. This is already happening with Tucson’s streetcar; people may visit the downbased on the model provided by Euclid, Ohio in the 1920s. This model, town or University areas to eat dinner and then watch a show or game, which came to be known as Euclidean zoning, was based on the notion traveling miles within the area without having to drive and repark. Even that certain land uses were incompatible with each other for reasons that included health, safety, and protection of property values. Nearly every city surrounded by car-oriented development, a more pedestrian-oriented development pattern can grow and and prosper. Prominent Tucson architect in the country quickly adopted some form of Euclidean zoning, physically separating residential, commercial, and industrial uses. In concert with the and planner Corky Poster refers to transit as forming the spine of a city around which new development and urban life are able to grow. To create rapid adoption of the automobile, this had the effect of pushing homes, a walkable, desirable urban landscape, to save money on infrastructure workplaces, and shopping far enough away from each other to make costs, and to reduce reliance on private automobiles, HCT is the key. access by car the only convenient option, for those who can afford it. traffic. As city centers declined while suburbs flourished, it was believed that downtowns needed to compete by becoming more car-friendly. Buildings were razed and roads were widened, but the causes of flight to the suburbs were more complex and deep-rooted. Indeed, much of what made downtowns unique and attractive was destroyed in the process.

Ample parking, of course, is necessary to accommodate drivers. Homes, offices, restaurants, and churches all see peak demand at different times; in low-density areas with separated uses, each building or development has its own parking lot, and parking spaces are vacant most of the time. An aerial view of Tucson shows the effect of this—the size of a parking lot generally exceeds the size of the building it is meant to serve—it takes about of 300 square feet of pavement for each parking space at each place a person will visit in a given day. This combination of low-rise development, separation of uses, and parking requirements creates an environment where the obvious choice (for those who can afford it) is driving. Walking is out of the question—a trip that might be a few blocks in If low-density development is an expensive burden on metropolitan areas, a dense city may be miles in a low-density area. Bicycling and transit may what is the alternative? Unfortunately, high density development is not very be an option, but when distances are so dramatically greater and cars are conducive to car traffic, and Tucson (along with nearly every major city in so much faster, they are generally only chosen by those who cannot afford the country) has a downtown littered with underutilized parking lots and to drive, or by those who make a conscious choice for personal reasons. garages where homes and businesses once stood. In the middle of the 84% of workers in Tucson commute by car, and spend an average of 22 twentieth century, city centers that had been built for walking and public minutes doing so. transit suddenly found themselves competing with suburbs built for car

PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS

• Goals • Improve mobility for existing transit users • Provide service that attracts additional transit ridership to the network • Objectives • Reduce travel times for typical trips in the transit network through increased speed and frequency • Coordinate with existing bus transit service to provide improved connections to other lines • Improve access to other transportation modes, including: • Pedestrian: Provide walkable spaces around transit stops that connect to surrounding neighborhoods • Bicycle: Connect to the existing and planned low-stress regional bike network • Automobile: Utilize existing parking capacity at certain locations to provide a park and ride option for commuters living outside the service area

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

• Goals • Increase property values along new transit corridor • Stimulate investments in infill development • Objectives • Provide high quality designs for stations and surrounding areas • Develop incentives and policies to encourage transit-oriented development • Leverage connections to the existing growth in downtown

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY

• Goals • Decrease reliance on fossil fuels • Improve air quality • Reduce conversion of undeveloped land • Objectives • Increase transit ridership on electric, compressed natural gas, and/or biodiesel-powered vehicles • Reduce automobile traffic by providing desirable alternatives • Incentivize infill development to reduce sprawl and shorten travel distances • Use land more efficiently through a mix of uses that requires less space for parking

SOCIAL JUSTICE

• Goals • Provide improved transportation options for low-income individuals • Limit displacement caused by increasing property values • Objectives • Provide more and improved affordable mobility options in the region (see “Mobility Improvements”, above) • Develop policies and programs to help preserve existing homes and businesses through incentives, encouraging ownership, and other program

PLANNING FOR POPULATION GROWTH

• Goals • Meet the anticipated transportation and land use needs of the Tucson region, which is expected to grow by approximately 30%, or 300,000 people, by 2045 • Provide a desirable environment for investment in infill development • Objectives • Increase transit capacity in busy transportation corridors through the addition of a high capacity transit line • Level the playing field for infill development with: • Development fee reductions • Development incentives • Creating desirable mixed-use areas as an alternative to sprawl

02 ROUTE AND MODE ANALYSIS

In 1987, the City of Tucson commissioned a study of the Broadway Boulevard Corridor led by Parsons Brinckerhoff to evaluate alternatives for transportation that would serve the forecasted needs of the city by 2005. The study concluded that no single alternative would be sufficient, but a combination of alternatives including transit improvements and roadway capacity increases would meet the forecasted needs. One of the combinations included a light rail line along Broadway, an option that received a 47% favorable response in public meetings. The study also concluded that the City of Tucson did not have the resources to implement any of the identified alternatives. A modified form of the roadway capacity alternative, which specified widening Broadway to 6 travel lanes plus 2 dedicated transit lanes, became part of the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) plan passed by voters.

In 2001, Tucsonans for Sensible Transportation was formed to advocate for improvements in transit, bicycle infrastructure, and pedestrian infrastructure. Steve Farley, now a state senator, led this group and championed a ballot measure that would have provided for pedestrian, bike, bus, and high capacity transit improvements, including a light rail line that would run along South Sixth Avenue and Broadway Boulevard. The measure was defeated, but a kernel of the idea survivedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;shortly after, Farley began working on a smaller scale project that would link the University of Arizona, Downtown, and the Rio Nuevo area west of Interstate 10. This project was incorporated into the 2006 RTA plan, received a $63 million TIGER grant in 2010, broke ground in 2012, and began service in 2014 as the Sun Link modern streetcar. Hundreds of millions of dollars in private investment have been directly attributed to the streetcar, and ridership estimates of 3,600 passengers per day were exceeded in the first year of operation.

HISTORY OF PLANS AND SUPPORT FOR HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT IN THE TUCSON REGION

HISTORY OF HCT IN TUCSON

In preparation for the 2045 Regional Transportation Plan (now called the Regional Mobility and Accessibility Plan, or RMAP), the City of In 2009, Pima Association of Governments (PAG) commissioned a study Tucson and Pima Association of Governments commissioned a series of workshops and a subsequent analysis of their outcome by Jarrett from Kittelson and Associates on possible approaches to HCT in this region. The plan identified 16 corridors for further study as possible routes Walker and Associates. The study identified four corridors with potential for HCT: Oracle Road, Euclid / First Avenue, Broadway Boulevard, and for express buses, modern streetcar, bus rapid transit, light rail transit, South Sixth Avenue. The draft 2045 RMAP specifies five corridors for and commuter rail. Corridors identified with potential for bus rapid transit HCT, specifically Bus Rapid Transit, omitting Euclid / First Avenue in or light rail transit included Oracle Road, Campbell Avenue / Kino Parkway, Grant Road, Speedway Boulevard, Broadway Boulevard, and South favor of Grant Road and Campbell Avenue / Kino Parkway. Earlier this year, PAG selected HDR Engineering to develop a High Capacity TranSixth Avenue. The results of the plan were incorporated into the 2040 sit Implementation Plan to study the details of funding, constructing, and PAG Regional Transportation Plan. operating HCT lines in Tucson.

Tucson’s current general plan, Plan Tucson, was ratified by voters and adopted in 2013. The plan identifies areas and corridors for growth, including infill development in the form of mixed-use centers, mixed-use corridors, and neighborhood centers. Public transit is identified as key to the success of these kinds of growth. Among the guidelines in the adopted document are: • Support strategically located mixed-use activity centers and activity nodes in order to increase transit use, reduce air pollution, improve delivery of public and private services, and create inviting places to live, work, and play • Support infill and redevelopment projects that reflect sensitivity to site and neighborhood conditions and adhere to relevant site and architectural design guidelines • Support development opportunities where: a. residential, commercial, employment, and recreational uses are located or could be located and integrated b. there is close proximity to transit c. multi-modal transportation choices exist or can be accommodated d. there is potential to develop moderate to higher density development e. existing or upgraded public facilities and infrastructure provide required levels of service f. parking management and pricing can encourage the use of transit, bicycling, and walking

NEXT STEPS

High capacity transit in Tucson is already successful with the Sun Link modern streetcar, and there is potential to expand upon this success. More than just meeting an existing need for public transit service, HCT is a way to fulfill a vision for a certain type of urban form; the history of plans supporting it speaks to the desire to chart a different path for Tucson. This project builds on the foundation of those plans and studies and presents a concept for a high capacity transit line focused on desired land use outcomes for the city. This plan is flexible with respect to transportation mode (Light Rail Transit, Bus Rapid Transit, Modern Streetcarâ&#x20AC;Ś) and other engineering details. For illustrative purposes and idea generation, some of those details are included, but the main purpose of this report is to discuss the effects of a new high capacity transit line and what policies and plans can shape the eventual outcome.

The process used to determine the most suitable alignment for a high capacity transit (HCT) line was a triangulation of three different analysis types. The first major factor in the selection of the route involved a suitability analysis using GIS. The area of influence for an HCT station is approximately one half mile, she analysis examined data within a half mile buffer from five potential corridors--the four corridors identified in the 2015 Jarrett Walker + Associates Report, and the North Campbell Avenue corridor identified in the 2009 PAG study. The analysis was designed to determine which segment would be most supportive of transit overall, based on three different categories: economic development potential, social equity needs, and trip generation potential. This analysis did not account for mode in any regard – just the potential to support HCT.

GIS SUITABILITY ANALYSIS

The data used for the analysis were aggregated from a number of different sources. The data collected from these sources were featured in either the Economic Development Analysis, Social Equity Analysis, or the Trip Generation Analysis. The factors and data sources selected were derived from various precedent studies on using Geographic Information Systems analysis to evaluate HCT feasibility. Detailed descriptions of the individual factors that were used for each analysis can be found in Appendix A. The sources used for all the factors, and the geographical scales for each can be found below: Source U.S. Census EPA U.S. Census Center For Neighborhood Technology Pima County GIS Sun Tran

Dataset American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates Smart Location Database Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Survey Housing and Transportation Affordability Index

Geography Census Block Group Level Census Block Group Level Census Block Level

“PA Region” County Level Parcel Data Shapefile 6 Month Average Bus Ridership Data

Parcel By Route

Census Block Group Level

WEIGHTING AND CALCULATION PROCESS For each of the three analysis types (economic development, social equity, trip generation), three weighting classes were created for each. Each weight class for each analysis was designed to highlight certain features of an analysis, while still accounting for all the factors that made up each respective analysis. For example, in the economic development analysis, weighting class A had an emphasis on vacant parcels, land values, and redevelopment potential, while class B had a focus on job mix and demographic data. All C weighting classes were designed to be an even approach between the A and the C class. A total of 27 different outcomes resulted from all possible combinations of the weighting classes. These outcomes were combined to create a final analysis that showed which routes emerged as clear winners when evaluated in a number of different scenarios. This was done in two ways: The first method was adding all the raw scores per route from each of the 27 analyses, to determine which route had the highest raw score. The second method was determining how each route ranked in each separate analysis, and adding the sum of the ranks to and identifying which route won the most analyses.

HOUSING + TRANSPORTATION INDEX

A measure of the average housing costs and transportation costs, as a percentage of average income per block group.

A measure of the number of people per block group, earning at the bottom 33% of the income scale for the region.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

MULTI-MODAL NETWORK DENSITY

A measure of the pre-tax median household income per block group.

LOW WAGE WORKERS INDEX

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS

A measure of the number of intersection points between different travel mode networks, within a defined block group level geography.

PERCENTAGE 65 + OLDER

POPULATION DENSITY

A measure of all persons aged 65 and greater, as a percentage of the total population per block group.

A measure of the total population per block group, divided by the total area of each block group.

TRIP EQUALITY

ZERO CAR HOUSEHOLDS

A measure of the balances between land uses that are classified as either receiving or sending. Block groups with even balances are rated higher, while block groups that skew towards one or the other, are rated lower.

A measure of the total percentage of households per block group that do not own a vehicle.

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS 19

Oracle/Ina

Euclid/N. 1st Ave.

Campbell Ave.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Broadway

S. 6th Ave.

Most Suitable (1)

ÂŻ 20

Least Suitable (0) 0

0.5

2 Miles

Oracle/Ina

Euclid/N. 1st Ave.

Campbell Ave.

SOCIAL EQUITY A potential HCT line should not only aim to achieve economic goals, but a more holistic purpose as well: serving mobility to those that need it most. Tucson is a city with above average poverty rates, lower than average incomes, and a significant segment of the population that relies on public transportation for daily activities. Findings from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey show clear correlations between income and transit use. Roughly 57% of all transit trips and 78% of bus and light rail trips are made by households with income less than $40,000, while only 13% of commuter rail trips are in this income category (Pucher and Renne 2003).The analysis conducted for the proposed route aimed to identify the areas that had a population of users that would most benefit from the mobility improvements of an HCT line. The main factor considered was current bus ridership; generally, existing bus routes with high ridership that are converted to HCT lines tend to keep that ridership and build upon it. Other research has suggested that high car ownership can reduce light rail usage (Babalik-Sutcliffe 2002; Mackett and Babalik-Sutcliffe 2003), so zero car households were considered as a component of the analysis. Additional factors that attempt to identify potential transit dependent users, such as low wage workers, and senior populations, were also considered in the analysis.

S. 6th Ave.

Broadway

Most Suitable (1)

ÂŻ

Least Suitable (0) 0

0.5

2 Miles

Oracle/Ina

Euclid/N. 1st Ave.

Campbell Ave.

TRIP GENERATION

Broadway

S. 6th Ave.

Understanding how people move through the built environment--including where they live and where their destinations are--is crucial to determining how transit can enhance this process. Ridership of a route will be positively influenced if it connects locations where large numbers of people live, locations where large numbers of people want to go, and viable means of access for the “last mile” problem of a transit route. The last mile problem occurs when a transit rider’s origin or destination is not directly adjacent to a transit stop, necessitating a mode change, such as walking, biking, or driving. A research paper by Schlossberg and Brown emphasizes the importance of network densities for the success of transit oriented development: “An often unspoken, but key component to TOD theory rests in the pedestrian access between the transit stop and the immediately surrounding area. That is, the success of TODs significantly rests on the capacity of pedestrians to navigate and access the range of land uses in close proximity of transit stations. Thus, it seems that understanding the opportunities for pedestrian movement should be a key component in understanding and evaluating TODs.” (Schlossberg and Brown, 2003). Because of the “last mile” problem, the analysis included factors that look at the mode transfer opportunities in an area, and the pedestrian conditions for individuals who will be walking at some point during their journey. Along with the last mile problem, numerous research studies [Hass-Klau and Crampton (2002), Johnson (2003), Seskin and Cervero (1996), Kain et al. (2004), Babalik-Sutcliffe (2002)] have shown high density development to be an indicator of successful transit. According to Johnson, he found that: ‘‘nearly every study that has focused on transit ridership has provided evidence that residential and commercial density are the primary determinants of transit ridership.’’ (Johnson, 2003). Additionally, the analysis looked at employment density as a major component of transit viability, as well as an equal balance between sending and receiving land uses.

Most Suitable (1)

Least Suitable (0) 0

0.5

2 Miles

Oracle/Ina

Euclid/N. 1st Ave.

Campbell Ave.

FINAL ANALYSIS RESULTS After completion of the suitability analysis and aggregation of the various different analyses, distinct trends emerged within the data: When weighing in favor of economic development, the Oracle Road corridor ended up winning the majority of these analyses. This is due to the fact that the Tucson Mall has a high concentration of jobs, a high jobs-balance equity mix, and vacant parcels that are ripe for redevelopment. The Euclid / First corridor was often the runner up under the same set of circumstances. When weighing in favor of social equity, Sixth Avenue ended up winning all of these analyses, with Oracle being the runner up in most circumstances. This was heavily influenced by current bus ridership data, census data that showed high proportions of low income families, and low rates of vehicle ownership. The Broadway and Campbell corridors consistently came in at 4th and 5th, respectively, in the majority of the analyses conducted. This essentially brought the decision making process down to selecting between the Oracle, Sixth, and Euclid / 1st corridors.

S. 6th Ave.

Broadway

Most Suitable (1)

ÂŻ

Least Suitable (0) 0

0.5

2 Miles

MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

24 ENTIRE ROUTE INVENTORY

HISTORIC DISTRICTS

MAJOR TRIP GENERATORS (PAG 2009)

0.5

2 Miles

VACANT PARCELS ENTIRE ROUTE INVENTORY 25

The three analyses that formed the triangulation study were a suitability analysis using GIS, a windshield survey and site visits of the proposed alignments, and a literature review of different mode types and precedent studies. Each component was considered in the process of selecting the route. Subjective evaluation of routes revealed preferences for Oracle Road and Sixth Avenue for the potential for impact of developing vacant parcels and the variety of typologies and conditions along those two corridors. Additionally, a review of other transit systems showed that many successful HCT lines have replaced high-performing bus routes; the proposed routes for Oracle and Sixth Avenue cover the most heavily-used segments in the Sun Tran bus system. Given that Oracle Road and Sixth Avenue came out on top in all three types of analyses (GIS suitability analysis, windshield survey, and precedent studies) the decision was made to develop a plan for a line combining both corridors, with a future extension to the airport. 24 Potential station stop locations were also identified along the route. Most of them are located at intersections with arterial roads. Their locations are based on the following principles: • Connectivity to existing Sun Tran bus routes - Maximizing the usefulness of the route as a connection to other transit lines • Land development potential - Significant vacant or underutilized land, including parking that may be excessive or that could be consolidated as part of a transit-oriented development • Existing infrastructure - Minimizing the need to build new pedestrian crossings or disrupt traffic signal timing • Route efficiency - Limiting stop spacing to roughly 0.5-1.0 miles, increasing average transit speeds and appropriately spacing transit-oriented development zones These sites are conceptual and their locations are subject to a more rigorous analysis that would consider shifts in demand from eliminated bus stops and faster service, engineering challenges, and possible property acquisition considerations, among other factors.

MIRACLE MILE / ORACLE

Different analyses have strengths and weaknesses; for example, a solely data driven / Geographic Information Systems (GIS) approach is excellent for quantitative analysis, but fails to consider qualitative features of an area. On the other hand, site observation and windshield analysis are excellent approaches for gathering qualitative data, but fail to account for quantitative features. With this in mind, the methodology for this analysis aimed to combine the strengths and weaknesses of different study types, to gain a well-rounded understanding of the influences that surround each of the corridors to be considered.

WETMORE RD / STONE

FINAL ROUTE SELECTION

IRVINGTON RD / S 6TH AVE

29TH ST / S 6TH AVE

22ND ST / S 6TH AVE

SPEEDWAY BLVD / STONE AVE

MODE CASE STUDIES

28 MODE SELECTION

MODE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Real-world development and implementation of a high capacity transit (HCT) plan would require close collaboration with engineers and would be subject to a variety of technical, political, and fiscal constraints that would heavily shape the outcome. Because the project is focused largely on land use, the technical details are intended to be flexible as they have less influence on the goals of the project than the very existence of a new transit option and the associated land use regulations, incentives, and other policies.

There is no one right transit mode for all cities, or even for a particular route in one city. Each mode has benefits and drawbacks when compared to other modes; for example, BRT is much less expensive than LRT to build, but smaller vehicles limit passenger capacity and can lead to higher operating costs than LRT. Streetcars are more affordable than LRT, but lack of dedicated right-of-way limits their effectiveness as a mobility tool due to slow average speeds and the potential for.

The 2045 PAG regional mobility plan specifies five BRT projects and one modern streetcar project, with no light rail component. The high anticipated cost of light rail make it less realistic for Tucson in a short-to-mid term One of the biggest challenges to a new HCT line in Tucson is funding; some others include gaining local support planning horizon. A study by the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy that reviewed a total of 21 and property rights issues. These must be balanced with a transportation planning environment that continues LRT, BRT, and Modern Streetcar systems concluded that all three modes can be highly effective at leveraging to emphasize vehicle capacity. For these reasons, this report’s approach to technical details is a conservative economic development (Hook 2013). While BRT may be the most cost-effective mode of high capacity transit one, interested in minimizing costs, limiting right-of-way acquisition and property demolition, and preserving the for Tucson, there is still something of a stigma in the United States associated with buses, while the SunLink vehicular capacity of roadways where appropriate. modern streetcar in Tucson has been successful at attracting ridership from new transit riders. To build on that success, this project proposes a “Rapid Streetcar” solution that would use infrastructure and equipment comMode Selection patible with the existing SunLink line, but with dedicated ROW and wider stop spacing over most of the route For urban transportation solutions, there are four main mode choices for high capacity transit: for higher trip speeds, while keeping capital costs similar to the $50 million per mile of the existing line. While • Heavy rail: trains running entirely in dedicated right-of-way in tunnels or above ground on elevated tracks mobility improvements for other modes--such as wider bicycle lanes and sidewalks--are desirable and can be • Light rail transit (LRT): trains or individual railcars running entirely or mostly in dedicated right-of-way at incorporated in some areas for minimal cost, making those an essential component of this project would greatly grade, often in a center reservation on major streets or in abandoned freight rail corridors increase the cost. The diagrams on the following page illustrate how HCT can be added to existing roadways • Modern streetcar: railcars running entirely or mostly in mixed traffic on city streets while minimizing the need to expand roadway width. • Bus rapid transit (BRT): may range from upgraded bus service with wide stop spacing to a “gold standard” which provides all of the infrastructural and service benefits of light rail, including dedicated right-of-way, level boarding platforms, traffic signal priority, and off-board payment and validation Even in the largest and most affluent metropolitan areas in the United States, heavy rail is increasingly uncommon due to the high population density needed to properly take advantage of its benefits and the high and extremely variable capital costs involved. Light rail transit, bus rapid transit, and modern streetcar are favored depending on existing conditions and the aim of the project. Below is a comparison of different modes from the 2009 PAG HCT plan, with figures from two comparable projects added:

Measure

BRT

LRT

Modern Streetcar

SunLink

Phoenix LRT

Avg length

4-16 mi

14-30 mi

5-9 mi

3.9 mi

23 mi

Station spacing

0.37-1.19 mi

0.7-1.3 mi

1-2 blocks - 0.15 mi

about .25 mi

0.5-1 mi

Service frequency

2.5-30 min

6-30 min

5-12 min

10 min (peak)

12 min (peak)

Avg daily ridership

4,450-20,000

10,150-36,750

11,900-30,000

3,600

43,827

Capital cost / mile

$0.2-$6.25M

$16.9-$62.2M

$23-$30M

$50M

$70M

Operating cost

$160l810k/mi/yr

$0.24$1.29/pass mi

$630k-$1.12M/mi/yr

$1M/mi/yr or $3/passenger

$1M/mi/yr

CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY ENGINEERING

Throughout most of the route length, the Rapid Streetcar line would run in a center reservation on the road. On most of Oracle Road, this can be accomplished with minimal impact to vehicle capacity and minimal expansion of roadway width by removing center medians and narrowing vehicle lanes. A typical existing cross-section of Oracle is illustrated here. The roadway features a 98-foot curb-to-curb width with six 11-foot vehicle lanes, a 22-foot median, and 5-foot bicycle lanes. The median can be used to add dedicated transit lanes without eliminating vehicle lanes, while narrowing travel lanes to 10 feet provides room for a 2-foot buffer from the transit reservation and an increase in bicycle lane width from to 6 feet.

Most station stops will be located near intersections for connectivity and cost efficiency purposes, to take advantage of existing crosswalks and connections to bus lines. A typical existing cross-section of Oracle including a dedicated left turn and median is illustrated here. To include dedicated transit lanes and a 16-foot station platform while preserving roadway capacity, the roadway would need to be widened from 98 feet to 124 feet.

CONCEPTUAL ROADWAY ENGINEERING

A typical existing cross-section of Sixth Avenue is illustrated here. The roadway features a 60-foot curb-tocurb width with four 10-foot vehicle lanes, a 10-foot center turn lane, and 5-foot bicycle lanes. This roadway is challenging due to the limited width and small building setbacks along many stretches. In some areas, traffic counts are low enough (13,000-17,000 vehicles per day) that eliminating a vehicle lane and dedicating it to transit may be feasible. In that case, the center turn lane could be eliminated, providing enough space for 8-foot buffered bicycle lanes.

In other areas of Sixth Avenue, traffic counts are significantly higher, so eliminating vehicle lanes may not be a feasible solution. Running transit vehicles in mixed traffic would be necessary to maintain vehicle capacity without expanding the roadway. Although not ideal from a transit service perspective, traffic signal priority and the dedicated right-of-way in the rest of the route could mitigate this somewhat. The smaller curb-to-curb width of this section of the route would present some challenges, as station platform widths would be limited to 10 feet. Although not ideal, this is consistent with existing SunLink center platforms. Due to this limitation, longer platforms may be needed to accommodate waiting and exiting passengers at peak travel times, and some traffic calming measures may be warranted to slow traffic near each station stop for protection of passengers on the platform.

03 POLICIES AND IMPLEMENTATION

Throughout the project process, stakeholder interviews were conducted with jurisdictions, community groups, and individuals to solicit suggestions and concerns regarding a high capacity transit corridor. The main purpose of these interviews was informational, although comments and advice from several of the interviews helped shape the direction of certain aspects of the project, such as the development incentives, displacement mitigation strategies, and suggested public participation process.

City of Tucson

Although no quantitative takeaways can be drawn from the stakeholder interviews, there were several themes common to the majority of the interviews: • For the most part, stakeholders expressed interest and eagerness for both a high capacity transit corridor project and for the project’s proposed route. • The majority of stakeholders cautioned that funding for a project of this scale would be difficult to obtain. • Several stakeholders emphasized the importance of rebuilding community trust of large-scale projects, pointing to controversy over the construction of the Tucson Convention Center, Modern Streetcar line, and high-density student housing in Main Gate Square. • Because the route passes through several low-income neighborhoods, displacement mitigation strategies should be incorporated into planning for the project.

City of Tucson Planning and Development Services

STAKEHOLDERS

City Council - Wards 5 + 6 Office of Economic Initiatives

Transit Task Force Pima Association of Governments Tucson Airport Authority City of South Tucson Bus Riders Union West University Neighborhood Association Feldman’s Neighborhood Association

PROJECT FINANCING

TIGER Discretionary Grants • These competitive grants have funded nearly $4.6 billion for hundreds of transit projects since 2009. The grants provide funds for capital investments in infrastructure for new surface transportation systems. Preference is given to projects that increase economic development, provide access to safe and reliable transportation, and are multimodal.

Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (TIFIA) • This program provides federal credit assistance to surface transportation projects, including highway, bus, and rail. The program is meant to leverage private investment and fill market gaps. There are a variety of loan products including secured loans, loan guarantees, and lines of credit, and assistance must be repaid within 35 years of project completion.

Transit projects are typically expensive to build and operate, and costs vary widely depending on project mode and existing conditions. Bus rapid transit and streetcar/light rail are both viable options for Tucson’s next high capacity transit corridor, although they have a wide difference in costs. Capital costs typically include the cost of purchasing equipment and infrastructure work, including relocating utilities, installing rail and New Starts Transit Capital Program Local Options overhead electrical lines, and building stations. According to the 2009 • The market certainty provided by a federal investment in a high PAG High Capacity Transit System Plan, a peer review of capital costs for • The program provides funding for the construction of new fixed guideway systems such as rail or fixed guideway bus rapid transit, or capacity transit project is critical to attracting local, state, and privatebus rapid transit ranged from $200,000 to $6.5 million per mile. Capital extensions to existing systems. The total project costs must be greater sector investment. Creative options for local funding will be most costs for light rail systems ranges from $17 to $62 million per mile. than $250 million, and the federal contribution must be at least $75 effective if they include private investment as part of a public/private Tucson’s 3.9 mile Modern Streetcar project cost $50 million per mile. million. Because of the minimum project costs, this program would be partnership. A large part of the funding challenge depends on the Assuming a similar cost per mile, a 14-mile route would be approximately a good source of funding should the city decide to construct the new individual community and their legal options for raising additional $700 million. According to Tucson’s SunLink website, the funding sources line as part of one project rather than breaking it up into phases. public money. The local mechanism that partially funded Tucson’s for the existing Modern Streetcar project were as follows: streetcar is a countywide half-cent sales tax that operates as part of Small Starts Transit Capital Program a 20-year Regional Transportation Authority plan approved by voters Federal funding sources • Like the New Starts program, Small Starts provides funds for in 2006. A future high capacity transit project could take advantage of • $63 million – Transportation and Infrastructure Generating Economic construction of new fixed guideway systems or extensions to existing this type of sales tax to pay for capital costs. As for private investment, Recovery (TIGER) Grant awarded in February 2010 systems for rail or bus rapid transit. Unlike New Starts, the program developers are not very likely to fund any of the transit infrastructure • New Starts “Exempt” project – received $6 million in appropriations to can also be used for corridor-based bus rapid transit, or BRT that needed as development in Tucson is still considered too risky to make date does not operate in its own right of way. However, the total project a large expenditure at the front end of an opportunity, although the cost must be less than $250 million and the funding sought should be city could leverage impact fees to help with costs. Understanding and Local funding sources less than $75 million. managing the risks to developers would be the key aspect to gaining • $75 million – Regional Transportation Authority private investment. • $11 million – Public utilities Pilot Program for TOD Planning • $3.2 million – The Gadsden Company • This program, introduced in 2014, provides funding to local A second, often less visible need for funding concerns operating costs communities to integrate land use and transportation planning with after the new transit line is operational. Tucson’s current public transit Other funding sources a capital transit project. The project should be tied to a grant request has approximately a 25 percent fare box rate of return. The streetcar is • $26.6 Million – City of Tucson Certificates of Participation/Grant through a Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program such as New estimated to require at least $4 million in yearly operating costs, with only Anticipation Notes Starts or Small Starts. The FTA states that “comprehensive planning half covered by fares and advertising. The rest is paid for by the Regional • $14 million – Luis G. Gutierrez (Cushing) Bridge funded through the program must examine ways to improve economic Transportation Authority and the City of Tucson General Fund, both development and ridership, foster multimodal connectivity and taxpayer funded. Raising fares is a solution with diminishing returns, as Funding for large projects requires complex sourcing utilizing a variety accessibility, improve transit access for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, at a certain point it can result in decreased ridership and it can become of methods. Federal grants often provide the bulk of funding for transit engage the private sector, identify infrastructure needs, and enable too expensive for the people who need it the most. For operations costs, projects, but they also add expense to a project because of federal mixed-use development near transit stations.” funding generators could include land value capture for properties that requirements for hiring, wages, environmental review processes, and benefit from the new transit line, the sale of station naming rights to permitting. There are a variety of federal funding mechanisms available FTA Bus Funding Opportunity corporations, the sale of unlimited ride passes to businesses for their for projects ranging from planning through to implementation. • The FTA recently announced a new funding opportunity to apply for employees, and parking fees and fines. $266 million in competitive grants for buses and bus facilities.This grant could be used for bus and facility costs if the chosen project mode is bus rapid transit.

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND STANDARDS High capacity transit (HCT) enables different patterns of land development than in areas dominated by automobile traffic. Increased transit use means that parking requirements can be lower, and better access to HCT tends to lead to higher property values, which naturally leads to denser development in the form of taller buildings and parking structures. However, without changes to land use rules and development and design incentives that capitalize on the infrastructure investment, this can lead to high density development that fails to be human-scale and walkable. An example of this is transit-oriented development (TOD) along the Washington Metro subway network. The subway spurred enormous growth in the region before and after opening in the 1970s, with very high density developments around many of the stations. However, this largely took the form of large high-rise buildings on long city blocks intersected by wide streets and highways. Wide streets surrounded by blank walls create a hostile walking environment near many of the stations. Around many stations, planning for pedestrians took the form of elevated or underground walkways. Removing pedestrian infrastructure and amenities from the ground level further deprived the streets of life. While far denser than their surroundings, these TODs were products of their time and their regulatory environment; it would be many years before it became clear that there was demand for small-scale streetscapes that prioritized pedestrian traffic. TOD can mean many things. The development around Washington Metro stations is effective at providing a lot of residential, commercial, and office real estate near high quality transit service, but it is still a product of 1960s planning ideals: development on a large block suburban scale with high priority for automobiles. Rosslyn, Virginia, for one, is embarking on a redevelopment plan to remove its elevated walkways and redevelop massive office buildings into walkable areas with ground-level retail. The current trend in TOD has been a move toward taking advantage of developer interest by setting standards for scale and design of buildings and encouraging a mix of uses that provides a walkable environment, while de-emphasizing automobile access. The result is better pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, reduced building setbacks, and parking behind buildings to enable easy access from the street, green space requirements for shade and desirable common areas, and ground-level retail space with offices and residential above. This adds up to an environment that is instantly friendly, intuitive, and useful to someone arriving at the transit stop. This type of human-scale, walkable, mixed-use development is often called â&#x20AC;&#x153;New Urbanistâ&#x20AC;?, but it is really a return to traditional design principles. Other characteristics of New Urbanism include distinctive public spaces, a variety of building types, and narrow streets; the combination of all of these elements encourages walking and social interaction, and is conducive to the success of small, locally-owned businesses. This project aims to accomplish this type of environment, using form-based code that emphasizes walkability, comfortable public spaces, and context-sensitive design standards.

ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT Transit oriented development (TOD) can have positive effects on economic development as long as it is considered as part of an overall citywide economic development program. While new transit lines are often hailed for revitalizing an area through new development, in reality the situation is more complex. TOD typically includes a host of other elements that together work to increase land values around transit stations. Features such as mixed-use zoning, pedestrian-friendly street design, public spaces, and retail amenities that can occur around a new, thoughtfully-planned transit stop all contribute to the overall effect. Thus, it is too simplistic to argue that high capacity transit alone can increase proximal land values. Instead, TOD must be an integral part of the transit plan for a community to truly see those economic benefits. Lastly, increased land values and the subsequent property tax increases are not the only possible economic benefit of high capacity transit. On an individual basis, consumers also stand to make financial gains. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Guidebook for Creating Connected Communities, typical households in auto-dependent communities spend roughly 25 percent of their income on transportation costs. In communities with good multimodal transportation options, that figure can drop to 9 percent. The additional income that frees up for individuals increases their economic security and freedom, and allows them to spend more money in the local economy. Planned high capacity transit systems should consider these advantages when choosing the most advantageous station stop locations, and in determining the extent of TOD needed at each one. The following precedent studies examine the possible economic benefits of high capacity transit lines: • Government Accountability Office report on Bus Rapid Transit economic benefits, 2012 • Economic Impacts of Intelligent Infrastructure: Light Rail in Salt Lake City, 2015 • Economic Development Impacts of Light Rail Transit: A Case Study of the Baltimore Central Light Rail, 2012

DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES To encourage private investment in a high capacity transit corridor, cities must offer development incentives designed to make it more financially attractive to produce infill development.Tucson already offers a number of incentives, which have been reproduced from the city’s website and listed below: Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GPLET) • The GPLET can provide up to eight (8) years of property tax abatement. This incentive is available for projects located in the Central Business District that result in a property value increase of at least 100%. The amount abated cannot exceed the economic benefit created by the project. To become “government property” the City will take ownership of the property for the duration that the owner wishes to be relieved of tax obligations. This is the most popular of current incentives, and all new projects valued at over $1 million are using it. Infill Incentive District - Greater Infill Subdistrict • Flexible development options in the Greater Infill Incentive Subdistrict relieve property owners from parking, loading, and landscaping standards as well as certain other dimensional requirements and allow height increases up to sixty feet in more restrictive zones if the development supports transit and pedestrian oriented development. Developers can also benefit from a streamlined Planned Area Development rezoning process. Downtown Core Infill Incentive District • In addition to the options listed within the Greater Infill Incentive Subdistrict, developments in the Downtown Core Subdistrict may receive up to 100% reduction in parking requirements as well as loading, setback and landscaping reductions. Downtown Financial Incentive District • A $10,000 building permit fee waiver per project and a construction sales tax credit for public right-of-way improvements are available for developments in this district. Main Gate Overlay District • A zoning overlay in the “main gate” area adjacent to the University of Arizona promotes transit-oriented design and adaptive reuse of historic properties. Some of these overlay allowances include greater heights, reduced setbacks, and flexible options for re-use and restoration of historical properties.

EPA Brownfields Project Area • Developments within the EPA Brownfields Project Area can receive City grants to fund Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments. Phase I assessments can cost up to $3500 and Phase II assessments can cost up to $20,000.

Recommendations Possible incentives were researched and compiled from other cities around the United States, including Kansas City, Atlanta, and Philadelphia. Those initial ideas were discussed with the Tucson Office of Economic Initiatives for further refinement.

Site Specific Sales Tax Incentive • City Council has given direction to city staff to begin looking at • For retail projects that would not otherwise locate in the city of Tucson, expanding the boundaries of the GPLET. As this is the most popular the City can apply project-generated tax revenues to qualifying public current incentive by far, the city could eventually consider expanding expenses such as job training or public infrastructure improvements. the GPLET to cover all of the proposed high capacity transit route. Projects must create significant and quantifiable economic benefits to be considered. The amount of sales tax revenue applied cannot • The City of South Tucson does not currently have an incentive exceed the economic benefit created by the project. program. To attract investment, city officials should look into establishing a GPLET. Tucson Community Development Loan Fund • The City of Tucson has a $20 million HUD 108 loan fund that • Impact fees could be reduced for developments around station can be used as gap financing for projects that create jobs for low areas. As an added bonus, the city could offer density bonuses for and moderate income persons, eliminate blight or meet urgent the inclusion of a percentage of affordable housing in a residential community needs. Tucson Community Development loans carry development. highly competitive interest rates with fixed terms up to 20 years. Eligible activities include real property acquisition, rehabilitation of • Businesses could receive an additional tax credit for selecting sites real property, relocation, clearance and demolition, site preparation, within one mile of affordable housing and public transportation. This public facilities improvements, issuance costs, capitalized interest and could be in the form of sales or property tax relief. reserves. • As a condition of the overlay zone opt-in, the City could consider requiring developers to offer current commercial tenants guaranteed leases at current rates for a predetermined number of years. This incentive attempts to mitigate the possible displacement of commercial tenants in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods, but tenants might not be willing to move twice during building construction. • The form-based code overlay zoning districts should have strong branded identities that development and other investments align with to support authentic place-making. These identities should be shaped from and respect the unique cultural heritage of each district.

Although the presence of a new high capacity transit line and resulting increased development can create many benefits for a neighborhood, it has also been the case in numerous cities around the country that lower-income residents and businesses are eventually displaced from neighborhoods as increased property taxes and rents become unaffordable. Such could be considered the natural ebb and flow of a neighborhood life cycle, but it’s also true that people benefit from the proximity of a diversity of incomes and races. Studies have found that the ability to move up the economic ladder is significantly increased for people living in metropolitan areas that have income integrated neighborhoods (Chetty 2013). Today, concentrated poverty could be considered a bigger threat than gentrification, as all of the negative effects of poverty are magnified when one’s neighbors are also poor. Often lost in the discussion of gentrification is that without it, the neighborhood is likely to remain blighted, with little hope of increased prosperity. When gentrification is combined with smart urban policy, it can revitalize neighborhoods for all residents.

EQUITY + DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION STRATEGIES

The City of Tucson does not have the catalysts for a rapid influx of new residents like the tech hubs of San Francisco or Austin, but it is projected to experience steady growth. A 2014 study by the Drachman Institute found there is high demand for housing options near transit, with 65,000 households expressing that preference. The study estimates that the number will increase to 96,000 households by 2045. Given that demand, the city must begin planning now for affordable housing options near transit. As demand rises near transit, developers will begin purchasing land for market rate housing. The city should consider purchasing land to hold in a land trust until the opportunity for development arises. Maintaining and creating affordable and mixed-income housing options along transit routes not only helps those residents to increase their financial security, it also provides revenues for the transit service. When transit is financially able to operate reliably, the number of choice riders increases. According to the 2011 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, an estimated 25 percent of City of Tucson residents live in poverty, which makes finding affordable, decent housing an extremely difficult task. Wait lists for Section 8 housing assistance have thousands of people. To add to the struggle, much of Tucson’s housing stock is over 50 years old, and in need of rehabilitation to be considered a safe, decent place to live. After the cost of housing, transportation is typically the second largest expense for low and moderate income households. The best way to decrease transportation costs for low-income residents

is to provide housing near transit. With the savings from decreased transportation expenses and affordable housing, those residents could save for homeownership, spend on healthcare, and have discretionary income to contribute to the local economy. This all provides not just individual benefits, but also societal benefits due to the lessened use of social services. Myths exist that affordable housing lowers adjacent property values, overburdens schools, and increases crime rates. In fact, appropriately distributed affordable housing prevents concentrated poverty, and has been shown to have no negative impacts on surrounding property values (Ryan 2016). It’s the lack of decent, affordable options that results in desperation and crime. To maintain and create affordable housing and commercial opportunities along a transit route, several avenues can be explored. The most important components are to obtain public involvement, educate them on their choices, and get started early, before rising land values make some measures unfeasible financially. Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credits • The city is currently encouraging the use of federal low-income housing tax credits for construction of affordable housing along the streetcar line. In the past couple of years two new affordable housing projects along Stone Avenue, close to the current streetcar route, have received hundreds of thousands in tax credits. Housing Protection District • These districts protect affordable housing by requiring that any demolished units be replaced on a one-for-one basis in residential developments. This tool has been used successfully in Arlington County, Virginia. Transit Oriented Development Fund • This tool was created by the City and County of Denver, Colorado, but has since expanded to its entire metro area. The fund gives developers a loan to buy and hold land that is close to transit for up to five years for the purpose of affordable housing developments or supportive commercial. Purchasing land while transit lines are still in the early stages of construction allows affordable housing developers the opportunity to buy parcels before land values rise. The fund is supported by public investment and several foundations.

Tenant or Nonprofit Developer “Right to Purchase” • This tool allows a tenant or local nonprofit affordable housing developer the first chance to purchase a property when it goes on the market. It must be implemented the city. A challenge is that tenants may not be able to afford the price or obtain financing in time.

Community Development Corporations • Community Development Corporations are nonprofit organizations that focus on revitalizing their neighborhoods. Most importantly, they are neighborhood organizers that work to get residents involved. They develop affordable housing and commercial property, and also have a role in catalyzing economic development opportunities and creating other components of a healthy community, such as welcoming streetscapes and clean neighborhoods. An example of excellent CDC involvement can be found at the Fruitvale Bay Area Rapid Transit station in Oakland, California. This CDC, called the Unity Council, mobilized area residents when planning for a transit oriented development began near the station. Unity Council developed a mixed-use, mixed-income project as part of the TOD that includes a senior center, children’s education program, library branch, and a health clinic. (U.S. HUD, Fruitvale Project 2005)

Community Land Trusts • Community land trusts can be a useful tool for both residential and commercial properties. CLTs are nonprofits that own, develop, and manage properties with the goal of community stabilization through long-term affordability and permanent homeownership opportunities. The CLT maintains ownership of the land itself, but sells the structure to qualified individuals or businesses. This allows people who may not have good credit a chance to build equity. The CLT has the first right to repurchase the structure on the land if an owner wants to sell. Deed restrictions preserve affordability over time by limiting future sale prices. Strengthened Rental Protections • Strengthened rental protections can refer to a variety of regulations Inclusionary Zoning that protect both residential and commercial renters from unfair rental • These zoning policies require developers to sell or rent a preset practices. They can cover rights under eviction, the right to return to percentage of units at below-market rates. The developer usually also the property if relocation is necessary, and fair compensation in the has the option to pay a fee instead of providing the affordable housing. case of displacement. These regulations stabilize the rental industry This could be challenging to implement in Arizona where it would run and neighborhoods and increase consumer confidence. into SB1072 restrictions,which makes it illegal to require any particular housing units “be designed for sale or lease to any particular class Tax Abatement Policies or group of residents.” This law does not prohibit municipalities from • While jurisdictions want the revenue from increased taxes due to offering incentives or density bonuses for the inclusion of lowerrising property values, those taxes are often what drive residents away income housing. from a neighborhood. Tax abatement policies fix property tax rates at a certain level for residents or business owners who meet certain Community Benefit Agreements criteria, such as income level or length of time in the neighborhood. • A Community Benefit Agreement is a legally binding agreement These policies must be implemented before land values start to rise to between one or more community groups and a developer. They have the most positive effect. Fixing property taxes at a manageable typically include requirements for training and jobs for local residents, level creates stability in a neighborhood and allows lower-income funding for community organizations or programs, the construction homeowners or business owners the chance to reap the benefits of a of community facilities, or environmental mitigation the development gentrifying neighborhood. A downside is that the city does not receive might need. Each agreement is specific to the community. In return the additional revenue created from the increased property taxes. for these concessions, the community will agree to support the development. This tool can be useful for developments that are likely Rehabilitation and Preservation to be highly contentious. A disadvantage is the need for a strong • It is typically less expensive to rehabilitate a property than to bulldoze coalition of community groups to participate in the agreement; many it and build a new one. Adaptive reuse of properties can also open poor neighborhoods do not have that kind of mobilization. up new opportunities for more housing units or retail in areas with not enough vacant land for new development. This process often utilizes Historic Preservation Tax Credits.

04 URBAN DESIGN

Urban design blends the disciplines of planning, architecture and landscape architecture in order to transform the form, shape and character of a urban form. Interrelationships between critical elements such as routes, boundaries, districts, nodes and landmarks provide the physical organizing structure to further establish a sense of belonging for community members.. Throughout the process of this project, the transit network aims to connect people to places that are economically, socially and environmentally vibrant. The City of Tucson has the opportunity to capitalize on the trend of high capacity transit to strengthen and improve mobility for people throughout the region. The High Capacity Transit line is the largest transportation infrastructure project proposed for Tucson. It links areas of designation along the proposed route and provided an alternative transportation choice. The proposed High Capacity transit line also facilitates long-term mobility and encourages economic growth region wide. The areas around the station stops become critical for guiding and spurring economic development along the proposed route line. Urban design principles offer the framework for creating a place where people want to live, work and play. It becomes crucial to ensure ease of accessibility and affordability in reaching the development by examining connectivity region wide. Placemaking is a concept that strives to create a place of happiness and well-being in a public space. This will ensure that people will want to use and function within this realm. Shading is critical in Arizona and create places of respite from the intensity of the sun. Protection from the elements makes a more inviting and useful space for people. Land use and transportation networks are inherenetly linked, as found in Transit Oriented Development. A form based code is a method that can be employed to control building heights and density. This ensures contextually appropriate development that can be tailored for sensitivity to the existing form but still incentivizes growth. Transformation of Tucson, 1883-1901

PRINCIPLES OF URBAN DESIGN

CONNECTIVITY

PLACEMAKING

An important element of urban design is to facilitate coordination of existing multimodal transportation systems along primary corridors. This allows for ease of movement to and around the site in addition to flexibility in travel options; which is critical for serving a wide range of users. “Cities and neighborhoods that increase connectivity between people, places and things that need become more vibrant and healthy” (Dill, 2005).

As both an overarching idea and a critical component for improving a neighborhood, city or region, peacemaking inspires people to collectively reimagine and reinvent public spaces. It is a key component for strengthening the connection between people and the places they share. A successful city and community will focus its energy and resources on conserving, enhancing, and creating strong vibrant places which ultimately create a strong sense of identity which can be integral to community life and public realm. Peacemaking thus refers to a collaborative process that helps shape the public realm in order to honor the shared value of a place. Placemaking does more than just promote better urban design. It facilitates creative patterns of use, paying distinct attention to the physical, cultural and social identities that define a place and support its ongoing evolution and uniqueness.

Above all, connectivity affects the degree to which transportation networks such as streets, walking and cycling paths, connect people to their destinations. “Good connectivity provides easy access to key destination for pedestrians, [whereas] excellent connectivity actively seeks to discourage car use by making local trips easier and more pleasant by foot” (Handy, Paterson, Butler, 2003).

WALKABILITY

PROTECTION FROM ELEMENTS

MIXED USE

Walkability principles distill critical ingredients for urban design. Designing places with emphasis on the pedestrian provides places that are comfortable, convenient, healthy and sustainable. For city to encourage walking, it must accumulate a dense mixture of land uses, integrated with open spaces that are designed for all people. By providing acceptable conditions for non motorized transport, walking and biking create clear benefit for cities and people who live in them. Thinking about the underlying concept of moving people rather than cars, designing places that focus on walkability can start to relieve traffic congestion, reduce local air pollution, improve traffic safety and increase physical activity - among other benefits. A balanced system that implements simple sidewalks and comfortable facilities that connect to a larger active network can improve the overall health of a city.

Urban shading has become a technique used around the world to create a more comfortable and inviting space to occupy. People will stay longer and move around more freely when there is protection from the natural elements. The buildings in a development could become an element to provide shade or incorporate shading as an integral part of the design from the beginning.

Density and diversity requires a mix of uses, users, building types and public spaces. Urban design requires active use of space and land. The results of a closely knit mix of uses, with ample density that are accessible to a diverse group of users produce vibrant and densely populated urban environments.

STATION SITE SELECTION

As the route moves south, the next study area is located at the MIRACLE MILE AND ORACLE ROAD station stop. This area offers a socially and economically diverse population with significant existing ridership and prominent parcels of vacant land. Historically, Miracle Mile was a thriving commercial corridor, with motels, gas stations and restaurants serving the weary traveler. However during the 1960s and 1970s, this area saw significant decline and devaluation due to the construction of Interstate 10, which caused motorists to bypass the corridor. The area has slowly seen redevelopment of blighted properties and restoration of historic landmarks, but itneeds more investment in infrastructure and development, which could be done using the TOD approach. A station stop at SPEEDWAY BLVD AND STONE AVE would serve students from Pima Community College residents of adjacent neighborhoods, and riders on 8 existing Sun Tran routes. The University of Arizona is a major trip generator and could be connected to the study area with multi-modal options along one of the low volume connector streets. This intersection also serves as a threshold to downtown, which offers an opportunity for capturing those transit riders. The existing density and high transit ridership South Tucson make it an ideal candidate for a TOD station stop. The proposed route will run along South 6th Ave, the heart of South Tucsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s commercial district. Two stop locations have been identified in this area, only one half mile apart, at 22ND ST AND SOUTH 6TH AVE and 29TH ST AND SOUTH 6TH AVE. This allows for increased walkabilty to transit stops and is aligned with the higher density in this area. Development potential is not as strong in this area due to the lack of prominent pieces of vacant land and sensitivity to displacement amongst the residents and business owners. The final stop study area is located at the southernmost existing public transportation hub, the Laos Transit Center, at the intersection of IRVINGTON ROAD AND SOUTH 6TH AVE. Again, capturing the existing ridership of the other ten routes serving the transit hub is an ideal element in creating a successful TOD. There are some large, vacant parcels prime for development adjacent to surrounding neighborhoods and public parks. Transit can incentivize development when successfully coordinated with land use planning, zoning and infrastructure efforts geared towards walkabilty. In order to achieve comfortable walking access from the transit stop station, a 1/4 - 1/2 mile radius is used as the constraint on development. The denser development is clustered closer to the transit station, to allow for increased building heights and greater volume of uses. The density decreases as the development steps away from the transit station, out to the Â˝ mile radius.

MIRACLE MILE / ORACLE

North of the city center and adjacent to the Rillito River is the Tohono Tadai transit center. It is the northernmost transit hub in the city, facilitating transfers between eight Sun Tran bus routes and serving the surrounding neighborhoods. The proximity to Tucson Mall, the existing transit hub, and redevelopment potential of significant vacant land and parking capacity make this an ideal candidate for a TOD study area. The focus of the development would center around the station stop located at the intersection of WETMORE ROAD AND STONE AVE.

WETMORE RD / STONE

By 2013, the Tucson metropolitan region had reached a population of 996,544 and grown to a size of 232 square miles. A region this size needs efficient and varied transportation options. A high-capacity transit system could meet this need by serving an economically and socially diverse population, traversing a significant portion of the city at high frequency and higher speeds than existing bus transit service. The selected study route was chosen for its high ridership potential, economic development opportunities, and the prospect of improving mobility for underserved populations. These same factors were used in identifying station site study areas along the route.

IRVINGTON RD / S 6TH AVE

29TH ST / S 6TH AVE

22ND ST / S 6TH AVE

SPEEDWAY BLVD / STONE AVE

FORM-BASED CODE OVERLAY ZONING Land use and transportation networks are inherently linked. Land use is a driver of transportation systems, and transportation systems influence the way land is developed; the development of a new high capacity transit system in Tucson will alter the demand for land surrounding the route. This provides an opportunity for the City of Tucson to encourage and incentivize development that is contextually appropriate to the surrounding area. A proposed series of overlay zoning districts is recommended for the route, taking into consideration the existing urban form, surrounding land uses, and demand for space in each zone. The concept focuses around encouraging new development with contextually appropriate height and density increases greater than the underlying zoning, in exchange for design treatments that make sense for the area. The primary design goal of the overlay zone is human-scale design: The idea that the urban form should relate to the average pedestrian, and be inviting and interesting to people who pass through it. This is achieved through the following elements implemented in the proposed overlay zoning districts:

Front Setbacks & Awnings Previous trends of development have led to an urban environment that is more suited to the automobile than the human scale. A great example of this is excessive front building setbacks, which increase the distance that a pedestrian has to travel from the sidewalk to the building entrance. In addition to various research studies that show the effect that lot-line commercial districts have on retail sales revenues, commercial districts with lot-line front setbacks, covered awnings, and proper vegetation provide a more comfortable experience for people walking along the street.

Building Scale The size and massing of new development can have a tremendous impact on the surrounding built environment. In residential areas, large buildings have the ability to impact viewsheds and change the character of the surrounding areas. Developing the density needed to support transit will need to be done incrementally and carefully given Tucsonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history of low-density urban forms, but some sections of the overlay district would be less impacted by height increases than others. The Oracle Road / Tucson Mall area already has a large amount of commercial and retail development with greater building heights, so larger height increases have less potential to be disruptive. On the other hand, the South Sixth district is primarily three floors or less, and the introduction of large height increases may induce gentrification, and lead to development that is out of scale with existing conditions. The height increases proposed in each of the overlay districts take into account the future potential, in addition to current conditions.

Parking Requirements Retail and commercial districts often have excessive off-street parking requirements, only seeing full use on peak days like Black Friday. This underutilization of land contributes to a pedestrian-unfriendly environment due to gaps and disruptions in the urban form. The proposed overlay district provides relief from underlying zone parking regulations, which is not only an incentive to the developer, but a regulation that helps fill in gaps and breaks along retail corridors. Additional regulations that mandate building placement along public right-of-way allows for parking to be relegated to the rear, prioritizing front entrances for pedestrians and on-street parking.

Multi-Jurisdictional Considerations While the majority of the proposed route and overlay zoning district is contained within the city of Tucson, approximately one mile of it will be under the jurisdiction of the City of South Tucson. 6th Avenue is the dominant corridor through the city, and the proposed project will have huge implications for how South Tucson grows in the future. Our proposed overlay zone regulations may make sense for the City of Tucson, but not necessarily for the City of South Tucson, and such themes can begin to emerge with increased outreach and consult. Major considerations will be made to gain input from City of South Tucson staff and the public, and assemble a plan for high-capacity transit that makes sense for their city. Some proposed recommendations could include: Landscaping Proper shade can make a big difference in pedestrian comfort level, particularly in Arizona. Proper landscaping requirements serve functional as well as aesthetic purposes. In addition to streetscape landscaping requirements, additional rules and guidelines for parking lots can improve the aesthetic quality for the entire development, and provide shade for people entering buildings from on-site parking.

Façade Treatment The visual appeal of building facades has a large impact on the comfort level of a streetscape. Building frontages with little architectural variation and long, continuous empty planes have little visual appeal. For pedestrians walking alongside such facades, it can create what is called a “building canyon” phenomenon, where the pedestrian feels dwarfed in comparison to the building. The proposed overlay zones address these issues, through minimum requirements for architectural features over the length of the façade, and variations in planar surfaces to increase architectural detail. Different material guidelines will exist for the different zones, depending on the existing materials in each district, as well as tributes to materials that have been used in Tucson historically, such as rammed earth and stucco. Additionally, minimum glass façade requirements for both the street level, and façades facing parking lot entrances, will help to ensure architectural variation, and promote public safety and comfort through the “eyes on the street” effect.

• Assembly of a Task Force for the duration of the planning process. This would include representatives from the City of South Tucson who would weigh in on the project during the development stages • Increased public outreach where City of South Tucson staff and any hired consultants can gather input on proposed alignments, zoning districts, and other aspects. Specifically, participatory design charrettes showing the impact of the route could be an effective method. • Establishment of a design review committee where local representatives can weigh in on future development that is proposed within the overlay zoning district For detailed descriptions of form-based code specifications, please refer to Appendix C.

05 STUDY AREAS

WETMORE ROAD / STONE AVE

DIUS A R MILE RADIUS 5 . 0 MILE 5 . 0

1/2 MILE RADIUS

FOR TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DETAIL AREA

- CONSTRAINTS

Land coverage of Tucson Mall Few vacant parcels Established density noth of Rillito River

+ OPPORTUNITIES

Conversion of surface parking Connection to The Loop Capture and grow ridership served by Tohono Tadai Transit Center

52 OPPORTUNITIES + CONSTRAINTS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

AUTOMOBILE NETWORK

0.25

ADI ILE R

0.5 M

ILE R

BICYCLE NETWORK

COMPILED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

0.5 M

ILE R

ADIU

AMENITIES

OPENSPACE MAJOR AUTOMOBILE CORRIDOR MINOR AUTOMOBILE CORRIDOR GENERAL BICYCLE TRAFFIC LOW-STRESS BICYCLE TRAFFIC BUS NETWORK BUS STOP

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING COMMERCIAL FOOD SUPPLIER

EXISTING ACCESSIBILITY + TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS 53

MIRACLE MILE / ORACLE ROAD

56 PHOTOGRAPHIC INVENTORY

PHOTOGRAPHIC INVENTORY 57

ILE

M 0.5

IUS RAD

1/2 MILE RADIUS - CONSTRAINTS

Land coverage of Cemetery Lack of destination Historic District Overlay Oracle Road

+OPPORTUNITIES

Creating green space linked to Cemetery Numerous vacant parcels Opportunity for a mixed-use hub Leveraging history of area

58 OPPORTUNITIES + CONSTRAINTS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

AUTOMOBILE NETWORK

0.25

DIUS

RA MILE

0.5 M

ILE R

BICYCLE NETWORK

COMPILED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

0.5 M

ILE R

0.5 M

ILE R

ADIU

AMENITIES

OPENSPACE MAJOR AUTOMOBILE CORRIDOR MINOR AUTOMOBILE CORRIDOR GENERAL BICYCLE TRAFFIC LOW-STRESS BICYCLE TRAFFIC BUS NETWORK BUS STOP

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING MOTELS COMMUNITY SERVICES EDUCATIONAL FOOD SUPPLIER

EXISTING ACCESSIBILITY + TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS 59

The existing zoning is primarily commercial along the east side of Oracle Road. There is a signifcant amount of multi-family housing mixed in with single family in the surrounding neighborhoods.

LEGEND

60 LAND USE

The proposed overlay zoning in Miracle Heights would allow for a maximum of 84 ft for development closest to the transit station, as indicated by zone A. Allowable building heights would decrease with distance from the stop. Refer to Appendix C for more detailed information.

ÂŻ

LEGEND Miracle Heights A B C

OVERLAY ZONING 61

The adjacency diagram for Oracle and Miracle Mile shows how all concepts will be organized around a central pedestrian corridor of some form. This decision was made in order to facilitate the pedestrian experience despite the close proximity to busy and loud Oracle. By utilizing strategies to separate pedestrian circulation from the street it will benefit the TOD developments appeal for users in this area.

62 BUBBLE DIAGRAM

CONCEPT 1- ELEVATED SHOPPING

CONCEPT 2 - GREEN BUFFER

Mixed use buildings are organized around an elevated platform or game area. Green space is used to promote a promenade experience.

Green buffers are used to separate traffic and residential areas. Bike paths connect through all park areas.

Strengths: Inspiration elements from history of site Photovoltaic installation Iconic raised circulation

Strengths: Community parks near residents Greenway connects all areas Urban community agriculture

Weakness: Limited building demo Limited public activities Does not directly incorporate cemetery

Weakness: Parks donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t connect to cemetery Greenway focused on residents Farming is close to retail space

CONCEPT 3 W- CONSTRAIN + RELEASE The pedestrian path narrows and widens rhythmically in order to choreograph spaces of intimate contemplation and open vistas. Strengths: Bold pedestrian experience Large park amenity added Multiple concentration nodes Weakness: Limited new buildings No connection to cemetery Limited new vegetation

DESIGN CONCEPTS 63

The final concept for Oracle and Miracle Mile creates a dense area of mixed use development directly adjacent of the station stop. The mixed use buildings are situated in a way that minimizes solar gain and also creates a broad pedestrian corridor enabling an easy walk between several blocks. Additional amenities include a solar covered parking lot and a large area with permeable pavers that will be used for art installations and

64 FINAL CONCEPT

recreation. West of the station stop is a garden that will serve as a resting place for travelers to take a break in seating areas under the canopy cover of trees, as well as a bikeway connection in place of and referencing the pork chop street that has been removed. Northwest of the station are additional mixed use buildings and a neighborhood playground that will serve many of the nearby apartment complexes.

FINAL RENDERING 65

SPEEDWAY BLVD / STONE AVE

DIUS A R MILE 5 . 0

1/2 MILE RADIUS - CONSTRAINTS

Land coverage of Pima Community College HIstoric overlay district High automobile traffic volume

+OPPORTUNITIES

Gateway to downtown and The University of Arizona Several vacant parcels Existing green space Existing PCC student demographic

68 OPPORTUNITIES + CONSTRAINTS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

AUTOMOBILE NETWORK

0.25

DIUS

RA MILE

0.5 M

ILE R

BICYCLE NETWORK

ADIU

COMPILED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

0.5 M

ILE R

ADIU

AMENITIES

OPENSPACE MAJOR AUTOMOBILE CORRIDOR MINOR AUTOMOBILE CORRIDOR GENERAL BICYCLE TRAFFIC LOW-STRESS BICYCLE TRAFFIC BUS NETWORK BUS STOP

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING MOTELS COMMUNITY SERVICES EDUCATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES FOOD SUPPLIER

EXISTING ACCESSIBILITY + TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS 69

The existing zoning consists of a mix of educational, with Pima Community College occupying the northwest corner. There are several motels in the study area.

LEGEND

70 LAND USE

This station falls within the existing Infill Incentive District. There is no new zoning prospoed for this area.

LEGEND

OVERLAY ZONING 71

The adjacency diagram for Speedway and Stone shows how all concepts will be organized around green space. This choice was made because of the lack of green infrastructure in an area well populated with students and residents. The location also functions as a gateway into the university district, and green space and art will function to identify that character.

72 BUBBLE DIAGRAM

CONCEPT 1- STUDENT GARDEN Extensive additions of green space and community gardens are included as a resource for students in the adjacent Pima Community College as well as the new residential development. Strengths: Increased green space Creates an ecological corridor for student circulation Commercial opportunities near station stop Weakness: No mixed use development No major entry element to the university district Does not add programing to the nearby De Anza Park

CONCEPT 2 - COMMERCIAL CONNECTION By adding commercial nodes on the north and south sides of Speedway Blvd it will create a pedestrian connection between Pima Community College, shopping, and the station stop. Strengths: Economic development from the commercial infill Emphasizes the connection on Helen St between Pima Community College and the University of Arizona Courtyard commercial building is regionally appropriate Weakness: No additional non-linear green space No mixed use buildings No additional residential housing

CONCEPT 3 - AMPHITHEATER ART By adding an amphitheater to the existing De Anza Park it will become more activated and utilized, supported by the addition of nearby residential and commercial development. Strengths: Increased outdoor interest with amphitheater and art installations Residential development ideal for both Pima Community College and University of Arizona students All changes are spatially near leading to a pedestrian scale experience Weakness: No additional green spaces No mixed use buildings Leaves nearby infill opportunities unutilized

DESIGN CONCEPTS 73

The final concept for Speedway and Stone uses the addition of mixed use, commercial, and residential buildings to create a more defined district around the station stop. This area is unique due to its proximity to Pima Community College and the gateway into the neighborhoods west of the University of Arizona. Amenities include a new shopping district with adjacent parking, a vegetated corridor between Pima Community College

74 FINAL CONCEPT

and new mixed use development, a stop garden that is sheltered by a new mixed use building, and an apartment complex on the south side of Speedway. By adding this development around the station it is able to take advantage of the existing amenities as well as become a self-sufficient node for the larger University district.

FINAL RENDERING 75

22ND-29TH ST / SOUTH 6TH AVE

78 PHOTOGRAPHIC INVENTORY

PHOTOGRAPHIC INVENTORY 79

S DIU A R MILE 5 . 0

1/2 MILE RADIUS - CONSTRAINTS

Established community character Development without displacement Few vacant parcels

+ OPPORTUNITIES

Leveraging history of area Established community character Infill development opportunites

80 OPPORTUNITIES + CONSTRAINTS

DIUS

LE RA 5 MI

0.2

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

AUTOMOBILE NETWORK

BICYCLE NETWORK

0.5 M

ILE R

ADIU

COMPILED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

0.5 M

ILE R

0.5 M

ILE R

ADIU

DIUS

ADIU

LE RA 5 MI

0.2

0.5 M

ILE R

0.5 M

ILE R

ADIU

0.5 M

ILE R

ADIU

AMENITIES

OPENSPACE MAJOR AUTOMOBILE CORRIDOR MINOR AUTOMOBILE CORRIDOR GENERAL BICYCLE TRAFFIC LOW-STRESS BICYCLE TRAFFIC BUS NETWORK BUS STOP

COMMERCIAL MOTELS COMMUNITY SERVICES EDUCATIONAL FOOD SUPPLIER

EXISTING ACCESSIBILITY + TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS 81

The existing zoning consists of a dense commerical corridor with single family residential in the adjacent neighborhoods.

LEGEND

82 LAND USE

The proposed overlay zoning for this area would allow for a maximum of 36 ft for development closest to the transit station, as indicated by zone A. Allowable building heights would decrease with distance from the stop. Refer to Appendix C for more detailed information.

LEGEND

OVERLAY ZONING 83

The adjacency diagram for 6th Ave between 22nd and 29th shows how help to connect the existing community with easy transportation and more all concepts will be organized around commercial infill. This strategy is nearby options for employment and shopping. designed to help revitalize the already existing cultural identity in this area. Development will be carefully sited in order to retain existing buildings and infrastructure when possible. Additionally, the new development will

84 BUBBLE DIAGRAM

CONCEPT 1- SCHOLASTIC CORE

CONCEPT 2 - FILLING IN THE GAPS

CONCEPT 3 - MOTEL SHOPPING

An existing school is expanded by adding new buildings, youth outreach, civic engagement, and connection to a nearby greenway.

Focusing on filling in all of the undeveloped parcels with a mix of different types of development, the corridor becomes more unified and plays to the already existing cultural identity.

A significantly large commercial district is developed in order to capitalize on the patrons of the existing motels located on the southern end of the corridor.

Strengths: Multiple station stops to serve the established community Infill is focused on enhancing the level of service to schools Greenway connection is a strong step towards bringing more nature into the area

Strengths: Multiple station stops to serve the established community Diverse mix of development types Multiple patches of green space are created throughout the route

Strengths: Multiple station stops to serve the established community Parking is included to serve the commercial infill Green space increases the desirability of the shopping district

Weakness: No additional commercial development No additional residential development No additional mixed use development

Weakness: No greenway connections Lack of novel design treatments in order to retain existing character Little commercial near station stops

Weakness: Development is not adjacent to either station stop No greenway connections No additional residential development

DESIGN CONCEPTS 85

The final concept for 6th Ave between 22nd and 29th is focused on providing a mix of infill types on parcels with no existing development in order to protect the well-established community and culture of the area. Two stations are included to serve this corridor as a response to research showing the exceptionally high number of residents who currently take public transportation. Additionally, each station has a nearby garden for

86 FINAL CONCEPT

the enjoyment of the riders and the community. A civic plaza in included as one of the new green spaces, and is centrally located in order to serve as a flex space for community events. By maintaining the established culture and only filling in the gaps with development it allows for the corridor to serve the community better with nearby resources and amenities.

FINAL RENDERING 87

IRVINGTON ROAD / 6TH AVE

ILE

M 0.5

IUS RAD

1/2 MILE RADIUS -

CONSTRAINTS Rodeo grounds Strong community identity Insignificant amount of vacant parcels

+ OPPORTUNITIES

Capturing existing ridership Connection to existing green space Proximity to community services Strong community identity

90 OPPORTUNITIES + CONSTRAINTS

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

AUTOMOBILE NETWORK

0.25

ADI ILE R

0.5 M

ILE R

BICYCLE NETWORK

COMPILED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

0.5 M

ILE R

0.5 M

ILE R

ADIU

AMENITIES

OPENSPACE MAJOR AUTOMOBILE CORRIDOR MINOR AUTOMOBILE CORRIDOR GENERAL BICYCLE TRAFFIC LOW-STRESS BICYCLE TRAFFIC BUS NETWORK BUS STOP

COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY SERVICES EDUCATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES FOOD SUPPLIER

EXISTING ACCESSIBILITY + TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS 91

92 ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS

ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTS 93

94 STATION ITERATION

STATION ITERATION 95

96 STATION RENDERING

STATION RENDERING 97

98 CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS

CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS 99

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: HISTORY IN TUCSON Public participation is an essential element of any planning project. It can give government officials the opportunity to learn the public’s opinion on a matter, to benefit from local knowledge at the early stages of a project, and to work toward a solution that is better than any one group could have developed individually. At its best, public participation enables officials and members of the public to learn from each other and evolve; at its worst, it can be a token activity required by law that turns into a manipulative process or a vehicle for people to express their frustrations without accomplishing anything. Tucson has a complicated history with public works projects and the public participation activities associated with them; in some cases, the community was deeply divided over the project, in others, the outcome did not match many people’s expectations. In the worst cases, misinformation, ineptitude, or deception are alleged to have soured the outcome. Innocuous words like “overlay” or “redevelopment” can be emotionally loaded to citizens who have felt ignored or betrayed by the public participation process and its outcomes. Several of the stakeholders interviewed for this project stressed the difficulty and importance of gaining the public’s trust even for small projects; for a project flirting with the billion dollar mark, the task is massive. To provide some context, here are a few of the projects that have shaped the mood of the public in Tucson today: The Tucson Convention Center In 1966, Tucson voters approved the Pueblo Center Redevelopment Project, an urban renewal plan that redeveloped 80 acres of downtown Tucson to build a convention center, a hotel, parking garages, two theaters, La Placita (originally intended to be a shopping center), and a municipal complex including sites for several government office buildings with police and fire headquarters. The project was largely funded by the federal government, and was sold to voters as a much-needed economic stimulus and an opportunity to clear and revitalize a blighted area in the heart of the city. Like many of its contemporaries around the country, the project’s approval had been preceded by decades of planning for redevelopment that had discouraged developers and lenders, leading to decay and disinvestment in the area. As was also common in other projects of the era, the site for the project was a minority neighborhood, and discriminatory housing and lending policies also played a major role in the deterioration of the area. Despite rhetoric portraying the area as a crime-ridden slum, it was home to hundreds of families and businesses that were by many accounts part of a healthy and close-knit community. While many Tucsonans opposed the plan at the time, it was not enough to defeat it. It took decades for public opinion to turn against the project. In part, this is due to greater awareness of the destruction and displacement of minority communities in Tucson and elsewhere as part of urban renewal projects around the country. However, much of the negative opinion was due to the nature of the completed buildings and public spaces that resulted. The redeveloped areas of downtown were designed to the suburban standards that were the style at the time—the project widened some streets, closed off others, built massive expanses of parking, set buildings far back from the street, and designed building entrances to face isolated plazas. The decline of downtown Tucson continued, and the Tucson Convention Center complex, La Placita, and hotel have been financially troubled ever since. If there is a positive legacy for urban renewal in Tucson, it may be that it helped to increase awareness and public participation in projects to avoid other projects with potentially devastating consequences. A freeway project in the 1970s that would have wiped out more of the neighborhood south of the convention center had more organized opposition, and was eventually scrapped. The power of the government to upend an entire community had been demonstrated and would not soon be forgotten.

06 NEXT STEPS 100

Rio Nuevo In 1999, Tucson voters approved the Rio Nuevo Multipurpose Facilities District, creating a sales tax increment financing district that would provide funding for new museums, an IMAX theater, another new hotel, an aquarium, recreations of significant historic sites, environmental restoration, and more. In the ten year time frame originally approved by voters, none of the major projects were completed. Exactly why is hard to determine. Some of the smaller projects, such as restoration of the historic Fox and Rialto Theatres, were completed, as was some environmental remediation, infrastructure work, and streetscape improvements. A lot of money was spent on studies and planning for projects that were not built, but the governance of the district was clouded by a lack of oversight and allegations of malfeasance. Public opinion turned against Rio Nuevo before the initial ten years were up, with many people calling it “Rio Nunca” or “Rio Nada”. In a 2008 Tucson Citizen poll asking “Will any of the downtown projects get done?” 67 percent of respondents chose “No way. It’s the same old story” and 14 percent chose “I don’t care either way.” Rather than ask voters to approve a renewal of the TIF district, authorities decided to ask the state legislature to reauthorize it instead. Steve Farley (then a candidate for the state legislature) stated that if Rio Nuevo went back to voters, he believed it would lose. Ultimately, Rio Nuevo was reauthorized by the state; as a condition of renewing the TIF district, oversight was taken away from the City of Tucson and transferred to the state. Rio Nuevo’s mission statement became “to facilitate and participate in the development of a vibrant downtown Tucson” and most of the board members replaced or resigned soon after the reauthorization. While its reincarnation may be successful at executing its new mission, most of the signature projects from the original 1999 ballot measure appear to have been abandoned and will likely never be built with Rio Nuevo funds, if at all.

Tucson, Pre-Convention Center

Rio Nuevo has become synonymous with waste, mismanagement, and lack of transparency. Perhaps in reaction to this, many later ballot initiatives— such as the Regional Transportation Authority plan and a city road repair bond—would include citizen oversight committees, pledges to complete the projects as originally proposed, and other measures to reassure voters. Stung by the squandered promise of Rio Nuevo, voters in Tucson are still afraid to get their hopes up, or even trust that money for projects will be spent wisely. Main Gate Urban Overlay District In 2006, Pima County voters approved the Regional Transportation Authority plan, a 20-year, $2 billion mobility plan featuring roadway capacity improvements, improved transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements. One of the signature projects of the plan was the Tucson Modern Streetcar, a 3.9 mile transit corridor that would begin construction in 2012 and begin service in 2014. Essential to the implementation of the modern streetcar was a land use plan to encourage denser development along the route. Despite a public involvement process that included design charrettes and public meetings, specifics of the overlay zone in the Main Gate area (bounded by Euclid Avenue, Speedway Boulevard, Sixth Street, and Park Avenue) left neighbors unhappy after alleged backroom dealings with the city council led to significantly increased height limits for buildings in part of the overlay district. Councilmember Steve Kozachik, who opposed the height increase, said of the change: “This is exactly why people don’t trust us. We just blindsided the neighbors. Why would anybody want to deal with us when negotiations are just window dressing? It sends the message that while we’ll hold all sorts of discussions with you, in the end we will make whatever decision we want.” (DaRonco 2012)

Tucson, Post-Convention Center

Residents of adjacent neighborhoods also expressed frustration with the process; despite a collaborative process that produced a compromise that allowed for a significant increase in density in the area, the demands of developers ultimately won out at the last minute, destroying the credibility of the public participation process. Most importantly, many of the fears of residents have come to pass; several student housing projects up to 14 stories tall have since been built less than a block from historic homes, with complaints over noise, littering, and vandalism following close behind. Public Meeting for Main Gate Overlay

101

STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE PARTICIPATION Public participation tends to attract people with more free time, those who follow local news and politics closely, and people who are hyperengaged. This leads to a disproportionate number of retirees, affluent people, and a recurring cast of characters who attend every meeting and voice the same opinions over and over. Particularly for a project with an emphasis on equity, this is highly problematic. Reaching underserved populations is difficult but necessary. Weekday evening meetings and open houses are not an option for people who do not have standard work hours, or who have children or other family obligations. In addition, transportation to meetings is a serious barrier to participation for many people. Finally, while fewer people take the daily newspaper and even fewer actually read the public notices, it is still not a given that everyone will have access to the internet and will have knowledge of the project. A variety of public engagement techniques should be used to maximize awareness and input of the project. Locations and Times • Because the project’s key sites (stations) would be identified in advance and the majority of input would be focused on plans for each site, the locations for participation events are key. Every effort should be taken to use a site within ½ mile of each station that is sufficient for public forums pertaining to the area. • In addition, local gathering areas, such as restaurants, parks, and grocery stores, should be identified near each site, with participation events and notices occurring prominently. Community events should be a high priority for public participation activities, particularly for informing people about the project and gathering ideas. • Events should be scheduled at a variety of times in recognition of differing work schedules, particularly for lower-income workers. In addition to the standard early evening event times, events should be held during the day and on weekends at a variety of times. • Although not everyone has reliable access to the internet, a strong online component at every step of the process provides an additional avenue for participation for those who have time or transportation constraints that prevent their attendance at events.

102

Techniques A variety of public participation techniques may be used with the aim of reaching underserved populations, including: • Informational meetings • Open houses • Workshops • Walking tours • Booths at community events • Attendance at community meetings • Coverage in community and neighborhood newsletters • Special events at restaurants and other community gathering areas • Canvassing • Online participation • Recruiting bilingual volunteers and staff to reach out to Spanish speakers • Recognizing that no amount of creativity and resourcefulness in public participation can overcome all of the inherent biases in the process, and the likely financial limitations on the scope of a public participation plan, every effort should be taken to give more weight to input from populations that are underrepresented in the results. • Creating participation activities at local schools to encourage civic engagement at an early age, gather innovative ideas, and facilitate dialogue within families. • Larger events may include an advertised child care component to encourage members of the public with family obligations to attend.

STRATEGIES TO MAXIMIZE PARTICIPATION Empowering the Community

The Plan as a Starting Point

Other than projects that are approved by a direct vote of the people, the level of public control over public works projects—in Tucson and most places in the United States—is limited to taking comments and suggestions. This usually takes the form of citizen advisory committee meetings, open houses, design charrettes, and commentary at the meetings of elected officials. Ultimately, however, policy and design decisions are left to elected officials, and projects can change substantially between public involvement and a final vote on a project. This leads to disengagement, suspicion, and mistrust of the process and of planners in general. When members of the public invest their time to give their input on rezonings, roadway expansions, and other projects, only to have their suggestions largely discarded, it reinforces the idea that public participation is primarily for show.

The plan contained in this document is meant to be the first step in a process, particularly with respect to station area plans. Using the techniques listed above, a multi-phase public participation process would consist of the following steps: • Collecting Ideas • Open houses, booths at community events, online participation tools, and walking tours would be used to generate ideas from the community about what they want to see. • Workshopping concepts • Concepts based on these ideas, as well as unique concepts meant to generate additional discussion, would be presented at workshops, open houses, committee meetings, and other events. • Identification of preferred concept • Citizen committees would review the merits of each concept and, in concert with feedback from other public participation events, would select a concept to move forward. • Refinement of preferred concept • Working with city officials and members of the public, concept would be revised in preparation for approval by mayor and council. • Mayor and council feedback and/or vote • Mayor and council would review the concept and vote to approve or disapprove. In the event of disapproval, feedback from the mayor and council would be provided to the citizen committee to inform a new iteration of the concept.

For that reason, this proposal would give more control over some aspects of this project to the public— specifically, public officials would work closely with citizen committees to develop land use plans for each TOD site. Citizen committees are important because they provide continuity over the lifetime of a project and can engage and educate participants more deeply than other methods. Their downside is a high level of commitment required to participate effectively on that level, which is not manageable for everyone. An increased time commitment magnifies the demographic biases inherent in public participation, so extra efforts should be made to assemble committees that are representative of the local community and to provide flexibility to members. Only plans approved by such committees would be presented to the mayor and council for approval. This would allow officials to assure residents that this process is different, and eliminate allegations that backdoor negotiations have tainted the process. The downside is that this could make for a longer planning process, and could result in plans not supported by the mayor and council. Delayed development plans in one area would have the benefit of seeing how things pan out elsewhere; seeing that form-based overlays are producing better results than local by-right zoning could provide the impetus for a committee to reach an achievable compromise. The route, station locations, and engineering details of the project would have a more traditional public engagement process—the basic route would likely be defined in a ballot measure related to a funding package that would need to be approved by voters. Details of the transportation engineering process would be reviewed by a citizen committee and would be open to public comment, but final decision-making authority would fall to the mayor and council. Because the plan is designed to be cost-effective and fit into the existing roadway width wherever possible, potential for conflict over property acquisitions and other engineering decisions will be minimized.

103

CHALLENGES TO HIGH CAPACITY TRANSIT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Financial Challenges Raising hundreds of millions of dollars for a single project will be difficult. Federal grants for transit projects are very competitive and only provide a fraction of the total cost of the project, while imposing requirements that make the project more expensive. Tucson and Pima County have little cash to spare, relying on federal funding or regional dollars (such as the RTA) for most projects. Voter Support A project like this is unlikely to move forward without a ballot measure authorizing funding through a sales tax or other means. Support from businesses and organizations is crucial for media coverage and raising funds to promote the measure. Community Buy-In Refinements of overlay requirements and height limits will be a very local process that may be contentious; some residents in a TOD area may embrace a revitalization plan, while others may fear displacement of homes and businesses and a change in the character of the area. There is still considerable acrimony over the Main Gate overlay process which has resulted in several high rise student housing developments. Interjurisdictional Issues This project will require the cooperation of the cities of Tucson and South Tucson; agreements on capital funding, operations subsidies, technical standards, land use policies and incentives, and other matters will need to be coordinated to maximize the effectiveness of the project. Additionally, a portion of Oracle Road is a state highway and is thus governed by the Arizona Department of Transportation, which would need to approve any modifications to the roadway. Proposition 207 and Other State Regulations Limitations on land use regulations make it difficult to impose requirements on landowners and developers; exactions must be voluntary, as part of an optional overlay zone, or negotiated between the government and the developer.

CONCLUSION The Tucson region has a unique opportunity to chart a new path toward a sustainable future, capitalizing on official support for expansion of high capacity transit, public goodwill toward SunLink, a recovering local economy, and the success of transit-oriented development in spurring economic growth across the country. Although there are challenges to planning, funding, and implementation of a new high capacity transit line in the Tucson area, the potential benefits are significant. As the region continues to grow, the infrastructure and policies of today will influence future patterns of growth. Higher-density infill development is desirable for the cities of Tucson and South Tucson for three main reasons: It provides a desirable option for urban living and recreation that is currently lacking, it grows the tax base by concentrating growth within city boundaries, and it takes advantage of existing utilities and other infrastructure. There are many other benefits to a well-planned high capacity transit project: Mobility options for all populations would be improved, economic growth and development would be catalyzed across the region, reliance on fossil fuels would be reduced, and underserved populations would see improved transportation options and well-managed revitalization of economically depressed areas.

This page intentionally left blank.

105

Local Resources City of Tucson Broadway Corridor Transportation Study (1990) City of Tucson Business Incentives Drachman Institute Affordable and Mixed-Income TOD Housing Study: Eastern Pima County (2014) PAG High Capacity Transit System Plan (2009) Plan Tucson (2013 General Plan) Transit Choices Workshop Report, Jarrett Walker + Associates (2015) Tucson International Airport Master Plan Update (2014) Chapter One: Text Sources “Old Pueblo Trolley.” Old Pueblo Trolley, 2016. Web. <http://www.oldpueblotrolley.org/>. “PIMA POPULATION PROJECTIONS: 2015 TO 2050, MEDIUM SERIES.” Arizona Population. Arizona Office of Employment & Population Statistics, n.d. Web Smatlak, John. “U.S. Streetcar Systems - Arizona.” RPR Consulting, Inc., 23 Nov. 2011. Web. <http://www. railwaypreservation.com/vintagetrolley/tucson.htm>.

RESOURCES

Sun Tran. Sun Tran, 2016. Web. <http://www.suntran.com/index.php>. U.S. Census Bureau. “Means of Transportation To Work for Workers 16 Years and Over, 2010-2014 American Community Survey” Social Explorer. Web. U.S. Census Bureau. “Travel Time To Work, 2010-2014 American Community Survey” Social Explorer. Web. Image Sources http://www.mparchitects.com/site/thoughts/tale-two-cities http://tucson.com/news/local/tucson-time-capsule-adios-miracle-mile-roundabout/article_02e90b4e-d1ad-522e842a-3ab679ff0850.html Chapter Two: Text Sources Anas, A. Residential Location Markets and Urban Transportation. New York: Academic Press. 1982. Anas, A. The effects of transportation on the tax base and development of cities. Report No. DOT/OST/P30/85/005, US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. 1983. Babalik-Sutcliffe, E.: Urban rail systems: analysis of the factors behind success. Transp. Rev. 22, 415–417. 2002.

Barry, Kyle. The Economic Development Impacts of Light Rail Transit: Case Study of the Baltimore Central Light Rail. 2012.

Pucher, J. and J. Renne. “Socioeconomics of travel behavior: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS.” Transportation Quarterly 57(3): 49-77. 2003.

Cervero, R. and Duncan, M. Transit’s value-added effects: light and commuter rail services and commercial land value, Transportation Research Record, 1805, pp. 8–15. 2002.

Rice Center for Urban Mobility Research. Assessment of changes in property values in transit areas. Prepared for the Urban Mass Transit Administration, Rice University, Houston. 1987.

Chetty, Hendren Kline & Saez. “The Equality of Opportunity Project”. 2013.

Ryan, Michael. “Affordable housing and transit should go hand in hand”. MobilityLab. 2016.

Crampton, G.: International Comparison of Urban Light Rail Systems; the Role of Integrated Ticketing, Pedestrianization and Population Density. European Regional Science Association (ERSA). Dortmund, Germany. 2002.

Ryan, S. Property values and transportation facilities: finding the transportation–land use connection, Journal of Planning Literature, 13(4), pp. 412–427. 1999.

Diaz, R. B. Impacts of rail transit on property values. Paper presented at the Commuter Rail/Rapid Transit Conference Sponsored by the American Public Transportation Association. Toronto, Ontario May. 1999.

Schlossberg, Marc, and Nathaniel Brown. “Comparing transit-oriented development sites by walkability indicators.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the transportation research board 1887 (2004): 34-42. Seskin, S., Cervero, R.: Transit and urban form. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DC. 1996.

Economic Development Research Group. Economic Impacts of Intelligent Infrastructure: Light Rail in Salt Lake City. Prepared for Siemens. May 2015. Hook, Walter, Stephanie Lotshaw, and Annie Weinstock. “More Development For Your Transit Dollar.” Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. N.p., Nov. 2013. Web. <https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/11/More-Development-For-Your-Transit-Dollar_ITDP.pdf>. Huang, W. The effects of transportation infrastructure on nearby property values: a review of the literature. Research Report No. 620, Institute of Urban and Regional Studies, University of California, Berkeley. 1994.

Smith, J. J. and Gihring, T. A. (2004) Financing transit systems through value capture: an annotated bibliography. Working paper, Victoria Transport Policy Institute Victoria, BC, Canada. TCRP (Transit Cooperative Research Program). Economic impact analysis of transit investments: guidebook for practitioners. Report No. 35, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 1998. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Fruitvale Station Project”. 2005.

Johnson, A.: Bus transit and land use: illuminating the interaction. J Public Transp. 6(4), 21–39. 2003.

United State Government Accountability Office. Bus Rapid Transit: Projects Improve Transit Service and Can Contribute to Economic Development. July 2012.

Kain, M., Barranda, A., et al.: Factors influencing light-rail station boardings in the United States. Transp. Res. A 38, 223–247. 2004.

Vessali, K. V. Land use impacts of rapid transit: a review of the empirical literature, Berkeley Planning Journal, 11, pp. 71–105. 1996.

Knaap, G. The determinants of residential property values: implications for metropolitan planning, Journal of Planning Literature, 12(3), pp. 267–282. 1998.

Chapter Four: Image Sources Urban Shade – Central Wharf Plaza : www.asla.org

Johnson, A.: Bus transit and land use: illuminating the interaction. J Public Transp. 6(4), 21–39. 2003. Mixed Use – Strong Town, Minnetonka: www.strongtowns.org Kain, M., Barranda, A., et al.: Factors influencing light-rail station boardings in the United States. Transp. Res. A 38, 223–247. 2004. Knaap, G. The determinants of residential property values: implications for metropolitan planning, Journal of Planning Literature, 12(3), pp. 267–282.. Cleveland, OH. 1998. Natalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement. “Gentrification and Neighborhood Change: Helpful Tools for Communities”. 2015.

Walkability – Third Street Promenade, Santa Monica : www.smartgrowthamerica.org Chapter Six: Text Sources DaRonco, Darren. “UA-area Residents Denounce City Vote.” Arizona Daily Star. Tucson, AZ, 11 Aug. 2012. Web.

APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES USED FOR GIS SUITABILITY ANALYSIS 65 & Older

Land Value Per Acre

Multi-Modal Network Density

A measure of all persons aged 65 and greater, as a percentage of the total population per block group.

The total land value per parcel, divided by the total acreage of the parcel

A measure of the number of intersection points between different travel mode networks, within a defined block group level geography.

Source: United States Census Dataset: American Community Survey, 5 Year Geography: Census Block Group Level.

Source: Pima County GIS Dataset: â&#x20AC;&#x153;PA Regionâ&#x20AC;? County Level Parcel Data Shapefile Geography: Parcel

Source: EPA Dataset: Smart Location Database Geography: Census Block Group Level

Bus Ridership

Low Wage Workers

Pedestrian Network Density

A 6 Month Average of Sun Tran Daily On-Boardings, collected by route.

A measure of the number of people per block group, earning at the bottom 33% of the income scale for the region.

Source: Sun Tran Dataset: 6 Month Average Bus Ridership Data Geography: By Route

Source: United States Census Dataset: American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates Geography: Census Block Group Level.

A measure of the number of intersection points in the pedestrian network (sidewalks, public use trails, etc), within a defined block group level geography.

Housing + Transportation Index

Median Rent

A measure of the average housing costs and transportation costs, as a percentage of average income per block group.

A measure of the median rental price per block group.

Source: Center For Neighborhood Technology Dataset: The Housing and Transportation Affordability Index Geography: Census Block Group Level.

Source: United States Census Dataset: American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates Geography: Census Block Group Level.

Source: EPA Dataset: Smart Location Database Geography: Census Block Group Level Percentage of Entertainment Jobs A measure of the number of jobs defined as service jobs by the LEHC dataset, as a percentage of the total jobs per census block Source: United States Census Dataset: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Survey Geography: Census Block Level.

Median Household Income Intersection Network Density A measure of the number of intersection points in the street network, within a defined block group level geography. Source: EPA Dataset: Smart Location Database Geography: Census Block Group Level

A measure of the pre-tax median household income per block group. Source: United States Census Dataset: American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates Geography: Census Block Group Level.

Percentage of Retail Jobs A measure of the number of jobs defined as retail jobs by the LEHC dataset, as a percentage of the total jobs per census block Source: United States Census Dataset: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Survey Geography: Census Block Level.

Percentage of Service Jobs

Transportation Cost Index

Zero Car Households

A measure of the number of jobs defined as service jobs by the LEHC dataset, as a percentage of the total jobs per census block

A measure of the average transportation costs, as a percentage of average income per block group.

A measure of the total percentage of households per block group that do not own a vehicle

Source: United States Census Dataset: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Survey Geography: Census Block Level.

Source: Center For Neighborhood Technology Dataset: The Housing and Transportation Affordability Index Geography: Census Block Group Level.

Source: EPA Dataset: Smart Location Database Geography: Census Block Group Level

Population Density

Trip Equality

A measure of the total population per block group, divided by the total area of each block group.

Source: United States Census Dataset: American Community Survey, 5 Year Estimates Geography: Census Block Group Level. Redevelopment Potential The value of the improvements on a parcel, divided by the land value of a parcel. Parcels where the land value exceeds the value of any improvements to the land, are considered prime candidates for redevelopment.

Source: EPA Dataset: Smart Location Database Geography: Census Block Group Level Vacant Parcels Parcels identified as “vacant” or an land improvement value of 0, according to Pima County assessor data.

Source: Pima County GIS Dataset: “PA Region” County Level Parcel Data Shapefile Geography: Parcel

Total Jobs

Vehicle Miles Traveled

A measure of the number of jobs per census block, as identified in the LEHC survey.

A measure of the average vehicle miles traveled per year, per household, per block group.

Source: United States Census Dataset: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Survey Geography: Census Block Level.

Source: Center For Neighborhood Technology Dataset: The Housing and Transportation Affordability Index Geography: Census Block Group Level.

APPENDIX B: GIS SUITABILITY WEIGHTING ANALYSIS SUMMARY REPORT Raw Score Analysis Analysis Name

Ranked Score Analysis

Euclid

Broadway

Campbell

Oracle

S. Sixth

Analysis Name

Euclid

Broadway

Campbell

Oracle

S. Sixth

ECON_A

TG_A

SE_A

0.277681

0.225063

0.199287

0.293909

0.307769

ECON_A

TG_A

SE_A

ECON_A

TG_A

SE_B

0.266407

0.243716

0.207331

0.282305

0.251922

ECON_A

TG_A

SE_B

ECON_A

TG_B

SE_A

0.316253

0.242155

0.24304

0.318908

0.349843

ECON_A

TG_B

SE_A

ECON_A

TG_B

SE_B

0.304979

0.260808

0.251084

0.307304

0.293997

ECON_A

TG_B

SE_B

ECON_A

TG_A

SE_C

0.267462

0.227142

0.192514

0.282485

0.292355

ECON_A

TG_A

SE_C

ECON_A

TG_C

SE_A

0.289995

0.232589

0.209255

0.301987

0.322485

ECON_A

TG_C

SE_A

ECON_A

TG_C

SE_C

0.279776

0.234668

0.202482

0.290563

0.307071

ECON_A

TG_C

SE_C

ECON_A

TG_B

SE_C

0.306034

0.244234

0.236267

0.307484

0.334429

ECON_A

TG_B

SE_C

ECON_A

TG_C

SE_B

0.27872

0.251241

0.217299

0.290383

0.266639

ECON_A

TG_C

SE_B

ECON_B

TG_A

SE_A

0.333483

0.304175

0.260502

0.337426

0.341975

ECON_B

TG_A

SE_A

ECON_B

TG_A

SE_B

0.322209

0.322827

0.268546

0.325822

0.286128

ECON_B

TG_A

SE_B

ECON_B

TG_B

SE_A

0.372055

0.321267

0.304255

0.362424

0.384049

ECON_B

TG_B

SE_A

ECON_B

TG_B

SE_B

0.360781

0.33992

0.312299

0.350821

0.328202

ECON_B

TG_B

SE_B

ECON_B

TG_A

SE_C

0.323265

0.306254

0.253729

0.326002

0.326561

ECON_B

TG_A

SE_C

ECON_B

TG_C

SE_A

0.345797

0.311701

0.27047

0.345503

0.356691

ECON_B

TG_C

SE_A

ECON_B

TG_C

SE_C

0.335578

0.31378

0.263697

0.33408

0.341277

ECON_B

TG_C

SE_C

ECON_B

TG_B

SE_C

0.361836

0.323346

0.297482

0.351001

0.368635

ECON_B

TG_B

SE_C

ECON_B

TG_C

SE_B

0.334523

0.330353

0.278514

0.3339

0.300844

ECON_B

TG_C

SE_B

ECON_C

TG_A

SE_A

0.312523

0.271451

0.236532

0.321318

0.330487

ECON_C

TG_A

SE_A

ECON_C

TG_A

SE_B

0.301249

0.290104

0.244576

0.309714

0.274641

ECON_C

TG_A

SE_B

ECON_C

TG_B

SE_A

0.351095

0.288544

0.280285

0.346316

0.372562

ECON_C

TG_B

SE_A

ECON_C

TG_B

SE_B

0.339821

0.307196

0.288329

0.334713

0.316715

ECON_C

TG_B

SE_B

ECON_C

TG_A

SE_C

0.302304

0.27353

0.229759

0.309894

0.315074

ECON_C

TG_A

SE_C

ECON_C

TG_C

SE_A

0.324836

0.278977

0.2465

0.329395

0.345204

ECON_C

TG_C

SE_A

ECON_C

TG_C

SE_C

0.314618

0.281056

0.239727

0.317972

0.32979

ECON_C

TG_C

SE_C

ECON_C

TG_B

SE_C

0.340876

0.290623

0.273512

0.334893

0.357148

ECON_C

TG_B

SE_C

ECON_C

TG_C

SE_B

0.313562

0.297629

0.254544

0.317792

0.289357

ECON_C

TG_C

SE_B

Sum of Raw Scores:

8.577718

7.61435

6.761818

8.664315

8.691849

Sum of Ranking Scores:

103

134

Rankings:

APPENDIX C: FORM-BASED CODE SPECIFICATIONS Current Zoning Regulations (Within ½ Mile of Proposed Route) ZONE MAXIMUM HEIGHT

MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE

MAX MAXIMUM FAR FLOORS

SB1 C-1 C-2 C-3 I-1 MH-1 MH-2 O-1 O-2 O-3 OCR2 P-I R-1 R-2 R-3

30 30 40 75 75 25 25 16 25 40 300

75% 75% 70% 80% 100% 70% 70% 70% 70% 75% 80%

0.35 0.35 0.75 2 2

50 25 25 25

100% 70% 70% 70%

1.5

0.25 0.5 0.75 10.5

3 3 3 6 6 2 2 1 2 3 25 4 2 2 2

BLDG SQFT PER PARKING SPOT 300 300 300 300 1000 500 500 500 300

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (DU/ACRE) 36 44 87 8 15 8 8 22

1000 8.7 15 36

Proposed Overlay Zone Descriptions Four zones (1-4) Zone 1 (Amphi District): Oracle: Tucson Mall to Prince Zone 2 (Miracle Heights): Oracle: Prince to Grant Zone 3 (Rodeo / S Sixth District): 6th Ave: 22nd to Laos Transit Center Zone 4 (Airport Gateway): Irvington/Tucson: Laos Transit Center to Bilby Each zone has sub-zones (Ex: 1A, 1B, 1C) with increasing intensities Subzone C: All parcels within a 1/10th Mile Buffer of station stops (highest intensity) Subzone B: All parcels within a 1/5th Mile Buffer of station stops + All parcels within 0.05 miles of route length (medium intensity) Subzone A: All remaining parcels within a ½ Mile Buffer of the route length (lowest intensity)

Overlay Zone Form Based Regulations (Insert a variety of the massing diagrams throughout this section: your choice) For all zones & sub-zones If a variance is required to develop a site in the overlay zone based on the regulations set forth herein, the city will waive all fees associated with the variance process Maximum lot coverage of 90% 8’ Awning required for all building sides abutting a public right-of-way or off-street parking Minimum 8’ sidewalk along building edges fronting off-street parking For ground level floors facing a public right-of way or off-street parking, a minimum of 50% of the surface area of the building face must be glass All sections of the property not dedicated to the building footprint, parking requirement, or other required hardscapes will be landscaped All landscape buffers will require a minimum of 1 deciduous tree and 6 shrubs per 400 square feet of landscaped area For every 10 parking spots, 600 square feet of landscaping will be required This can be calculated from the required landscape buffers If landscape buffers do not meet this requirement, the remaining required landscaping can be implemented in the form of Low Impact Development landscape islands For building edges fronting any public right-of-way 2nd floor setback of 5’ from the 1st floor 3rd floor setback of 10’ from the 1st floor No setback for 4th+ floors Architectural element required every 10 feet Architectural elements defined as Windows Pillars Doors Change in building materials Facades Multifamily residential development will require a minimum 35% of all units to have balconies accessible to the individual unit A change in planar surface of at least 2’ is required every 50 horizontal feet, and every 24 vertical feet. For parcels abutting one right-of-way One building frontage must abut with the public ROW For parcels abutting two or more public right-of-ways Minimum of two building frontages must abut with the public ROW

For zones 1, 2 & 4 14’ landscaping buffer between sidewalk and major arterial routes Maximum sidewalk to building setback of 10’ for property lines facing a public right-of way Minimum 10’ side and rear landscape buffers (not along public ROW) Allowable building materials will align with the current underlying zoning For zone 3 Maximum sidewalk to building setback of 5’ for property lines facing a public right-of-way No minimum sidewalk to right-of-way buffer Recommended building materials for the building envelope are stucco, rammed earth, brick, adobe, and wood (only for highlight features such as trim, posts, columns, window sills, etc) Minimum 5’ side landscape buffers For zone 1 Maximum height is values listed if proposed development contains 15% of gross leasable square footage as for sale or rental housing that is affordable for 80% the area median income. If not, max height is 84’ Regulations By Zone AMPHI DISTRICT (ZONE 1)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

MAXIMUM LOT COVER

FAR

1/10th Mile From Stop (1C) 1/5th Mile From Stop & .05 From Route (1B) 1/2 Mile From Route (1A)

*180

90%

*120

Same As Current

90%

Same As Current

MAXIMUM FLOORS 15 10

BLDG SQFT PER PARKING SPOT 600 500

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FROM CURRENT ZONE 200% 150%

Same Same As Same As 125% As Current Current Current *Maximum height is values listed if proposed development contains 15% of gross leasable square footage as for sale or rental housing that is affordable for 80% the area median income. If not, max height is 84’

MIRACLE HEIGHTS (ZONE 2)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

MAXIMUM LOT COVER

FAR

MAXIMUM FLOORS

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FROM CURRENT ZONE

BLDG SQFT PER PARKING SPOT 600

1/10th Mile From Stop (2C) 1/5th Mile From Stop & .05 From Route (2B) 1/2 Mile From Route (2A)

90%

500

150%

Same As Current

125%

RODEO / S. SIXTH DISTRICT (ZONE 3) 1/10th Mile From Stop (3C) 1/5th Mile From Stop & .05 From Route (3B) 1/2 Mile From Route (3A)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

MAXIMUM LOT COVER

FAR

MAXIMUM FLOORS

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FROM CURRENT ZONE

90%

BLDG SQFT PER PARKING SPOT 600

90%

500

150%

Same As Current

125%

AIRPORT GATEWAY (ZONE 4)

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

MAXIMUM LOT COVER

FAR

MAXIMUM FLOORS

RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FROM CURRENT ZONE

1/10th From Stop (4C) 1/5th Mile From Stop & .05 From Route (4B) 1/2 Mile From Route (4A)

90%

BLDG SQFT PER PARKING SPOT 600

90%

500

150%

Same As Current

125%

200%