Performance-based Transit-Oriented Developments: A case of Austin by Pooja Anil Chaudhari

The Report committee for Pooja Chaudhari certifies that this is the approved version of the following report:

Performance-based transit-oriented developments: A case of Austin, Texas

APPROVED BY SUPERVISING COMMITTEE:

____________________________ Gian Claudia Sciara, Supervisor

____________________________ Anne Milne

Performance-based transit-oriented developments: A case of Austin, Texas

by Pooja Anil Chaudhari

Report Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Community and Regional Planning

The University of Texas at Austin May 2019

iii

Acknowledgements I am grateful to my reader, Dr. Gian Claudia Sciara for her extensive guidance on the research and writing of this report. I would also like to thank professionals at the City of Austin- Anne Milne (second reader) and Tonya Swartzendruber for their direction and support with the project. I appreciate inputs from Benjamin Campbell (Senior Planner, City of Austin), Sam Tedford (Planner, Long Range Planning, City of Austin) and Ryan Robinson (City demographer, Austin)

Abstract Performance-based transit-oriented developments: A case of Austin, Texas

Pooja Anil Chaudhari, M.S.C.R.P The University of Texas at Austin, 2019

Supervisor: Gian-Claudia Sciara

Transit-oriented development is a planning instrument where land use and developments are driven by the presence of transit around them. This planning tool is particularly crucial in urban cities facing rapid growth, where local and regional governments encourage sustainable developments via land use planning, zoning laws, and changes to building codes, among other things (Transit-Oriented Development, 2015). Many metropolitan cities may have Counciladopted districts to promote transit-oriented developments with an aim to balance density, mix use, affordability, sustainability, alternate modes of transportation, using land use policies and public transit investments. The objectives of any given city for their transit-oriented developments will be unique, subject to context and priorities. Currently, the City of Austin regulates and promotes such developments for three transit-oriented developments and two special regulating districts. It is important to evaluate the performance of Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s transit-oriented development districts against the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s larger strategic goals. The City of Austin adopts many strategic plans v

with different scopes; some are city-wide, while some as program-based or area-specific. These comply with each other in order to address various city priorities. A crucial component of Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategic planning process is performance management. While there are many ways to approach performance evaluation in planning, currently there is no globally accepted gold standard for assessing transit-oriented developments. The City also revises and updates these plans/ ordinances when required, to reflect the current conditions and challenges. Large public investments, capital improvements and partnerships are driven by these strategic plans. Hence it becomes important to evaluate the results of implementation. By identifying and informing the gaps and opportunities from periodic performance evaluation, the city stands to optimize the benefits of transit-oriented developments. This report identifies ideal metrics for TODs in Austin, derived from the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategic planning goals and evaluates these metrics using empirical data. This progress report will focus on a quantitative approach and serve as an important tool for making informed revisions in policy and providing transparency and accountability in decision-making. This assessment has potential importance to the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s officials to keep track of progress, or lack thereof, of their implemented policies. Such studies also help for future relevant planning decisions.

Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures 1

Introduction and report summary ....................................................................................... 1 5.3.1

Literature review: Performance-based strategic planning .............................................. 4

1.1.1

Why municipalities measure performance.............................................................. 5

1.1.2

How to measure performance ................................................................................. 6

5.3.2

Literature review: Analytical strategies for transit-oriented developments .................... 9

5.3.3

Case studies of performance evaluation of TODs in USA ........................................... 16

City of Austin strategic planning ....................................................................................... 18 5.3.4

Context of transit-oriented developments in Austin ..................................................... 19

5.3.5

Performance dashboards in Austin ............................................................................... 25

2.1.1

Citywide dashboard .............................................................................................. 25

2.1.2

Performance measurement for Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Planning and Zoning department .......... 25

Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 28 3.1

Identified ideal metrics for Austin ................................................................................ 28

3.2

Weighting approach for Census tracts .......................................................................... 32

4. Data accumulation and representation ................................................................................ 41 4.1 Larger policy goal 1: Reduce auto-dependency and improve connectivity by providing mobility options for multiple modes of transport...................................................................... 41 vii

4.2 5.

Larger policy goal 2- Promote a mix of housing stock for a range of incomes ............ 54

Results and findings............................................................................................................. 62 5.1.

Larger policy goal 1: Reduce auto-dependency and improve connectivity by providing

mobility options for multiple modes of transport...................................................................... 62 5.2.

Larger policy goal 2: Promote a mix of housing stock for a range of incomes ............ 63

5.3

Overall reflections ......................................................................................................... 64

Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 66 a.

Appendix A: City of Austin Website on principles for its transit-oriented developments 66

Appendix B: Imagine Austin (2012) eight priority programs .......................................... 68

Appendix C: Aspects addressed in Regulating Plan. E.g. Table of Contents of Plaza

Saltillo ....................................................................................................................................... 71 7.

References............................................................................................................................. 77

viii

List of tables Table 1: Normative metrics for the comparison of similar transit zones ...................................... 13 Table 2: Compact and Connected Indicators Summary (Compact and Connected, n.d.) ............ 27 Table 3: Identified policy goals and metrics for Austin ............................................................... 31 Table 4: Identified census tracts overlapping TOD and SRD districts ......................................... 37 Table 5: Deriving weighted totals for Census tracts by area and building footprints................... 38 Table 6: Derived weightage method for Census tracts falling within TOD and SRD boundaries 40 Table 7: Calculations for means of transportation- car, truck, van drove alone in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA ............................................................................................................. 46 Table 8: Calculations for means of transportation- public transport in TODs, SRD and AustinRound Rock MSA ......................................................................................................................... 48 Table 9; Calculations for means of transportation- carpooled in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA .................................................................................................................................... 50 Table 10: Calculations of means of transportation- walked in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA .................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 11: Calculating mean incomes (households) in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA ....................................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 12: Median gross rents for TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA ............................ 57 Table 13: Calculations for vacancy rates for TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA .......... 60

List of Figures Figure 1: Mapping transit zone in Chicago for comparative purposes. Performance based TOD typology by CTOD (2010) ............................................................................................................ 12 Figure 2: BART Transit-Oriented Development Policy Performance Measures and Targets for goal “Complete communities” ...................................................................................................... 17 Figure 3: Map locating all established transit-oriented districts and major transportation routes within Austin ETJ (Home | AustinTexas.Gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin, n.d.) ....................................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4: Map locating adopted Transit-oriented districts and Special Regulating districts within Austin Extra Territorial Jurisdiction under evaluation for this study ........................................... 23 Figure 5: Map locating transit-oriented developments and Special Regulating districts in Austin ....................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 6: Summary chart of identified key indicators for the Planning and zoning department .. 26 Figure 7: Priority areas of Austin’s comprehensive plan- Imagine Austin .................................. 26 Figure 8: ArcGIS image of Plaza Saltillo TOD boundaries overlapping with 2 Census tracts .... 33 Figure 9: ArcGIS image of MLK blvd. TOD boundaries overlapping with 6 Census tracts ....... 34 Figure 10: ArcGIS image of North Lamar TOD boundaries overlapping with 4 Census tracts .. 35 Figure 11: ArcGIS image of North Burnet Gateway SRD boundaries overlapping with 5 Census tracts .............................................................................................................................................. 36 Figure 12: Percent of existing bicycle and sidewalk lanes to potential bicycle and sidewalk lanes in TOD- Plaza Saltillo................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 13: Percent of existing bicycle and sidewalk lanes to potential bicycle and sidewalk lanes in SRD-North Burnet Gateway ..................................................................................................... 43 x

Figure 14: Percent of existing bicycle and sidewalk lanes to potential bicycle and sidewalk lanes in TOD-MLK Jr. Blvd. ................................................................................................................. 44 Figure 15: Percent of existing bicycle and sidewalk lanes to potential bicycle and sidewalk lanes in TOD- Lamar ............................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 16:Graphical representation of means of transportation- car, truck, van, drove alone for TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA ................................................................................. 47 Figure 17: Graphical representation of means of transportation- public transport for TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA ...................................................................................................... 49 Figure 18: Graphical representation of means of transportation- carpooled for TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA ............................................................................................................. 51 Figure 20: Graphic representation for means of travel time- walked in TODs, SRDs and AustinRound Rock MSA ......................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 21: Graphic representation of median incomes(households) in TODs, SRD and AustinRound Rock MSA ......................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 23: Graphic representation of median gross rents in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA .............................................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 24: Affordable housing within TOD and SRD boundaries ............................................... 59 Figure 26: Graphic representation of vacancy rates in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA ....................................................................................................................................................... 61

1 Introduction and report summary

Rapid growth, developments and urbanization of cities in the last few decades have presented infrastructure and affordability related challenges in the United States. This has also warranted the need of sustainable living in cities. Texas is a relatively sparsely populated state known for its low walkability and high dependence on automobiles. In recent years, major cities in Texas have seen rapid urbanization and are regularly featuring on the list of America’s fastest growing cities. According to Austin’s comprehensive plan, Imagine Austin (City of Austin 2012, p. 3), “the population is projected to nearly double in the next three decades and become more diverse and urban”. Transit-oriented development is one strategy to meet a city’s sustainability goals. It coordinates relatively intensive land uses, user friendly urban design with multiple transportation alternatives. These populations from higher densities and mix land uses are anticipated to be supported by transit and easy walkability. Thus, the physical built form integrates land use and transportation planning. Studies suggest linking land use policy decisions to infrastructure can have significant economic, social, environmental impacts. It also helps realize growth opportunities, challenges and community aspirations. In order to achieve sustainable developments and goals of the comprehensive plan, Austin has adopted and regulated TOD zoning around important transit stations and corridors. The City of Austin has recognized nine transit-oriented development districts; the City Council has further adopted regulating plans for three of these districts. These are Plaza Saltillo, MLK Jr. Blvd. and Lamar Blvd./Justin Lane. In addition to these, it also identified two specific 1

Area Regulations districts- North Burnet Gateway and East Riverside Corridor, “which replace zoning in areas where compact, walkable and mixed-use development is desired” (Specific Area Regulations | Development Services | AustinTexas.Gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin, n.d.). These overlay districts are meant to perform similar functions as TODs. On March 8, 2018, the Austin City Council adopted the Strategic Direction 2023 to strengthen the planning process and focus areas for the city (City of Austin, 2017). The City is evidently moving towards a rigorous strategic planning process. Periodic documentation, reporting and analyzing data towards performance-based strategic goals are a crucial part of such planning. Evaluation of such data is helpful in analyzing the implementation of policies. This gives an insight in the strengths, gaps and opportunities of strategic plans. Hence, these form important basis for revisions of adopted policies. The TOD districts and plans are a part of the larger goals for the City. These goals are stated in Austin’s various strategic plans. Some of the city-wide plans include Imagine Austin (city’s comprehensive plan), Austin strategic mobility plan, Strategic direction 2023 and Austin land development code. Further there are strategic plans that are more specific and target certain corridors, neighborhoods, districts or zones; these include transit-oriented development district and special regulating districts. These plans are guided by the larger city-wide strategic goals and directly shape Austin’s policies. By studying the city’s strategic plans, we identified critical goals relating to its adopted TODs and SRDs. This report evaluates the city’s TOD and SRD performance on the basis of these larger goals. These are:

Reduce auto-dependency. Improve connectivity and provide mobility options for multiple modes of transport developments

ii.

Promote a mix of housing options for a range of incomes

iii.

Promote dense, mix use developments

iv.

Encourage sustainable living and developments

This report analyzes the first two larger policy goals; 1) auto-dependency and mobility options and 2) housing mix. The report aims to track the on-ground changes by means of empirical data, within the TOD and SRD districts, that are a affected by the enforced regulations (found in Appendix 6.3). This performance evaluation is not intended to serve as a TOD standard for Austin or other cities, but rather a stage setting for planning of future TODs and SRDs in Austin. In doing so, we may be able to optimize the benefits of these regulatory provisions. It may also help in identifying gaps and making recommendations to revise existing policies. It also aims in furthering the strategic planning process in Austin.

5.3.1 Literature review: Performance-based strategic planning The Government of Performance and Results Act of 1993 entails Federal agencies to formulate strategic plans aligning with respective budgets and performances. Following suite, many states governments have also adopted similar executive mandates to ensure outcomeoriented decisions. There are no such requirements for the planning and management processes for local governments. However surveys have shown that “larger jurisdictions with populations over 25,000 have engaged in citywide strategic planning over the years” (Poister T. and Streib G. 2005, p. 45). For such jurisdictions with large, growing populations, strategic planning allows the public sector to plan more systematically for the bigger picture and to make long-range planning decisions. It clarifies values, objectives, aspirations, action plans, scope for futuristic thinking (Poister T. and Streib G. 2005, p. 46). The authors (2005, p. 46) also note the importance of “linking and driving the lower-level planning processes with the larger strategic plans for the city”. This involves driving planning policies by strategic objectives. While such strategic planning is the steering factor for decision-making, strategic management is more comprehensive. It is more likely to produce anticipated benefits when decisions are driven by performance measurement, management and appropriate budgeting (Poister T. and Streib G. 2005, p. 47). Performance-based planning is thus an important component of such management.

1.1.1

Why municipalities measure performance Ammons (2001, p. 11) lists “setting priorities, objectives and standards of performance,

followed by measuring performance, analyzing results and correcting nonconformities to meet established standards as characteristics of successful service institutions”. Performance measurement has many proven benefits to the public as well as private sector. Some of these include accountability, planning/ budgeting, operational improvement, program evaluation by objective appraisal, reallocation of resources and contract monitoring (Ammons, David N 2001, pp. 11–12). Documentation and reporting data about the performance of public services, amenities or regulations provide for accountability and help to earn citizen trust in municipalities. Public services and amenities planning depend on budgets. By maintaining a scorecard and indicating effectiveness, one can justify spending and resource allocation (Ammons, David N 2001, p. 12). Performance recorded over a period of time help justify and affirm decisions. Such municipalities are better equipped for future thinking. Ammons (2001, pp. 11–12) states that such cities are also more likely to detect lesser effective policies, weaknesses and strengths at earlier stages and take corrective actions. Many elements like socio-economic factors, political situations and market forces affect policy outcomes. By keeping tabs on data, we may be able to investigate on whether policies produce desired outcomes in the city or not. Suitable periodic amendments can be made to improve operational efficiency. When appropriately identified, timely collected, data is a reliable source to identify strengths, weaknesses and opportunities. Performance is a measure of policy outcome and delivery. Efforts to measure performance contribute to results-oriented public services. These have potential to further translate into benchmarks and work standards for the municipality.

1.1.2

How to measure performance To measure performance, planners need to determine what metrics to use and what data

should be collected to support those metrics. That is step one. Poister & Streib (2005, p. 46) cite Vinzant and Vinzant (1996a) while stating that performance measures are found to be a direct derivative of strategic intentions of a city. Since these are strongly linked to budgets and resource allocation, they serve as crucial elements of the strategic management process. (Poister T. and Streib G. 2005, p. 47) conducted survey studies of municipalities with population more than 25,000; out of 512 of these, 225 reported the use of a formal citywide strategic planning. Their studies show that of the total cities that meet the set strategic planning documentation, and budgeting criteria, “two-thirds report the use performance measures to track the accomplishment of goals and objectives included in their strategic plans” (2005, p. 49). Approximately half of the respondents also reported their jurisdictions to be tracking over time, the performance measures related to desired outcomes per the strategic plan. This is in order to determine the performance of the strategic results areas (2005, p. 50). They also affirmed to be reporting the measures associated with strategic plan to the Council periodically (2005, p. 50). Their studies show that the first two elements that drive successful Strategic Planning “concern the link between cities’ performance management processes and their strategic agendas” (2005, p. 53). This includes establishing objectives derived from the strategic plan for specific departments (2005, p. 53). An important component of strategic planning and performance tracking is also benchmarking these measures to assess the effectiveness of strategic initiatives (2005, pp. 50–51). There is also emphasis on reporting this data associated with the strategic plan to the public on a regular basis. They contribute to effectiveness by providing transparency and

accountability to their strategic goals and investments. It is also important to determine the frequency of the reporting in order to make substantial analyses (Ammons, David N 2001, p. 21). He also stresses on the requirement of meaningful connections between decision process and identified performance measures. Depending on priorities, performance measurement can be done at various departmental and programmatic levels. Dittmar and Gloria (2004, p. 8) state that transit-oriented developments provide not only choices of diverse transportation modes, but more fundamentally in lifestyles. A number of various studies analyze TOD performance, but there is no globally accepted standard for doing so. In order to do a performance-based TOD, we must identify the factors directly affected by the regulations (Appendix B and C) and compare them to the stated strategic objectives. There are many benefits of such a quantitative or qualitative analysis of TOD performance. A performance-based TOD guidebook by Centre for Transit-oriented development (2010) states that an analytical performance evaluation may help answer questions like: 1. “What economic, environmental and social outcomes can we expect from investments in transit and TOD? 2. What differentiates transit-oriented development from transit-adjacent development? 3. What standards should be utilized in evaluating zoning for TOD or other policy interventions?” (CTOD 2010, p. 3) Data required for performance measurement can be gained from various sources or a combination of sources. These include “existing records, time logs, citizen/ client surveys, trained observer ratings and specially designed data collection” (Ammons, David N 2001, p. 16). While studies have substantiated the many benefits of a transit-oriented development in general, a quantitative analysis of these benefits in the context of Austin can guide sound public 7

and private decisions and investments. Such periodic information gathering, and reporting can drive subsequent goals and relevant action plans. These can form long-term rationale for decision making for the future.

5.3.2 Literature

review:

Analytical

strategies

for

transit-oriented

developments Planners can look to the work of research sources like CTOD (Centre for transit-oriented development), ITDP (Institution for Transportation and development Policy) and JTLU (Journal of transportation and Land Use) to gain insight of the appropriate methodology for TOD performance evaluation. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Evaluation of success or failure can be gauged only when we know the ultimate goal of a step takenâ&#x20AC;?. ITDP (2017) developed a TOD standard outlining eight core performance objectives. It is a simple scoring system that quantifies performances by awarding points (total 100 points) for various metrics. These metrics are derived from eight principles that ITDP has established to be fundamental objectives of a TOD. The following are the eight principles as defined by the report. 1. Walk (for pedestrians) The objective is for the pedestrian realm to be safe, complete, and accessible to all. 2. Cycle (alternate modes of transport) The objectives include a cycling network that is safe and complete. This includes presence of appropriate access, parking and storage infrastructure at buildings and transit stations. 3. Connect (street networks) The objective is for the walking and cycling routes to be short, direct and varied. These routes are preferably shorter than the auto routes. 4. Transit (public transit) This objective constitutes the presence of high-quality transit that is accessible within walking distances. 5. Mix (incomes, demographics, land uses) 9

The objective is for opportunities and services to be within a walking distance of where people live and work. The public space is activated over extended hours for diverse demographics and people of income ranges. 6. Densify (developments) High residential and job densities support high-quality transit. Local services and public space activity. 7. Compact (developments) The objective is for the development to be in, or next to, an existing urban area, in a way that commuting through the city is convenient. 8. Shift (land use allocation) The objective is that the land occupied by motorized vehicles is minimized. It includes spaces for off street parking and roadway areas. (ITDP 2017, p. 5) As stated above, each of these principles are further broken down to elaborate their specific objectives. These objectives translate into a quantitative metric. For example, the Walk principle identifies two metrics which can award up to a total of 15 out of the 100 points. 1. Walkways- Percentage of walkway segments with safe, all-accessible walkways 2. Crosswalks- Percentage of intersections with safe, all-accessible crosswalks in all directions (2017, 4). The document further provides definitions and detailed directions for each of these metrics, way to collect and score such data. Later, it classifies TODs in performance categories based on their cumulative points- Gold standard (86-100 points), Silver standard (71-85 points) and Bronze 10

standard (56-70 points). Four of the eight measures in the ITDP standard ensure mobility options and access to them. This report has potential to serve as guide for these eight principles in various TODs. A second approach to TOD performance measurement can be found in a study by The Centre for Transit-oriented development (2010). It designed a performance-based TOD typology tool. The main aim of this tool is to use TOD strategies to address climate change and community development simultaneously. It first identifies a geographical scale- half-mile radius around transit stations. The characteristics of elements within these zones are averages and used to characterize the existing conditions of the zone (2010, p. 1). These zones are classified by the degree of balance between residential and employment uses, and the vehicle-miles travelled (VMT) associated with the area. It uses this typology to assess the performance of the area in terms of mixes and VMT. The CTOD (2010, p. 4) guidebook stresses on the usefulness of typologies as they â&#x20AC;&#x153;increase understanding of characteristics that contribute to place, establish measurable performance benchmarks, and provide a framework to set goals for better performanceâ&#x20AC;?. By identifying the typology of the TOD zone, stakeholders and policy makers can then identify future strategies by comparing and referring to other similar zones. This can be used over time to gauge the accomplishments of set aspirations. These can further be used to compare place types with regions. The suitability of the measure relies on studies showing strong correlation between VMT and other TOD principles. In the below example for the City of Chicago (Figure 1), each transit stations belong to typology by means of Vehicle-miles travelled and intensity of workers. This is the typology of the zone which can be mapped. While CTOD (2010) acknowledges that VMT is

not a sole indicator of the performance of transit zone and that many regional factors affect it, the aim was to make regional improvements by local level VMT reduction strategies.

Figure 1: Mapping transit zone in Chicago for comparative purposes. Performance based TOD typology by CTOD (2010) 12

The study encourages municipalities to study more listed â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;normative metricsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; along with VMT and Place (2010, p. 14). These are found in Table 1. Metric Total Intensity (Residents workers) Residents Workers Workers/residents Households Household size Gross density (units/ acre) Residential density (units/ acre) Average Block Size (acres) Monthly T Cost Yearly T Cost Average Median Income (1999) Travel Time to Work (minutes) Employment Gravity (jobs nearby) Transit Access Index Autos/ Household Home Journey to Work (transit) Home Journey to Work (walk/bike/transit) Workplace Journey to Work (transit) Workplace Journey to Work (walk/bike/transit)

National average N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 2.59 N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. $40,696 24.3 N.A. N.A. 1.9 5.7% 8.2% 5.7% 8.2%

Table 1: Normative metrics for the comparison of similar transit zones 1

Developing a typology is helpful as it groups together areas with similar characteristics and similar policy tools can to these groups. Other studies for typology-based performance measurement by Huang et al. (2018) argue that while such studies of individual transit nodes may Table created from CTOD (2010) p. 14 Source: https://www.cnt.org/publications/performance-based-transitoriented-development-typology-guidebook 1

not be sufficient to make meaningful conclusions, they may have critical roles within the TOD network. Hence even if one node performs poorly, it is not a matter of huge concern, rather one must identify the role of these nodes and ensure that they complement the larger network. However, it is also important to note that these studies are for ‘all transit nodes’ which may or may not be ‘regulated transit-oriented districts”. A third approach to TOD performance can be found in the work of the Center for Neighborhood and Transportation which notes a more holistic definition of household affordability for households. Transportation is usually the second highest cost in a household and can dramatically impact the cost of living. It thus becomes an important aspect to study as higher dependence on alternative modes of transit can lead to reduced living costs and better quality of living. The Center for Neighborhood and Transportation (2009) launched a tool, ‘Housing + Transportation index’ in order to measure the true living affordability and location efficiency for individuals/ households/ families. It takes into account housing and transportation costs and divides these by the representative income of households/ families under consideration. As defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), a household spending more than 30% of its income on housing is considered burdened (HUD.Gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), n.d.). In their study, the authors state that by this traditional view of affordability, 55% of US neighborhoods are considered affordable. However, after accounting for the transportation costs, this number drops to 26%. Hence this index is comprehensive measure of affordability and living costs (CNT, 2009).

Finally a fourth perspective comes from Cervero, R. & Kockelman K. (1997), who identify density, diversity and design as three of the most important dimensions of TOD. These dimensions ensure bringing jobs closer to create a live-work-play environment. These dimensions were also included in ITDP’s (2017) principles, namely ‘mix’. This aimed to measure the adjacent complementary uses, access to local services, access to parks and playgrounds, housing mix and preservation. It intends to measure diverse uses within accessible distances in the TOD. In addition to this, its ‘densify’ principle, ITDP (2017) measures the densities of residential and nonresidential uses. These should ideally be sufficient to support high-quality transit, local services and public spaces in a TOD area.

5.3.3 Case studies of performance evaluation of TODs in USA While literature has presented some model methods for performance evaluation of TODs, it is also important to study the methods, if any, adopted by municipalities. In this report, we look at cities in the United States in particular. This is an important effort as it allows us an insight in the application of methods in the specific city contexts. Oregon Metro uses the typology framework developed by COTD to analyze its TOD clusters (Portland Metro’s TOD Strategic Plan | CTOD Portal, n.d.). The Metropolitan Council developed a TOD scoring tool for its TODs in the Twin cities MSA. It evaluates the TOD station areas and corridors based on three criteria; 1) travel behavior, 2) built environment, and 3) community strength (Transit Oriented Development - Metro Transit, n.d.). Each of these criteria are measured using appropriate metrics. For example, the travel behavior criterion is evaluated by studying the transit ridership, vehicle ownership and daily traffic. The scoring tool assigns a score between 0 and 100 to each station area and corridor. Among the cases I looked at, the Bay Area Rapid Transit in San Francisco was of interest as the authorities have articulated a performance evaluation method, performance targets using BART’s TOD policy and goals as references.

BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has adopted six TOD policy goals namely: 1) complete communities, 2) sustainable communities’ strategy, 3) ridership, 4) value creation and value capture, 5) transportation choice, and 6) affordability (Transit-Oriented

Development (TOD) | Bart.Gov, n.d.). These are used to identify and highlight the intents of the policy goal. They further translate into quantitative performance measures. Let us look at the policy goal of “complete communities” for example (See Figure 2). This goal translates into specific individual intents. Draft performance measures, which may be more than one, are identified for each of these intents. One of the most common use of performance measure is to use as a standard to set targets. This is measured empirical data and is used along the baseline as reference and used to set the 2025 and 2040 targets (see figure below).

Figure 2: BART Transit-Oriented Development Policy Performance Measures and Targets for goal “Complete communities”

2 City of Austin strategic planning Understanding the broader context of the City of Austin’s strategic planning goals is important for assessing the performance of its TODs/SRDs/etc. This section of the report comprises of the city’s larger strategic planning process. Further, sections 2.1 and 2.2 introduce the context of TOD and SRDs in Austin and the city’s current efforts towards performance evaluation. On March 8, 2018, the Austin City Council adopted the Strategic Direction 2023 to strengthen the planning process and focus areas for the city (City of Austin, 2017). It is evident that the City is leaning towards an ‘outcome-based’ approach for setting priorities and budgeting. Strategic Direction 2023 is Austin’s strategic planning for the next three to five years. It is inspired by the city’s comprehensive plan, and includes a vision, six city-wide strategic outcomes, challenge statements, indicators and metrics for each of them and action strategies for each of the metrics. The impetus for such a plan was to combat challenges of effective governance and inadequate feedback and learning loops from the community (City of Austin, 2017). While the document gives clear direction on performance measurement of the city-wide strategic outcomes and individual divisions. It is not clear on performance expectations for regulating plans and specific programs such as transit-oriented developments and special regulating districts. Transit-oriented development is an important planning tool for the City, that has potential to partially address many of the city’s strategic priorities. Several ordinances are passed by the City Council over time to make amendments to adopted plans and policies in Austin. Performance measurement of these strategic plans would aid in such decisions. 18

5.3.4 Context of transit-oriented developments in Austin In 2005, Austin’s City Council adopted ordinance No. 20050519-008, creating a new zoning category- transit-oriented development district. These essentially function as overlay district to the base district. There are currently 9 established locations for this zoning (see figure 3). Each has an initial established boundary. 1. North West Park & Ride 2. North I-35 3. Lamar/ Justin TOD 4. Highland Mall 5. MLK TOD 6. Plaza Saltillo 7. Convention Center 8. South I-35 Park & ride 9. Oak Hill As Dittmar & Ohland (2004) state, “TODs are conceived within the context of at least a corridor and in most cases a regional metropolis”. Originally, TODs were limited and focused on areas around the light rail, but as modes of transportation have diversified, newer TODs include bus rapid transit, express bus, street cars, commuter trains and heavy retail systems (Dittmar H. & Gloria O. 2004). This trend is also evident in Austin; note how figure 4 locates SRDs and TODs on Austin’s transportation map.

Figure 3: Map locating all established transit-oriented districts and major transportation routes within Austin ETJ (Home | AustinTexas.Gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin, n.d.) 20

According to Austin’s TOD ordinance, the successful adoption of a regulating Plan for these above districts constitutes of 2 stages (| Code of Ordinances | Austin, TX | Municode Library, n.d.) 1. Creation of a Station Area plan (SAP)- Adopted through a neighborhood planning process. This provides the vision and concept plans for specific TODs. This phase addresses land uses, urban design standards, zoning recommendations and implementation strategies. The SAP is only the first step towards implementation of code. 2. Regulating plan document- Adopted as code. It provides on-ground operational direction for subdistricts, land uses, density, height. It gives detailed regulations regarding sidewalk, building frontage requirements, streetscaping, design standards, among other things. Appendix 6.3 gives an example of the constituents of a Regulating plan in the Plaza Saltillo TOD district. Once adopted by the Council, the regulating plan supersedes the City of Austin land development code. It is the governing Land Development code for all properties within the district boundary. Out of these, three transit-oriented developments (TOD)- Plaza Saltillo, MLK Jr. Blvd and Lamar, have completed both phases of the TOD process and have Council-adopted and enforced regulating plans. They provide a vision tailored to the specific context of each regulating plan. They clearly respond to the citywide goals, long range plans, market forces, while reflecting the neighborhood’s aspirations. The City of Austin defines Special Regulating districts (SRD) as “regulations that replace zoning in areas where compact, walkable and mixed-use development is desired”(Specific Area Regulations | Development Services | AustinTexas.Gov - The Official Website of the City of 21

Austin, n.d.). There are many commonalities in their regulating plans. By studying the adopted regulating plans of each of these policies, we conclude that SRDs are designed to perform similar functions as TODs. Hence for the purpose of this analysis we can group the objectives of SRD and TODs. This Professional report studies the performance of these special regulating districts and transit-oriented development districts from 2009 to 2016, the period since they first came into effect. 1. Plaza Saltillo (TOD, adopted December 2008, effective March 01, 2009) 2. MLK Jr Blvd (TOD, adopted December 2008, effective March 01, 2009) 3. Lamar Blvd./Justin Lane (TOD, adopted December 2008, effective March 01, 2009) 4. North Burnet Gateway (SRD, Adopted November 01, 2007) (City of Austin, n.d.) The most recently adopted SRD is East Riverside corridor (SRD, effective May 20, 2013). Since it is relatively new, there is not enough data to draw meaningful conclusions about its performance. Hence for the purpose of this report, we exclude the study of this SRD.

Figure 4: Map locating adopted Transit-oriented districts and Special Regulating districts within Austin Extra Territorial Jurisdiction under evaluation for this study

Figure 5: Map locating transit-oriented developments and Special Regulating districts in Austin 24

5.3.5 Performance dashboards in Austin 2.1.1

Citywide dashboard Currently, the City of Austin maintains and updates a performance dashboard on its

website. This covers topics like strategic outcomes, open budget ATX, capital projects, transportation, sustainability, Imagine Austin, community survey, Austin Energy reports and EMS performance indicators (Performance ATX, n.d.). These 21 dashboard measures provide an overall window into the Local city-wide government operations. Many of the dashboard metrics relate to the six strategic outcomes- identified in the new Strategic Direction 2023, adopted in 2018- 1) Economic opportunity & affordability, 2) Culture and lifelong learning, 3) Government that works for all, 4) Safety, 5) Health and environment and, 6) Mobility have been recognized. Depending on the type of data, dashboard metrics are reported either monthly, quarterly or annually for a period of five years.

2.1.2

Performance measurement for Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Planning and Zoning department TODs and SRDs come under the purview of the Planning and Zoning (PAZ) department

which includes specific divisions for historic preservation, urban design, small area, long-range and current planning. These divisions provide services with an aim of making Austin â&#x20AC;&#x153;the most livable city in the worldâ&#x20AC;? (Planning and Zoning, n.d.). Currently the measures tracked by the department in their performance report (2014-15) are as follows.

Figure 6: Summary chart of identified key indicators for the Planning and zoning department (Planning and Zoning, n.d.) Currently the department does not track performances of its individual plans like small area plans, TODs and SRDs. This report aims to fill this gap and make contributions to the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s initiatives. In addition to this, the long-range planning division within the Planning and zoning department also maintains an Imagine Austin indicator dashboard. This is updated every five years. Imagine Austin has eight priority areas (see figure 7) for which this data is reported. This is a data set of 43 metrics that have significant importance and relevance to the 8 priority areas of Imagine Austin. Some of these indicators may also have overlapping relevance to more than one priority program.

Figure 7: Priority areas of Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s comprehensive plan- Imagine Austin 26

For example, one of the focuses of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;compact and connectedâ&#x20AC;? priority program is to invest in a transportation system that decreases dependence on driving (Compact and Connected, n.d.). The identified indicators for this program are summarized below. These are identified to show the progress, or lack thereof, on these goals.

We're Improving percentage

We Haven't Changed

street intersection density

Wrong Direction developed land area

frontage with sidewalks bicycle lane miles and

annual unlinked transit passenger trips

percentage of streets vehicle miles traveled per capita percentage of trips by biking and walking transportation system total annual delay percent of new residential units within growth centers and corridors percent

new

non-residential

development within growth centers and corridors

Table 2: Compact and Connected Indicators Summary (Compact and Connected, n.d.) 2

Table created from Imagine Austin indicator dashboard. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/Compactand-Connected/jqwk-xf8g 2

3. Methodology This report aims to develop performance metrics for the following goals, 1) reduce autodependency and improve mobility by promoting multiple modes of transportation, and 2) have housing options for a range of incomes. These two goal areas were chosen for in-depth study in this report as they are recurring priorities in Austin’s planning process. To isolate these goals and develop metrics for them, we consult Austin’s strategic plans. In section 3.1, we study the three tiers of strategic plans relating to TODs and SRDs in Austin; city-wide, zoning-specific and district-specific. Inspired by the BART discussed earlier, we use these strategic plans to identify metrics for evaluation in Austin. In section 3.2, we describe how we will use these metrics in Austin and a weighting system is necessary for the analysis. In Chapter 4, we present the data, analyze these identified metrics and graphically represent them. Chapter 5 discusses the results and their implications.

3.1Identified ideal metrics for Austin Performance-based strategic planning underscores the importance of defining performance metrics using the city’s mission/ goals. By normative standards, an ideal TOD is many things. Since the objectives of a city are unique to its context, in this report, we will analyze Austin’s various strategic plans to identify the priorities and policy goals of the City. These plans are described below. My analysis of the plans finds that the policy goals they contain can be categorized in four buckets: 1. Improve mobility by promoting multiple modes of transport developments 2. Have housing options for a range of incomes 28

3. Promote compact and mix use developments 4. Encourage sustainable living and developments For the purpose of evaluating the performance of TODs and SRDs in Austin, we will develop possible metrics against these strategic goals.

•

Imagine Austin comprehensive plan (City-wide, bigger picture) The priority programs of Austin’s comprehensive plan, Imagine Austin, include healthy

Austin, compact and connected neighborhoods, sustainable environment and affordability, complete and livable communities (Appendix 6.2). The progress on these indicators can be found in form of 43 quantitative metrics in the publicly available dashboards and 5-year progress report (Imagine Austin Indicators | Open Data | City of Austin Texas, n.d.).

•

TOD goals as identified by ordinance (zoning-related) These include compact development, active and livable spaces, mix use, walkability,

diversity in ages and incomes, high quality public spaces, easy access to transit ridership, encourage ground floor retail and economically viable and valuable (Appendix 6.1).

•

Council-adopted regulating plans (district specific) The regulating plan dictates the actual detailed operational policies within the district.

These inform the following topics- subdistricts, circulation, connectivity, parking, site development, development bonuses, parking, open spaces- pedestrian amenities, design standards (Appendix 6.3).

The synthesis of data from these three sources can be found in Table 3 (below). Some of these, like ‘unique context’ and ‘sense of belonging’ are qualitative metrics and will not have empirical data. Data for each of these will be compiled from sources like ACS (American Community survey) and Austin ArcGIS open data portal for over the period of their regulation, 2009 to 2016.

Table 3: Identified policy goals and metrics for Austin 31

3.2 Weighting approach for Census tracts Accuracy is crucial when dealing with empirical data. The smallest geographical unit established by the Bureau of census to analyze data is block groups. However, they have large margins of error. Census tracts are intermediate geographic units, between block groups and county subdivisions, used by the Bureau of Census to analyze population data. Census tracts typically include a few blocks and are of a neighborhood scale. They have relatively smaller margins of error. Hence it is convenient to use these as the base geographic unit for analyzing data of TOD and SRD districts. The boundaries of the TOD and SRD zoning districts in Austin do not align with those of Census tracts (see figure 3 to 8), or any other geographical unit used by the Bureau of Census. However, each of the district boundaries overlap a few census tracts. E.g. Plaza Saltillo overlaps two census tracts. The identified census tracts under analysis for the purpose of report are summarized in Table 4. We model a weighting method and assign appropriate weights to each of these census tracts.

Figure 8: ArcGIS image of Plaza Saltillo TOD boundaries overlapping with 2 Census tracts

Figure 9: ArcGIS image of MLK blvd. TOD boundaries overlapping with 6 Census tracts 34

Figure 10: ArcGIS image of North Lamar TOD boundaries overlapping with 4 Census tracts

Figure 11: ArcGIS image of North Burnet Gateway SRD boundaries overlapping with 5 Census tracts 36

Table 4: Identified census tracts overlapping TOD and SRD districts Table 3 shows the number of Census tracts that each of the district boundaries overlap. These can be cross-referenced with Figures 8 to 12. These are used for further analysis. 37

Table 5: Deriving weighted totals for Census tracts by area and building footprints Table 5 demonstrates the modelled method to derive a weighted number for each census tract that overlaps a TOD and SRD district. To assign these weights uses we use GIS data of 2010

census tracts MSA 3 and 2013 building footprints 4. This data is publicly available on the Austin cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s open data portal. Table 6 summarizes two categories of derived weights for the census tracts. 1. Weights for data that signify a quantity that is a aggregate amount. For example, population, number of units etc. 2. Weights for data like averages, medians and percentages. For example, travel time, median incomes. These weights are used against the data for the identified metrics in Table 2.

Census tracts 2010 MSA. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/Census-Tracts-2010MSA/e228-ig6a 4 Building footprints 2013. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/Building-Footprints-Year2013/7bns-7teg 3

Table 6: Derived weightage method for Census tracts falling within TOD and SRD boundaries

4. Data accumulation and representation Following sections will use the computed weighting method for empirical data for each of metrics of the policy goals.

4.1 Larger policy goal 1: Reduce auto-dependency and improve connectivity by providing mobility options for multiple modes of transport The identified metrics for this policy goal is as follows (per Table 3): 1. Bicycle lane miles and sidewalk lane miles Existing bicycle lanes and sidewalk lanes in the city of Austin can be found in the Austin open data portal. These are mapped along with the existing streets i.e. potential bicycle and sidewalk lanes. This gives an insight of the gaps and opportunities for bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

2. Means of transportation- commute share a. Car, van, truck, drove alone b. Public transportation c. Carpooled d. Walked This is 5-year estimate data is available on the American community survey (ACS). In this case, only those commutes whose place of work is â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;within countyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; are considered. It gives an understanding of the trends in used means of commute to work from place of work. 41

Figure 12: Percent of existing bicycle and sidewalk lanes to potential bicycle and sidewalk lanes in TOD- Plaza Saltillo 5 Sidewalk network, Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-andMaps/Sidewalks/pc5y-5bpw Austin bicycle facilities. Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/dataset/Austin-BicycleFacilities/kfe9-st9c Street network, Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/StreetCenterline/m5w3-uea6 5

Figure 13: Percent of existing bicycle and sidewalk lanes to potential bicycle and sidewalk lanes in SRD-North Burnet Gateway 6

Sidewalk network, Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-andMaps/Sidewalks/pc5y-5bpw Austin bicycle facilities. Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/dataset/Austin-BicycleFacilities/kfe9-st9c 6

Figure 14: Percent of existing bicycle and sidewalk lanes to potential bicycle and sidewalk lanes in TOD-MLK Jr. Blvd 7.

Street network, Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/StreetCenterline/m5w3-uea6 7 Sidewalk network, Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-andMaps/Sidewalks/pc5y-5bpw Austin bicycle facilities. Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/dataset/Austin-BicycleFacilities/kfe9-st9c Street network, Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/StreetCenterline/m5w3-uea6

Figure 15: Percent of existing bicycle and sidewalk lanes to potential bicycle and sidewalk lanes in TOD- Lamar 8 Sidewalk network, Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-andMaps/Sidewalks/pc5y-5bpw Austin bicycle facilities. Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/dataset/Austin-BicycleFacilities/kfe9-st9c Street network, Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Locations-and-Maps/StreetCenterline/m5w3-uea6 8

Table 7: Calculations for means of transportation- car, truck, van drove alone in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA 9

Table B08130 Means of Transportation to work by place of work. American Census Survey for 5-year estimate. Source: https://factfinder.census.gov

Figure 16:Graphical representation of means of transportation- car, truck, van, drove alone for TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA

Table 8: Calculations for means of transportation- public transport in TODs, SRD and AustinRound Rock MSA 10

Table B08130. Means of Transportation to work by place of work. American Census Survey for 5-year estimate. Source: https://factfinder.census.gov 10

Figure 17: Graphical representation of means of transportation- public transport for TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA

Table 9; Calculations for means of transportation- carpooled in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA 11

Table B08130 Means of Transportation to work by place of work. American Census Survey for 5-year estimate. Source: https://factfinder.census.gov 11

Figure 18: Graphical representation of means of transportation- carpooled for TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA

Table 10: Calculations of means of transportation- walked in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA 12

Table B08130 Means of Transportation to work by place of work. American Census Survey for 5-year estimate. Source: https://factfinder.census.gov 12

Figure 19: Graphic representation for means of travel time- walked in TODs, SRDs and AustinRound Rock MSA

4.2 Larger policy goal 2- Promote a mix of housing stock for a range of incomes The identified metrics for this policy goal is as follows (per Table 2): 1. Median household income in past 12 months (inflation-adjusted dollars) 2. Median gross rents 3. No. of affordable units The affordable housing inventory is available publicly on the Austin open data portal. In this case, only the affordable housing units built or issued permits are considered. Fees paid in lieu for affordable housing are not considered. 4. Residential vacancy rate This data gives an insight in the occupancy of built units, for both rented and owned units. It is acquired from ACS data.

Table 11: Calculating mean incomes (households) in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA 13

Table B19013 Median household income in the past 12-months (inflation-adjusted dollars) American Census survey data for 5-year estimates. Source: https://factfinder.census.gov 13

Figure 20: Graphic representation of median incomes(households) in TODs, SRD and AustinRound Rock MSA

Table 12: Median gross rents for TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA 14

Table B25064 Median gross rents. American Census Survey data for 5-year estimates Source: https://factfinder.census.gov 14

Figure 21: Graphic representation of median gross rents in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA

Figure 22: Affordable housing within TOD and SRD boundaries 15 Affordable housing inventory- Austin open data portal. Source: https://data.austintexas.gov/Housing-and-RealEstate/Affordable-Housing-Inventory-AHI-/x5p7-qyuv 15

Table 13: Calculations for vacancy rates for TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA 16

Table B25002- Occupancy status. American Census Survey for 5-year estimates. Source: https://factfinder.census.gov 16

Figure 23: Graphic representation of vacancy rates in TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA

5. Results and findings This section focusses on the overarching observations from proposed performance evaluation and metrics for the TODs and SRD in Austin. It further discusses the potential indications of these observed trends.

5.1.

Larger policy goal 1: Reduce auto-dependency and improve connectivity by providing mobility options for multiple modes of transport While all TODs have a very high share (compared to the Austin MSA) for public transit as

means of transportation, they demonstrate a gradually decreasing trend over the years. It is particularly low in North Burnet gateway (SRD). The North Burnet gateway (SRD) has only 31% of sidewalk lanes and 19% of bicycle lanes. This is comparatively low in contrast with Plaza Saltillo which has 66% of sidewalks and 29% of bicycle lanes. It also important to note that Plaza Saltillo is in close proximity of downtown. Plaza Saltillo (TOD) indicates rapidly increasing levels of walking as means of transportation. Results also shows a gradual positive trend for MLK (TOD) and the Austin-Round Rock MSA. There seems to be a roughly plateaued trend of use of car, van, truck (drove alone) in all TODs, SRD and Austin-Round Rock MSA. However, North Burnet gateway measure higher than the MSAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s average.

Another interesting observation is that all, the TODs, SRD and MSA show falling trends of public transportation usage. Carpooling as a means of transportation also shows gradually falling trends in all districts and MSA studies.

5.2.

Larger policy goal 2: Promote a mix of housing stock for a range of incomes All TODs and SRD have lower median incomes for households as compared to the Austin-

Round Rock MSA. It is particularly low in Plaza Saltillo (TOD) and MLK (TOD), which can be attributed to presence of higher percent of affordable housing as we have seen above. This is indicative of the existence of existence of a range of incomes. While all TODs and SRDs are demonstrating increasing median gross rents over the years, MLK (TOD) exhibits comparatively lower gross rents. Plaza Saltillo (TOD) and MLK (TOD) have comparatively high number of affordable housing units, 17% and 19% of the total units being affordable. Their locations are in close proximity to Austin downtown (5 minutes). North Burnet gateway (SRD) has the lowest percent affordable units, 6%. Another glaring observation is the drastically increased vacancy rate in North Burnet gateway (SRD) over the period of its regulation. Overall, the MLK (TOD) shows some positive outcomes, with falling vacancies. This may be an indication that the supply meeting demand in the district. The general trend in the Austin-Round Rock MSA also shows a falling vacancy rates over the period of years. This trend is reasonable as Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population is increasing drastically, along with the demand for housing units. 63

5.3

Overall reflections The success of a transit-oriented development plan lies in the interdependence of various

elements like reduced auto-dependency, compact developments, pedestrian-friendly urban realm, and income and use mix. For example, if the inherent public transit ridership within a district is low, some aspects of the TOD may not perform as desired. North Burnet gateway (SRD) shows inadequate outcomes on policy 1. This may warrant a need to strengthen its policies for reducing auto-dependency and improve connectivity for multiple modes of transportation. There is scope to make efforts in improving the public infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists in that district. Plaza Saltillo (TOD) on the other hand performs well on these outcomes over the years, indicating that efforts are producing desired results. Urban design guidelines like great streets program can be incentivized along with developments in these districts to ensure desired results on policy 1 (Great Streets Program | Planning and Zoning | AustinTexas.Gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin, n.d.). This may encourage improvements in urban infrastructure to reduce auto-dependency in those districts. All three TODs perform well on the housing mix and affordability metric. The IH-35 passes through the North burnet Gateway SRD, which may be a discouraging factor for housing desirability, owing to noise and pollution. One of the elements of TODs is to improve affordability and have a housing mix for a range of incomes. It may sometimes prove to be counterproductive as development and investments in the area around transit may cause gentrification. Instead of studying the stand-alone performances of TODs and SRDs, it may also be a good practice to compare these districts to similar situated zones- like downtown or other high intensity use zone. When developments are regulated, there is a certainty in the market. This predictability 64

allows stakeholders to make informed decisions with their properties. The process to develop the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new land development code, CodeNext was initiated in 2012. This controversial process continued until mid-2017, and currently the residents await City Managerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s direction for the course of action for a new process. This direction for Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new land development code will greatly affect the trends among developers.

6. Appendices

a. Appendix A: City of Austin Website on principles for its transitoriented developments The following principles provide an understanding of the essential elements and characteristics of transit Oriented Development (TOD). They serve as the foundation for the Station Area Planning process and implementation: •

Create compact development with sufficient density to support transit ridership located within easy walking distance of transit stops.

•

Promote development strategies that focus on accommodating people on foot without excluding people traveling by vehicle.

•

Encourage active and livable places that serve our daily needs and provide people with a sense of belonging and ownership within their community.

•

Include engaging, high quality public spaces, such as small parks or plazas, as organizing features and gathering places for the neighborhood.

•

Encourage a variety of housing choices near transit facilities to accommodate a wide range of ages and incomes.

•

Incorporate retail into development, if viable at a particular location, ideally drawing customers from within the TOD and from major streets.

•

Ensure compatibility and connectivity with surrounding neighborhoods.

•

Introduce creative parking strategies to allow the accommodation of vehicles without dividing a site such that parking is the dominating design factor. 66

â&#x20AC;˘

Strive to make TODs realistic yet economically viable and valuable from a diversity of perspectives (city, transit agency, developer, resident, employer).

â&#x20AC;˘

Recognize that all TODs are not the same; each development is located within its own unique context and serves a specific purpose in the larger context.

b. Appendix B: Imagine Austin (2012) eight priority programs •

Healthy Austin A Healthy Austin Program will reduce chronic and diet-related diseases and risk factors by coordinating access to community and health services, local and healthy food, physical activity, and tobacco-free living. This priority program seeks to create places where people can easily walk, bike, play, and find nearby healthy food options and healthcare.

•

Creative economy Growing and investing in Austin’s creative culture is a cornerstone of the city’s identity, as well as of its economy. The focus is to encourage and support Austin’s live music, festivals, theater, film, digital media, and new creative art forms. In order to support the creative industry, this priority program will include educational and economic programs as well as programs that provide affordable transportation, work space, housing, and healthcare.

•

Compact and connected Addressing transportation concerns requires the City of Austin and its partners to look for solutions beyond how we travel and begin dealing with underlying conditions that make it difficult for Austinites to move around the city. To do so, we need to coordinate the physical form of Austin — how it’s organized and how it is built with our transportation. When viewed as a coordinated planning framework, the Growth Concept Map, complete communities concept, Capital Improvement Program, small area and transportation master plans, and incentives for business attraction, retention, and expansion can work together to achieve the goal of a compact, connected Austin that is less car-dependent and more walking, bicycling, and transit- friendly. 68

•

CodeNext (then proposed Land development code for Austin) CodeNEXT is the new City of Austin initiative to revise the Land Development Code, which determines how land can be used throughout the city – including what can be built, where it can be built, and how much can (and cannot) be built. The City’s Land Development Code needs to be changed to help us create the kinds of places we want, and to address critical issues such as diminishing natural resources, household affordability, and access to healthy lifestyles – to name a few.

•

Water Central goals of this priority program are to conserve water resources and improve watershed health, which will require extensive involvement in regional efforts and close coordination across all aspects of Austin’s water resources. Bringing together existing efforts allows us to move forward with integrated strategies that address the range of water resources issues such as supply, quality, conservation, public health, and recreation.

•

Environment A primary goal of this priority program is to manage Austin’s urban and natural ecosystems in a coordinated and sustainable manner in part by increasing protection of environmentally sensitive land, improving tree cover in every neighborhood, improving health of the watershed, increasing access to parks, and linking these resources throughout the city. This program seeks to improve environmental, recreational, and transportation functions and improve the connection between people and the environment.

•

Affordability Rising housing and related costs are major issues facing Austinites. A comprehensive approach is needed to define and provide household affordability for Austinites. In order 69

to maintain and increase household affordability, this priority program will take into consideration not only household costs such as mortgage, rent, and utilities but also transportation and access to daily and weekly needs as essential and inter-related components of household affordability. â&#x20AC;˘

Workforce This priority program seeks to ensure Austinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s continued economic health by developing a widely skilled workforce, recruiting new businesses, retaining and growing existing businesses, and tapping into our entrepreneurial spirit. In particular, this priority program seeks to increase job opportunities for Austin residents and increase small businesses and entrepreneurship.

c. Appendix C: Aspects addressed in Regulating Plan. E.g. Table of Contents of Plaza Saltillo 1.1. General Intent 1.2. Applicability 1.2.1. General Applicability 1.2.2. Land Use, Density, General Development Standards, Development Bonuses, and Parkland Dedication 1.2.3. TOD Design Standards 1.2.4. Exemption from Subchapter E of the Land Development Code 1.2.5. Conflicting Provisions 1.2.6. Accessibility 1.2.7. State and Federal Facilities 1.3. Review Process 1.3.1. Standards Applicable During Subdivision Plan Review 1.3.2. Standards Applicable During Site Plan Review 1.3.3. Standards Applicable During Building Permit Review

1.4. Alternative Equivalent Compliance 1.4.1. Purpose and Scope 1.4.2. Applicability 1.4.3. Procedure 1.4.4. Criteria 1.4.5. Effect of Approval 71

1.5. Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Structures 1.6. Text and Graphics Within this Document ARTICLE 2: LAND USE AND BUILDING DENSIT 2.1. Applicability 2.2. Intent 2.3. Transit-Oriented Development Subdistricts 2.3.1. TOD Subdistricts General 2.3.2. Plaza Saltillo Station Area Plan Land Use and Design Concept Plan Map 2.3.3. TOD Low Density Residential Subdistrict 2.3.4. TOD Live / Work Flex Subdistrict 2.3.5. TOD Mixed-Use Subdistrict 2.3.6. TOD Corridor Mixed-Use Subdistrict 2.3.7. TOD Urban Mixed Use 2.3.8. Drive-through Facility 2.3.9. Land Use Summary Table ARTICLE 3: CIRCULATION, CONNECTIVITY AND STREETSCAPE 3.1. Intent 3.2. Overview of Roadway Types 3.2.1. Applicability 3.3. Sidewalk Standards 3.3.1. Applicability 3.3.2. TOD Core Transit Corridors 3.3.3. TOD Pedestrian Priority Streets

3.3.4. TOD Local Streets 3.3.5. Sidewalk Exemption for Edge Streets 3.4. On-Street Parking 3.4.1. Applicability 3.4.2. Purpose 3.4.3. On-Street Parallel Parking 3.4.4. General On-Street Parking Restrictions 3.5. Connectivity and Circulation 3.5.1. Applicability 3.5.2. Project Circulation Plan 3.5.3. Block Standards 3.5.4. Curb Cut Spacing Standards 3.5.5. Curb-Cut Dimensional Standards 3.5.6. Alleys 3.5.7. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicular Circulation ARTICLE 4: SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4.1. Intent 4.2. General Development Standards 4.2.1. Applicability 4.2.2. Lot Size 4.2.3. Lot Width 4.2.4. Impervious Surface Coverage 4.2.5. Building Coverage

4.2.6. Setbacks 4.2.7. Site Area Requirements 4.2.8. Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR) 4.2.9. Building Height 4.2.10. Compatibility Standards 4.2.11. Historic Zoning 4.2.12. Historic Properties along E. 6th Street 4.3. Development Bonuses 4.3.1. Affordability Definition 4.3.2. Density Bonus 4.3.3. Density and Height Bonus 4.3.4. Super Density Bonus 4.4. Relationship of Buildings to Streets and Walkways 4.4.1. Purpose 4.4.2. Building Placement Factors 4.4.3. Building Placement 4.4.4. Supplemental Zones 4.5. Off-Street Parking 4.5.1. Applicability 4.5.2. Parking Requirements 4.5.3. Shared Parking 4.5.4. Reduction of Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements 4.5.5. Parking Design Standards

4.5.6. Bicycle Parking Requirements 4.6. Exterior Lighting 4.6.1. Applicability 4.6.2. Standards 4.7. Screening of Equipment and Utilities 4.7.1. Applicability 4.7.2. Standards 4.8. Sign Regulations 4.8.1. Applicability 4.8.2. Sign Regulation 4.9. Green Infrastructure 4.9.1. Applicability 4.9.2. Green Infrastructure Standards 4.10. Private Common Open Space and Pedestrian Amenities 4.10.1. Applicability 4.10.2. Purpose 4.10.3. Standards 4.10.4. Exception from the Requirements of this Section 4.11. Public Parks and Trails 4.11.1. Applicability 4.11.2. Purpose 4.11.3. Recommended Location of Parks and Trails 4.11.4. On-site Parkland Dedication Requirement

4.11.5. On-site Parkland Dedication Allowance 4.11.6. Fee in Lieu ARTICLE 5: BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS 5.1. Intent 5.2. General Applicability 5.3. Building Entrances 5.3.1. Building Entrance Standards for Pedestrians 5.3.2. Building Entrance and Exit Standards for Vehicles 5.4. Window Glazing 5.4.1. Applicability 5.4.2. Purpose 5.4.3. Standards 5.5. Shade and Shelter 5.5.1. Applicability 5.5.2. Purpose 5.5.3. Standards 5.6. Building Faรงade Articulation 5.6.1. Applicability 5.6.2. Standards 5.7. Active Edges 5.7.1. Applicability 5.7.2. Ground Floor Spaces

7. References “| Code of Ordinances | Austin, TX | Municode Library.” n.d. Accessed April 22, 2019. https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/code_of_ordinances. Ammons, David N. 2001. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards. 2nd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif. ; London. Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. 1997. “Travel Demand and the 3Ds: Density, Diversity, and Design.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199–219. City of Austin. 2012. “Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan.” City of Austin. http://www.austintexas.gov/department/imagine-austin. ———. 2017. “Strategic Direction 2023.” http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=289884. CNT. 2009a. “Housing + Transportation Affordability Index.” Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2009. https://www.cnt.org/tools/housing-and-transportation-affordabilityindex. ———. 2009b. “Housing + Transportation Affordability Index.” Center for Neighborhood Technology. January 1, 2009. https://www.cnt.org/tools/housing-and-transportationaffordability-index. “Compact and Connected.” n.d. Accessed April 22, 2019. https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/Compact-and-Connected/jqwk-xf8g/. CTOD. 2010. “Performance-Based Transit-Oriented Development Typology Guidebook.” Center for Neighborhood Technology. December 16, 2010.

https://www.cnt.org/publications/performance-based-transit-oriented-developmenttypology-guidebook. Dittmar H. & Gloria O. 2004. The New Transit Town: Best Practices In Transit-Oriented Development. Washington, DC: Island Press. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37717216_The_New_Transit_Town_Best_Prac tices_In_Transit-Oriented_Development. “Great Streets Program | Planning and Zoning | AustinTexas.Gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin.” n.d. Accessed May 6, 2019. http://www.austintexas.gov/department/great-streets-program. “Home | AustinTexas.Gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin.” n.d. Accessed April 25, 2019. http://www.austintexas.gov/. “HUD.Gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).” n.d. Accessed May 6, 2019. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing/. “Imagine Austin Indicators | Open Data | City of Austin Texas.” n.d. Accessed October 17, 2018. https://data.austintexas.gov/City-Government/Imagine-Austin-Indicators/apwj-7zty. ITDP. 2017. “TOD Standard.” https://3gozaa3xxbpb499ejp30lxc8-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/TOD_printable.pdf. “Performance ATX.” n.d. Accessed April 1, 2019. https://cityofaustin.github.io/PerformanceATX/. “Performance-Based Transit-Oriented Development Typology Guidebook.” 2010. Center for Neighborhood Technology. December 16, 2010. https://www.cnt.org/publications/performance-based-transit-oriented-developmenttypology-guidebook.

“Planning and Zoning.” n.d. Accessed April 1, 2019. https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/Planning-and-Zoning/se7h-anvc/. Poister T. and Streib G. 2005. Elements of Strategic Planning and Management in Municipal Government: Status after Two Decades. Vol. 59, No. 4 (Jul.-Aug., 1999). Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public Administration. “Portland Metro’s TOD Strategic Plan | CTOD Portal.” n.d. Accessed May 6, 2019. http://ctod.org/portal/Portland-Metros-TOD-Strategic-Plan. Runjie Huang, Anna Grigolon, Mafalda Madureira, Mark Brussel. 2018. “Measuring TransitOriented Development (TOD) Network Complementarity Based on TOD Node Typology.” Journal of Transportation and Land Use (JTLU) Vol 11, No 1. https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/1110. “Specific Area Regulations | Development Services | AustinTexas.Gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin.” n.d. Accessed April 21, 2019. http://www.austintexas.gov/department/specific-area-regulations. “Transit Oriented Development - Metro Transit.” n.d. Accessed May 6, 2019. https://www.metrotransit.org/tod. “Transit-Oriented Development.” 2015. Text. Federal Transit Administration. December 14, 2015. https://www.transit.dot.gov/TOD. “Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) | Bart.Gov.” n.d. Accessed April 21, 2019. https://www.bart.gov/about/business/tod.