Portland, oregon transit oriented development

Portland, Oregon Transit Oriented Development

Christopher Gandy Swarnali Dihingia Zhuhuan Liu

Contents 1.Introduction of Portland 2.TOD Theory 3.Implementation 4.Actors and Shareholders 5.Results / Performance 6.Constraints, Challenges, and Criticism

Introduction: Basic Data Area: 376 km² Population: ● ●

~650,000 (city) ~ 2,400,000 (metro)

Density: 1,690 /km² (Tokyo: 2,662/km2, Beijing 1,300/km2)

Introduction: Location

Source: Geographical map of Oregon, ezilon maps

Introduction: City Scape

Source: Google Maps and Portland Neighborhood Association Map

TOD : AS A CONCEPT Any development that is centred around a transit node and facilitates complete ease of access to the transit facility to the maximum number of people, thereby inducing people to walk, cycle and use public transport as a priority over personalized modes of transport

TOD Design Principles Source:

TOD : AS A CONCEPT

COMMUNITY BENEFITS

CITY BENEFITS

PERSONAL BENEFITS

Increased walking and transit trips

Compact/mixed-use development creates more jobs and taxes.

Increase mobility choices

Increased mobility choices for all

Increases housing supply, including affordable housing

Increases disposable household income

Increased property values

Increases public safety

Transit proximity reduced trip counts

provides

Increases health benefits

TOD : PORTLAND (Background) ● ● ●

City suffered from urban disinvestment in the 70’s.

Decided to invest in transportation - vibrant, liveable communities.

Inspired by urbanist Lewis Mumford to make “cities for people not cars” ● 1973-Oregon Land Use Laws ●

1976-Mt. Hood Freeway-canceled highway project and built first light rail line

●

1979-Metro Council elected-Directly elected regional government

●

1995-2040 Framework Plan- “Growing up, not out”.-MAX Light Rail Transit, Frequent Service bus corridors

●

2010- Metro undertook a Strategic Plan -strategically target program investments

Urban Growth Boundary

To create PPP that produce TOD projects and vibrant, compact urban centers in order to increase travel by transit, walking and biking.

PORTLAND : How it works Purpose: ● “Provide incentives, primarily in the form of modest funding grants, to private developers to build higher-density, mixed-use projects located near transit.” ● “Contributing to local identity through multi-year investments in catalyst projects and place-making elements” ● “Creating market comparables for higher-density mixed-use development near transit and in centers” ● “Cultivating developers with expertise in higher-density and mixed-use development in suburban settings” ● “Building community acceptance of urban style building types in suburban communities”

PORTLAND : How it works Problem faced: TOD Program investments in an area with limited or no existing market activity were unlikely to catalyze private development Developed a TOD typology TOD Typology: Market Strength: evaluating 10-year trends in residential and commercial real estate values (average sales values

Transit orientation and urban form readiness

Transit Orientation Scores

per square foot)

Limited

Emerging

Stronger

Transit Oriented : Areas that are most likely to support a transit lifestyle.

Transit Related : Areas that possess some, but not all, of the components of TOD. Transit Adjacent : Non-transit areas or areas proximate to quality transit without possessing the urban character that would best support it.

PORTLAND : How it works TOD Station Area Typology :

PLAN & PARTNER These areas lack many of the key market and physical features needed.

Currently the lowest priority areas for direct investments in new developments.

Investment Approach: â—? â—?

Participate in station area and corridor planning Work with local governments to encourage

Corridor Segment: Middle Barbur

PORTLAND : How it works CATALYZE & CONNECT ●

Areas demonstrating either a strong transit orientation but limited market support or transit related urban form and emerging market support.

Investment Approach: ●

Work with local and regional jurisdictions to develop infrastructure that enhances the pedestrian .

INFILL & ENHANCE The most “TOD ready” in the region outside of downtown.

Strong urban character including medium to higher densities A mix of activities, quality urban form and transportation options Combined with moderate to stronger market strength.

● ● ● ●

Investment Approach: ● ●

Promote more intensive infill development Enhancement of local services and amenities.

Hollywood Transit Center

PORTLAND : Towards TOD

Source: Transit Oriented Development Final Report 2009,Ghost Highway, Mount Hood Freeway, Landscape and Urbanism.

PORTLAND : Towards TOD 50 miles Light Rail (7.3 miles planned) and 14.7 miles of commuter rail

Four miles Streetcar (Eight miles planned)

93 Bus lines, (16 frequent Bus service)

Source: Transit Oriented Development Final Report 2009,Ghost Highway, Mount Hood Freeway, Landscape and Urbanism.

PORTLAND: Towards TOD Eastside Lofts

● ● ● ● ● ●

First new residential development constructed Four and five stories 70 market rate units 7,000 square feet of retail 10 tuck-under parking spaces 13 surface parking spaces

North Main Village

Total Results ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Six separate structures Two to four stories 64 affordable apartments 33 townhomes, flats and live-work units 8,000 square feet of retail 33 tuck-under parking spaces 61 surface parking spaces

Source: Transit Oriented Development February 2004 Report

● ● ● ● ●

23 projects (built or under construction) 2,500 Housing Units (80% affordable and workforce) 500,000+ annual induced transit trips $350 m in private investment Over 100 tons of reduced GHG’s

PORTLAND: Actors and Shareholders 1.

Government a.

2.

Plays a role in providing structure and Direct Federal Grants. i.

Portland Government’s General Fund (1st: enterprise activities; 2nd: property tax)) 1.

Allocated to Metro Transit Improvement Program (MTIP funds; this averages $3million a year)).

Citizens a. b.

3.

4.

Actively support and vote to implement projects Communities work alongside government in planning process.

Investors (provide voluntary funds) Developers (provide voluntary funds/partnerships)

5.

NPOs a.

Work to support various social causes (E.G Center for Transit Oriented Development CTOD) i.

Integrates local and regional planning ii.

Builds strategies around successful areas to further maximize development potential (TOD Metro Strategic Plan) iii.

The only national non profit working with private and public sectors supporting best practice models, research and tools that support market based ToD)

Total funding from 1998-2016 = ~$43 million dollars.

PORTLAND: Actors and Shareholders Current Expenditures ●

●

●

ToD Capital Improvement Funds (real estate stimulation/market construction) ○ Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) funds=primary source (via federal grants and general metro fund). This includes Urban Formula Grants, Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement Program funds.

■ Approximately $2.9 million in MTIP funds are allotted to the Program annually.

■ 51% of total expenditures.

Green Improvements ○ Green Building Program ■ Current project scale of $280,000 ■ Funded via Business Energy Tax allocation Green Innovation Fund ○ $200,000 Scale ○ Funded via Portland Metro general funds

●

●

●

● ● ● ●

Land Acquisition ○ $8.5 million scope over TOD program life.

■ Federal funds, but recently MTIP Funds ■ 29% of total expenditures.

Program Operations (grant research, education, outreach, etc) ○ $600,000 per year in fiscal year 2009/10.

■ Uses MTIP funds ○ Five employees working on this full time.

Urban Living Infrastructure ○ Fixed tenant improvement projects that help improve commercial activity (E.G HVAC systems to help improve restaurant functions) ○ $165,000 a year (2009/10) ○ Acquired via interest on other programs Implementation activities (towards market activation) Educational/promotional funds (under program operations) Interest Earned via Metro Funds Property Transaction Taxes

Results and Performance Two phases: 1. Building the institutional capacity to plan for TOD (already well established)； People might ask: “Have these tools and market met the region’s expectations?”

“The Portland story is actually a community-building story more than it is a TOD story.”

--The National Academies TOD is still being introduced as a special concept in most other parts of the United States, while in Portland it has almost become a way of life.

In general, TOD is enjoying healthy demand in Portland.

Results and Performance Program accomplishments (by 2016):* 1. Trips: 800,000 more travel trips are made by transits each year.

2. Residential units:The program has supported around 3,300 housing units’ construction.

3. Commercial space: Mixed-use TOD projects completed to date include 165,619 square feet of retail and 234,150 square feet of office and other commercial space.

4. Acres protected: Only 54 acres of land required while 580 acres would be needed without transit.

Source: Oregonmetro Annual Report, 2016, www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/TOD-2016-Annual-Report-02072016.pdf

Results and Performance Two phases: 2.

Grooming sophisticated developers, lenders and contractors to build TOD.

Initial developers may suffered setbacks, but current and future developers are benefiting from the experience.

Portland is becoming an more attractive place with implementation of TOD. “Residential prices are running 20% to 30% over the average level of local area. Commercial occupancies have been high, and rents are estimated to be roughly 10% higher than the surroundings. “

But some darker sides exist‌..

Constraints, Challenges, and Criticism Bi-annual operating budget of approximately five million dollars ● This is considered too small for the region and scope of TOD. Funding leveraging needs to keep pace with changing landscape ● Has not kept pace with expansion of urban network. ○ TOD eligible area has increased seven times since initiation in 1998.

Investment in infrastructure/public amenities around stations is not currently a part of TOD. No existing grant system. ● Suggestions are currently being discussed in regards to leveraging funds towards making comprehensive station plans. However, currently too expensive for current scope of TOD budget.

The TOD market readiness of station communities varies significantly across the region. ● Many suburban stations have limited near term market rate development potential, but have substantial land opportunity. ○ City fabric hinders this; outside of TOD scope.

Expensive development and cost of living near metro stations making it unaffordable for common people to utilize. ● Leads to living further away for many residents. ○ Greenhouse emissions remain a problem in the region.

Other programs, agencies, and policies are needed to complement the TOD program in promoting transit-oriented development, ● The TOD Program cannot “go it alone,” especially in weak market areas.

Constraints, Challenges, and Criticism Transit Orientation (Subjective. Based on strategy by CTOD, adopted by TOD) ● Word Choice / Definition for General Public to Understand ● Transit Orientation is possibly hard to understand by itself. Suggest something more specific such as: Connected/Public Transit Development Potential. ● Flaws in the Five P’s (People, Places, Physical Form, Performance, and Pedestrian/Bicycle networks) ○ Place (grocery stores, restaurants, retail in general) and Physical Form (block size), do not consider space that has no cost for use (parks, community centers) /in addition to an analysis of public space based on activity and quality of design..

■ Lacking an analysis of holistic public space can lead to an incomplete assessment of where areas can be targeted for transit oriented. ○ People category lacks type of people and income level. Transit orientation should consider lower income areas / elderly concentration where people may tend to use the system more.

■ Since 2016, has considered lower income in its criteria; but specific information in regards to how is not specified.

Overall it appears TOD is focused on development for the market, rather than development in order to connect people and space. Invests directly in real estate development as opposed to public infrastructure improvement. ● If plans support the market in terms of development or business, they seem to be considered for TOD ○ Unseen fabrics such as community engagement and neighborhood vitality (participation, civic activity, etc) are not considered criteria.

■ However, TOD plays a ‘supporting role’ in partnering with local gov/communities.

■ Understandable, but needs to begin a shift.

Sources ●

●

● ●

Portland Metro, Transit Oriented Development Final Report, produced by Center for Transit Oriented Development http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/tod_final_report.pdf 2014 & 2016, Transit-Oriented Development Program, Annual Reports July 2013 – June 2014, July2015-June2016 http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/TOD-program-AnnualReport-20 14.pdf Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Plan / Metro TOD Program Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23360/transit-oriented-development-in-the-unite d-states-experiences-challenges-and-prospects

Photos from 2002

THANK YOU