Transit Oriented Development

Using Public Transit to Create More Accessible and Livable Neighborhoods

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 6 September 2019

This chapter describes Transit Oriented Development (TOD), which refers to residential and commercial districts located around a transit station or corridor with high quality service, with good walkability, parking management and other design features that facilitate transit use and maximize overall accessibility.

 

 

Description

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) refers to residential and Commercial Centers designed to maximize access by Transit and Nonmotorized transportation, and with other features to Encourage Transit Ridership. A typical TOD has a rail or bus station at its center, surrounded by relatively high-density development, with progressively lower-density spreading outwards one-quarter to one-half mile, which represents pedestrian scale distances. It includes these design features (Renne 2009):

 

·         The neighborhood is designed for Cycling and Walking, with adequate facilities and attractive street conditions.

 

·         Streets have good Connectivity and Traffic Calming features to control vehicle traffic speeds.

 

·         Mixed-use development that includes shops, schools and other public services, and a variety of housing types and prices, within each neighborhood.

 

·         Parking Management to reduce the amount of land devoted to parking compared with conventional development, and to take advantage of the parking cost savings associated with reduced automobile use (NJDOT, 2007).

 

·         Transit Stops and Stations that are convenient, comfortable and Secure, with features such as comfortable waiting areas, venders selling refreshments and periodicals, washrooms, Wayfinding and Multi-Modal Navigation Tools.

 

 

Transit Oriented Development is a particular category of Smart Growth, New Urbanism and Location Efficient Development. It can do more than simply shift some car trips to transit: it also increases Accessibility and Transportation Options through land use Clustering and mix, and nonmotorized transportation improvements. This reduces the distance required for car trips, allows a greater portion of trips to be made by walking and cycling, and allows some households to reduce their car ownership, which together can result in large reductions in vehicle travel (Land Use Impacts on Transport). This reduces total transportation costs and helps create a more Livable community, in addition to supporting TDM objectives.

 

High-quality transit supports the development of higher-density urban centers, which can provide accessibility and agglomeration benefits (efficiencies that result when many activities are physically close together), while automobile-oriented transportation conflicts with urban density because it is space intensive, requiring large amounts of land for roads and parking facilities. Large scale Park & Ride facilities tend to conflict with Transit Oriented Development, since a rail station surrounded by large parking lots and arterials with heavy traffic is unlikely to provide a good environment for residential development or pedestrian access. It is therefore important that such facilities be properly located, designed and managed to minimize such conflicts.

 

Renne (2009) defines specific factors required for true Transit-Oriented Development, so residents own fewer cars, drive less, rely more on alternative modes (walking, cycling, public transit, carsharing and taxi), and have a high level of local accessibility, as opposed to Transit Adjacent Development, which is conventional, automobile-oriented development located near transit stations. Pollack, Gartsman and Wood (2013) developed the eTOD station area rating system which evaluates specific rail stations based on the quality of transit service, rider orientation (the types of transit riders they tend to serve) and the connectivity of local development to the station. Hale (2011) discusses various factors that affect transit station access mode share.

 

Table 1            Transit Oriented Versus Adjacent (Renne 2009)

Transit Oriented Development	Transit Adjacent Development
·         Grid street pattern ·         Higher densities   ·         Limited surface parking and efficient parking management ·         Pedestrian- and bicycle–oriented design ·         Mixed housing types, including multi-family ·         Horizontal (side-by-side) and vertical (within the same building) mixed use ·         Office and retail, particularly on main streets.	·         Suburban street pattern ·         Lower densities ·         Dominance of surface parking ·         Limited pedestrian and cycling access ·         Mainly single-family homes ·         Segregated land uses ·         Gas stations, car dealerships, drive-through stores and other automobile-focused land uses.

 

 

Transit Oriented Development generally requires at least 6 residential units per acre in residential areas and 25 employees per acre in Commercial Centers, and about twice that for premium quality transit, such as rail service (Pushkarev and Zupan 1977; Cervero, et al. 2004; Portland 2009; Reconnecting America and the CTOD 2008). These Densities create adequate transit ridership to justify frequent service, and help create active street life and commercial activities, such as grocery stores and coffee shops, within convenient walking distance of homes and worksites. However, other factors are also important beside simple density. Transit ridership is also affected by factors such as employment density and Clustering, demographic mix (students, seniors and lower-income people tend to be heavy transit users), transit pricing and rider subsidies, Parking Pricing and Road Tolls, the quality of transit service, the effectiveness of transit Marketing, walkability, and street design. A particular density may be inadequate to support transit service by itself, but becomes adequate if implemented with a variety of Transit Encouragement and Smart Growth strategies. The assumption that transit cannot be effective except in large cities with high population densities can be a self-fulfilling prophecy, because it results in transport and land use decisions that favor automobile travel over transit.

 

Table 2            Transit Density Requirements (based on Pushkarev and Zupan 1977)

Mode	Service Type	Minimum Density (Dwelling Units Per Acre)	Area and Location
Dial-a-Bus	Demand response serving general public (not just people with disabilities).	3.5 to 6	Community-wide
“Minimum” Local Bus	1/2-mile route spacing, 20 buses per day	4	Neighborhood
“Intermediate” Local Bus	1/2-mile route spacing, 40 buses per day	7	Neighborhood
“Frequent” Local Bus	1/2-mile route spacing, 120 buses per day	15	Neighborhood
Express Bus – Foot access	Five buses during two-hour peak period	15	Average density over 20-square-mile area within 10 to 15 miles of a large downtown
Express Bus – Auto access	Five to ten buses during two-hour peak period	15	Average density over 20-square-mile tributary area, within 10 to 15 miles of a large downtown
Light Rail	Five minute headways or better during peak hour.	9	Within walking distance of transit line, serving large downtown.
Rapid Transit	Five minute headways or better during peak hour.	12	Within walking distance of transit stations serving large downtown.
Commuter Rail	Twenty trains a day.	1 to 2	Serving very large downtown.

This table, based on research by Pushkarev and Zupan (1977), indicates typical residential densities needed for various types of transit service. Such requirements are variable depending on other geographic, demographic and management factors.

 

 

Transit passengers tend to walk significantly farther (nearly twice as far on average) to access rail stations than bus stops. This reflects differences in the types of services provided by these modes: rail tends to be faster, has more attractive stations (often including amenities including shops, ticket vendors and washrooms, serves longer trips (rail trips average about twice the distance), and are more dispersed, forcing passengers to walk farther to access train stations (Daniels and Mulley 2011)

 

Table 2 summarizes residential densities required for various types of transit services. These thresholds are guidelines that reflect “average” conditions and vary depending on:

• Service quality. Improved Transit Service Quality (more comfortable vehicles and waiting areas, more frequent service, better user information, HOV Priority) increases ridership and reduces density requirements.
• Transit service pricing. Lower fares and wider distribution of passes (for example, by neighborhood UPass programs, through which all residents pay for a transit pass through their property taxes) increases ridership and reduces density requirements.
• Demographics. Lower-income, students, seniors and disabled populations ride transit more than average and so reduces density requirements.
• Commuter Financial Incentives. Expanding Commute Trip Reduction Programs will increase transit ridership and reduce density requirements.
• Employment Density. Larger and more Centralized Commercial Areas will increase transit ridership and reduce density requirements.
• Walkability. More Walkable neighborhoods and commercial centers increase the area conveniently accessible to transit and therefore reduce density requirements.
• Marketing. Targeted Marketing can increase transit ridership and reduce density requirements.

 

 

For example, Light Rail service may normally require a density of 9 units per acre within 1/4-mile of the rail line, but this may be reduced to 5 units per acre if the area is very walkable, a major portion of employed residents have Commute Trip Reduction Programs at their worksites that include financial incentives (such as priced parking or significantly subsidized transit passes), transit service quality is high, and if the transit agency applies affective marketing programs.

 

How Far Will Transit Users Walk? How Large Can A Transit-Oriented Development Be? There are often questions as to how far people will walk to a transit stop or station, and therefore the acceptable area that can be considered transit oriented. Experts generally conclude that transit riders will walk up to a quarter-mile to a bus stop and a half-mile to a train station, although in practice a portion of transit riders will walk somewhat more. Acceptable walking distances tend to be affected by: ·         Whether travelers are transit dependent or discretionary users (transit dependent users tend to be willing to walk farther. ·         Walking conditions are convenient and comfortable, with good Connectivity that creates direct routes, good sidewalks and crosswalks, minimum waits at crosswalks, safe and secure walking conditions, and attractive streetscapes (such as storefronts and shade trees). ·         There is high quality transit service. People tend to walk farther if transit service is frequent, and vehicles and stations are comfortable and attractive.   For information see:   B. Alshalalfah and A. Shalaby (2007), “Case Study: Relationship Of Walk Access Distance To Transit With Service, Travel, And Personal Characteristics” Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 133, No. 2, June 2007, pp. 114-118. APTA (2009), Defining Transit Areas of Influence, American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/SUDS/SUDSPublished/APTA%20SUDS-UD-009-01_areas_of_infl.pdf. M. Iacono, K. Krizek and A. El-Geneidy (2008), “How Close Is Close Enough? Estimating Accurate Distance Decay Functions For Multiple Modes And Different Purposes,” University of Minnesota (www.cts.umn.edu); at www.cts.umn.edu/access-study/research/6/index.html. Praveen K. Maghelal (2011), “Walking and Transit: Influence of the Built Environment at Varying Distance,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 81, No. 2, February, pp. 38-43.   Nathan McNeil, et al. (2018), Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit, Federal Transit Administration (www.transit.dot.gov); at https://bit.ly/2JeKL1V.   Portland (2009), Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan: A Framework for Future Corridor Planning and Alternatives Analysis, Portland Bureau of Transportation (www.portlandoregon.gov); at www.portlandonline.com/transportation/streetcarsystemplan.   Boris S. Pushkarev and Jeffrey M. Zupan (1977), Public Transportation and Land Use Policy, Indiana University Press (Bloomington).   Marc Schlossberg, Asha Weinstein Agrawal, Katja Irvin and Vanessa Louise Bekkouche (2008), How Far, By Which Route, And Why? A Spatial Analysis Of Pedestrian Preference, Mineta Transportation Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at  http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/06-06/MTI-06-06.pdf C. Upchurch, M. Kuby, M. Zoldak and A. Barranda (2004), “Using GIS To Generate Mutually Exclusive Service Areas Linking Travel On And Off A Network,” Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 12, Issue 1, March, Pages 23-33. F. Zhao, L. Chow, M. Li, I. Ubaka and A. Gan (2003), Forecasting Transit Walk Accessibility: Regression Model Alternative To Buffer Method,” Transportation Research Record 1835, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 34-41.

 

 

APTA (2009) describes factors that affect the transit area of influence, which refers to the area around stops and stations where land use development tends to be more transit-oriented and households tend to own fewer vehicles and rely significantly on public transit. These factors include the type and quality of transit service, area walkability and street design, land use patterns, and other supportive policies.

 

Typical Population Thresholds for Public Facilities (McPherson and Haddow 2011) Local shops/corner store                                                                                    800 – 1,000 dwellings Neighborhood activity centre (small shops, community centre)                1,200 – 4,000 dwellings Larger activity centre (small and large shops, offices)                                 4,000 – 10,000 dwellings Community health centre                                                                                                  8,000 – 12,000 dwellings Primary school                                                                                                     1,200 – 5,000 dwellings Secondary school                                                                                                8,000 – 10,000 dwellings Train station                                                                                                         10,000 – 12,000 dwellings Civic centre                                                                                                           12,000 – 48,000 dwellings

 

 

An ideal Transit-Oriented neighborhood has 5,000 to 15,000 residents located within a half-mile of a bus or rail station in order to generate sufficient transit traffic and create a complete community with services such as grocery stores, schools and medical centers. This area totals about 500 acres of land, or about 400 net acres assuming that about 20% of the land is devoted to infrastructure such as roads, parks and schools. The station is located in the downtown core, which has relatively high-density commercial and residential development, typically at least four stories. Around that is mixed medium-density development consisting of two to four story apartments, townhouses and small-lot single-family homes. Outside of that is a ring of single-family residential on 5,000 to 12,000 square-foot lots, with some apartments and neighborhood commercial buildings where appropriate, such as along busier streets. Of course, there are many possible variations: some TODs have more commercial and less residential, and some have a significant amount of Park-And-Ride activity. Table 3 illustrates the types of densities involved. Note that Transit-Oriented Development does not require that all residents living in high density apartments; in a typical project about half of all residents can living in single-family housing, including some with quarter-acre lots suitable for gardening enthusiasts.

 

Table 3            Typical Transit-Oriented Neighborhood

	Acres	Units/Acre	People Per Unit	Total People
High-density commercial and residential	50	50	1.5	3,750
Mixed medium-density	150	12	2.0	3,600
Lower density residential	200	8	3.0	4,800
Totals	400			12,150

Transit-oriented development can accommodate various building types, including many single-family homes.

 

 

There is evidence of significant latent demand for TOD (Reconnecting America 2004). Renne (2013) estimates that in most U.S. cities only 5-10% of housing and 10-20% of jobs are located in TODs, while demand is many times greater and growing.

 

Transit Oriented Development can stimulate local economic development (Heres, Jack and Salon 2014; Noland, Chatman and Klein 2014; Portland 2009; ). Transit Oriented Development location is a valuable and scarce resource, similar to waterfront property. It tends to increase property values 5-15%, reflecting the direct benefits to residents and businesses of having diverse transportation options, and resulting automobile and parking cost savings (CNT 2013; Smith and Gihring 2003). As a result, such projects can often be funded through “value capture” strategies, in which the costs of improvements are paid through the additional tax revenue or a special Local Improvement District (LID) tax assessment in the affected area (Smith and Gihring 2003). The development industry is finding that TODs tend to be profitable investments (Reconnecting America 2004) Improving transit stations and their neighborhoods can be a catalyst for economic development and urban renewal. Railway station surroundings are the “shop window” of a town, a place where many people see what the community has to offer. It is therefore important that such areas be attractive and inviting to visitors.

 

Is It Really TOD? (Tumlin and Millard-Ball 2003; Inam 2011) What’s the difference between a true transit-oriented development, which will deliver promised social and economic benefits, and a transit-adjacent development? A true TOD will include most of the following: •        The transit-oriented development lies within a five-minute walk of the transit stop, or about a quarter-mile from stop to edge. For major stations offering access to frequent high-speed service this catchment area may be extended to the measure of a 10-minute walk. •        A balanced mix of uses generates 24-hour ridership. There are places to work, to live, to learn, to relax and to shop for daily needs. •        A place-based zoning code generates buildings that shape and define memorable streets, squares, and plazas, while allowing uses to change easily over time. •        The average block perimeter is limited to no more than 1,350 feet. This generates a fine-grained network of streets, dispersing traffic and allowing for the creation of quiet and intimate thoroughfares. •        Minimum parking requirements are abolished. •        Maximum parking requirements are instituted: For every 1,000 workers, no more than 500 spaces and as few as 10 spaces are provided. •        Parking costs are “unbundled,” and full market rates are charged for all parking spaces. The exception may be validated parking for shoppers. •        Major stops provide BikeStations, offering free attended bicycle parking, repairs, and rentals. At minor stops, secure and fully enclosed bicycle parking is provided. •        Transit service is fast, frequent, reliable, and comfortable, with a headway of 15 minutes or less. •        Roadway space is allocated and traffic signals timed primarily for the convenience of walkers and cyclists. •        Automobile level-of-service standards are met through congestion pricing measures, or disregarded entirely. ·         • Traffic is calmed, with roads designed to limit speed to 30 mph on major streets and 20 mph on lesser streets.

 

 

How It Is Implemented

Transit Oriented Development can consist of new urban transit lines and stations, new suburban neighborhoods designed around public transit stations, and incremental changes to existing urban neighborhoods that have public transit. Cervero, et al, 2004 describe Transit Oriented Development planning practices. Nelson/Nygaard (2002) and Dittmar and Ohland (2004) describe specific changes to zoning laws and policies to encourage TOD. Christopher (2007) describes land use policies to support bus transit. TCRP (2012) describes how to improve transit station access by various modes (walking, cycling and automobile). Complete Streets policies can help improve walking, cycling and public transit in TODs. McNeil, et al. describe various sways to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and access to transit, including information on evaluating, planning for, and implementing improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access to transit. In addition to covering key concepts such as access sheds, connected networks, and station area comfort, safety, and legibility, the manual covers needs specific to pedestrians, such as complete sidewalks and safe, convenient crossings, and to bicyclists, such as bicycle parking and on-transit accommodations.

 

 

Travel Impacts

Successful Transit Oriented Development can significantly reduce per capita motor vehicle travel, as discussed in the chapter on Land Use Impacts. See Cervero and Arrington (2008); CNT (2010); Jeihani, et al. 2013; Evans and Pratt (2007); Ewing, et al. (2017); Gard (2007); Noland and DiPetrillo (2015); Portland (2009); and Tumlin, et al. (2005) for additional information on how TOD affects travel patterns. 

 

Transit oriented development does much more than just shift automobile trips to transit. People who live or work in communities with high quality public transit tend to own fewer automobiles and drive fewer annual miles than they otherwise would. In Automobile-Dependent communities households use automobiles for most trips. In Transit Oriented Communities they rely on a mix of modes. In Carfree communities, most trips are by non-motorized modes and public transit, automobile travel is reserved for work trips (such as delivery and service vehicles) and out-of-town travel. Table 4 illustrates this concept.

 

Table 4            Typical Mode Share By Trip Purpose For Various Transport Systems

Trip Purpose	Automobile Dependent	Transit Oriented Development	Carfree
Work commuting	ŽŽŽŽŽ	bvvŽŽ	€bbvv
School commuting	bvŽŽŽ	€bbvŽ	€€bbv
Work-related business	ŽŽ	vŽ	bŽ
Personal travel (errands)	€ŽŽŽŽŽŽ	€€bbŽŽŽ	€€bbvvŽ
Social and recreation	€ŽŽŽŽŽ	€€bvŽŽ	€€bbvŽ
Total car trips	21	9	3
Total transit trips	1	5	6
Total non-motorized trips	3	11	16
Total trips	25	25	25

Residents of automobile-dependent communities use automobiles for most trips. Transit oriented development results in the use of mixed modes. Carfree development results in minimal driving.

 

 

Some research indicates that where transit creates more efficient land use, each transit passenger-mile represents a reduction of 3 to 6 automobile vehicle-miles (ICF 2010; Holtzclaw, 2000). The table below summarizes estimates of these indirect travel impacts.

 

Table 5            VMT Reductions Due to Transit Use (Holtzclaw 2000; ICF 2010)

Study	Cities	Vehicle-Mile Reduction Per Transit Passenger-Mile
		Older Systems	Newer Systems
Pushkarev-Zupan	NY, Chicago, Phil, SF, Boston, Cleveland	4
Newman-Kenworthy	Boston, Chicago, NY, SF, DC	2.9
Newman-Kenworthy	23 US, Canadian, Australian and European cities	3.6
Holtzclaw, 1991	San Francisco and Walnut Creek	8	4
Holtzclaw, 1994	San Francisco and Walnut Creek	9	1.4
Litman, 2004	50 largest U.S. cities.	4.4
ICF, 2008	U.S. cities	3-4

This table summarizes results from several studies indicating that transit can leverage automobile travel reductions by changing transportation and land use patterns. This indicates that each transit passenger-mile represents 1.4 to 9.0 miles of reduce vehicle-miles.

 

 

This does not mean that every transit improvement leverages automobile travel reductions of this magnitude. Basic transit service or a single transit improvement does not necessarily cause such reductions. Significant transit service improvements integrated with more accessible land use and incentives to reduce automobile use are generally needed to cause significant reductions. Rail transit tends to have the greatest impact on per-capita vehicle travel because it tends to have the greatest land use impacts. Busways probably have smaller impacts. Even rail systems can have little effect if other transportation and land use policies are not supportive, for example, if most riders drive to transit stations located in sprawled, automobile-dependent communities.

 

Out of 1,473 total transportation analysis zones in the Washington, D.C. and Baltimore metropolitan regions, Jeihani, et al. (2013) classified 107, occupied by approximately 11% of regional residents, as TODs. Their detailed analysis indicates that, all else being equal (accounting for various demographic and geographic factors), transit-oriented neighborhood residents drive about 20% fewer annual miles than residents of non-TOD areas, and rely significantly more on walking, cycling and public transport for both commute and non-commute trips. Dill (2006) found that 30% or more of Portland area Transit Oriented Development residents commuted by MAX (the regional light rail system) at least once a week and 23-33% used transit as their primary commute mode. This compares to less than 10% of workers in the automobile-oriented suburbs of Hillsboro and Beaverton, and 15% of Portland workers. Overall, transit commuting increased when people moved to TODs. Nearly 20% of the commuters switched from non-transit to transit modes and 4% did the opposite, for a net of about 16%.

 

Evans and Pratt (2007) summarize extensive research on the effects of TOD on travel. They found:

·         In Portland, Oregon, as of 1995, the average central area TOD transit share for non-work travel was roughly four times that for outlying TODs, which in turn had over one-and-two-thirds times the corresponding transit share of mostly-suburban, non-TOD land development.

·         In Washington DC, work-commute transit mode shares decline from 75% at downtown office buildings right at Metrorail stations to just over 10% on average at office buildings within roughly 1/2-mile of a station but located in the suburbs outside of the Capital Beltway. Transit mode shares along the Washington Metro system were found to decrease by 7 percentage points for every 1,000 feet of distance from a station in the case of housing and by 12 percentage points in the case of office worker commute trips.

·         A 2003 California TOD travel characteristics study found TOD office workers within 1/2 mile of rail transit stations to have transit commute shares averaging 19% as compared to 5% regionwide. For residents, the statewide average transit share for TODs within 1/2 mile of the station was 27% compared to 7% for residences between 1/2 mile and 3 miles of the station.

·         TOD residents are generally associated with lower automobile ownership rates. For example, auto ownership in three New Jersey “Transit Village Areas,” for example, averaged 1.8 vehicles per household compared to 2.1 outside the transit villages.

 

 

Arrington, et al. (2008) and Cervero and Arrington (2008) found that Transit-Oriented Developments generate much less (about half) of the automobile trips as conventional, automobile-oriented development. A parking and traffic generation study of Portland, Oregon transit oriented developments recorded 0.73 vehicles per housing unit, about half the 1.3 value in the ITE Parking Generation Handbook, and it recorded 0.15 to 0.29 vehicle trips per dwelling unit in the AM period and 0.16 to 0.24 vehicle trips per dwelling in the PM period, about half the 0.34 AM and 0.38 PM values in the Trip Generation Handbook (PSU ITE Student Chapter 2007). Research by Goldstein (2007) indicates that household located within walking distance of a metro (rail transit) station drive 30% less on average than they would if located in less transit-accessible locations, although far fewer than 30% of these residents regularly rely on metro for transportation. The author suggests that this reduction results, in part, from the concentration of retail services around transit stations and reductions in per capita vehicle ownership.

 

Ewing, et al. (2017) found that in most cases studied, TOD developments generate only 35-70% of trip generation and 25-75% of the parking demand recommended by standard guidelines published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.

 

Using a regression model that accounts for various demographic and geographic factors, Bailey (2007) found that household located within ¾-mile of high-quality public transportation service average 11.3 fewer daily vehicle-miles (a 26% reduction), regardless of land use density and vehicle ownership rates. Base on a detailed review of research Tal, Handy and Boarnet (2010) conclude that residents’ average per capita vehicle travel declines 6% per mile closer to a rail station starting at 2.25 miles from the station, and 2% per 0.25 miles closer to a bus stop starting at 0.75 miles from the stop.

 

Table 6            Land Use Impacts on Vehicle Ownership and Travel (Portland 2009)

Land Use Type	Auto Ownership	Daily VMT	Mode Split
	Per Household	Per Capita	Auto	Walk	Transit	Bike	Other
Good transit/Mixed use	0.93	9.8	58%	27%	12%	1.9%	1.5%
Good transit only	1.50	13.3	74%	15%	7.9%	1.4%	1.1%
Remainder of county	1.74	17.3	82%	10%	3.5%	1.6%	3.7%
Remainder of region	1.93	21.8	87%	6.1%	1.2%	0.8%	4.0%

Transit-oriented neighborhood residents tend to own significantly fewer motor vehicles, drive less, and rely more on walking and public transit than residents of other neighborhoods.

 

 

Table 5 and Figure 1 show how land use affects vehicle ownership, daily mileage and mode split in the Portland, Oregon region. Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods, which have both good transit and mixed land use, have far lower vehicle ownership and use, and far higher rates of walking and public transit than other parts of the region.

 

Figure 1          TOD Impacts On Vehicle Ownership and Use (Ohland and Poticha 2006)

Residents of transit-oriented developments tend to own fewer vehicles, drive less and rely more on alternative modes than in more automobile-oriented communities. “Daily VMT” indicates average daily vehicle miles traveled per capita.

 

 

Analysis by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT 2010) found that, holding other factors constant, Chicago region households located in transit-oriented neighborhoods emit 43% less transport GHG emissions than the overall average, and that realistic policies that increase transit-oriented development could reduce total regional transport GHG emissions by up to 36%. Community design features of TODs also affect non-commute travel mode choice. There were significant differences between respondents in the different neighborhoods in the share that walk and take transit to non-commute destinations. However, few respondents take transit to non-commute destinations on a regular basis. In most cases, less than ten percent of the respondents used transit to non-commute destinations on a weekly basis.

 

These higher rates of transit and walking travel may partly reflect self-selection. Many of the residents of the TODs, particularly those that commute by transit, placed a high importance on transit and walking accessibility when choosing their home. Many also prefer walking and transit to driving and agree with “pro-environment” statements. Even if self-selection explains a large share of the effects on mode choice, this should not detract from the finding that these developments are providing a desired housing option that facilitates such choices.

 

Kuby, Barranda and Upchurch (2004) evaluate the effects of local station conditions on light rail transit ridership in U.S. cities. They find that local accessibility factors are important, including employment, population, portion of renters, bus lines, airports, park-and-ride spaces and centrality. They calculate that, on average, each 100 jobs leads to 2.3 daily boardings, each 100 residents to 9.3 daily boardings, each 100 park-and-ride spaces leads to 77 boardings, each bus to 123 boardings, and an airport to 913 boardings. Similarly, Cervero, et al. (2004) develop a model for predicting the effects of increased residential and commercial density, and improved walkability around a station on transit ridership. For example, increasing residential density near transit stations from 10 to 20 units per gross acre increases transit commute mode split from 20% to 24%, and up to 28% if implemented with pedestrian improvements. Pushkarev and Zupan (1997) identify the distribution of access/egress trip times (which average about 6 minutes for bus and tram, and 10 minutes for trains), indicating acceptable TOD service areas.

 

Renne (2005) found that in major U.S. metropolitan regions transit commuting decline dramatically during the last three decades (from 19% in 1970 to 7.1% in 2000), but in the 103 TODs within those regions transit commuting increased from 15% in 1970 to 17% in 2000, an 11% growth rate. The percentage of transit commuting was over three times higher in TODs compared to averages for maturing – heavy rail regions and over twice as much for TODs in new start – light rail regions. TODs in Portland, Oregon, and Washington D.C., which have aggressive policies to promote transit, have experienced even greater ridership growth (58% for both). Households in TODs also owned fewer vehicles: only 35% of TOD households own two or more vehicles compared with 55% in metropolitan regions overall, although TOD residents have slightly higher average incomes.

 

A study of Orenco Station, a New Urbanist community on Portland's Westside MAX light rail line found that 22% of the residents commute by public transit, far higher than the 5% average for the region, and 69% use public transit more often than they did in their previous community (Podobnik 2002; Steuteville 2009). Bento, et al, (2003) find that, in cities with rail transit services, a 10% reduction in the average distance between homes and rail transit stations reduces VMT about 1%.

 

Beaton (2006) found that in the Boston region, rail transit zones (areas within a 10-minute drive of commuter rail stations) had higher land use density, lower commercial property vacancy rates, and higher transit ridership than other areas. Regional transit ridership declined during the 1970s and 80s (it has rebounded since 1900), but declined significantly less in rail zones, indicating that TOD increases ridership compared with what would otherwise occur. In 2000, transit mode split averaged 11-21% for rail zone residents, compared with 8% for the region overall. Areas where commuter rail stations closed during the 1970s retained relatively high transit ridership rates, indicating that the compact, mixed land use patterns that developed near these stations has a lasting legacy. Land use density did not increase near stations built between 1970 and 1990, but did increase near stations build after 1990. This can be explained by the fact that the value of smart growth development (using land use policies to create more compact, mixed, multi-modal land use) only became widely recognized in the 1990s, and much of the research and literature on transit oriented development is even more recent (Cervero et al. 2004).

 

Lund, Cervero and Willson (2004) found that residents living near transit stations in various California cities are around five times more likely to commute by transit as the average resident worker in the same city. Various factors influence transit ridership rates. TOD residents are more likely to use transit if there is less of a time benefit for traveling via highways (compared to transit), if there is good pedestrian connectivity at the destination, if they are allowed flexible work hours, and if they have limited vehicle availability. TOD residents are less likely to use transit if the trip involved multiple stops (or “trip chaining”), if there is good job accessibility via highways, if they can park for free at their workplace, and if their employer helps to pay vehicle expenses (such as tolls, fuel, etc.). Physical design factors such as neighborhood design and streetscape improvements show some influence in predicting project-level differences, but have relatively minor influences on transit choice among individual station area residents.

 

Reconnecting America (2004) studied demographic and transport patterns in “transit zones,” defined as areas within a half-mile of existing transit stations in U.S. cities. It found that households in transit zones own an average of 0.9 cars, compared to an average of 1.6 cars in the metro regions as a whole. These lower rates of car ownership near transit may be by choice rather than poverty: car ownership rates near Metro stations in Arlington County are much lower than in the region as a whole, while average household income is higher than the regional average.

 

This study also found that automobile travel is also much lower in transit zones. Only 54% of residents living in transit zones commute by car, compared to 83% in the regions as a whole. More residents commute by car in the regions with small and medium-sized systems (72% and 77%, respectively) than in the large and extensive systems (65% and 49%, respectively). The regions with the lowest percentage of residents commuting by car are New York (36%), Washington D.C. (54%), and Seattle (54%). The regions with the highest percentage of residents commuting by car are Memphis (86%), Dallas (86%), Tampa (79%) and Sacramento (89%) — all systems with newer, smaller fixed-guideway transit networks. The size of the transit system seems to be a significant determinant of whether or not residents commute by car, with more transit ridership in cities with larger rail transit systems.

 

Kolko (2011) analyzed 200-plus transit stations that opened in California from 1992 to 2006. He found that, although these new stations tend to be located in areas with high residential and employment density, the opening of new stations did not cause significant station area employment growth relative to comparison areas, on average, and so recommends more incentives to encourage commercial development in transit station areas to maximize transit ridership and VMT reduction impacts. Transit-Oriented Development tends to increase traffic congestion intensity (the delay that motorists experience when driving during peak periods) but tends to reduce per-capita congestion delays because residents drive less and take shorter trips (Litman 2004). Compact development supports Road Pricing. Guo, et al. (2011) analyzed data from the 2006-2007 Oregon Road User Fee Pilot Program, which charged motorists for driving in congested conditions. The study found that households in denser, mixed use, transit-accessible neighborhoods reduced their peak-hour and overall travel significantly more than comparable households in automobile dependent suburbs, and that congestion pricing increase the value of more accessible and multi-modal locations.

 

Chatman (2013) argues that many of the factors that reduce vehicle travel in transit-oriented areas, such as more compact and mixed development with reduced parking supply, can be implemented without rail.

 

Schlossberg, et al. (2004) describe methods of evaluating transit oriented development, taking into account urban form, pedestrian accessibility, transit usage, and socio-demographic change before and after transit-oriented development in two U.S. cities. They find that many transit stations are not optimally located to maximize pedestrian access, and that automobile-oriented streets (wide, with heavy and fast traffic) can create a significant barrier to walking. 

 

The table below indicates how land use design features typically reduce per capita vehicle trips in an area.

 

Table 7            Travel Impacts of Land Use Design Features (Dagang 1995)

Design Feature	Reduced Vehicle Travel
Residential development around transit centers.	10%
Commercial development around transit centers.	15%
Residential development along transit corridor.	5%
Commercial development along transit corridor.	7%
Residential mixed-use development around transit centers.	15%
Commercial mixed-use development around transit centers.	20%
Residential mixed-use development along transit corridors.	7%
Commercial mixed-use development along transit corridors.	10%
Residential mixed-use development.	5%
Commercial mixed-use development.	7%

 

 

Land use patterns at both origins and destinations affect travel behavior. Employees who work in areas with high employment densities, good pedestrian conditions and attractive urban environments with shops and restaurants nearby are more likely to commute by transit and rideshare use (Davidson 1994; Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport).

 

Table 8            Travel Impact Summary

Travel Impact	Rating	Comments
Reduces total traffic.	3	Reduces per capita vehicle travel.
Reduces peak period traffic.	2	“
Shifts peak to off-peak periods.	0
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes.	3	Encourages transit and nonmotorized travel.
Improves access, reduces the need for travel.	3	Increases density and land use mix.
Increased ridesharing.	0
Increased public transit.	3
Increased cycling.	2
Increased walking.	3
Increased Telework.	0
Reduced freight traffic.	0

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Besser and Dannenberg (2005) used the 2001 National Household Travel Survey to analyzes the amount of walking associated with public transit trips, and factors that affect this activity. They found that Americans who use public transit on a particular day spend a median of 19 daily minutes walking to and from transit, and that 29% achieve the recommended 30 minutes of physical activity a day solely by walking to and from transit. In multivariate analysis, rail transit, lower-income, age, minority status, being female, being a nondrivers or zero-vehicle household, and population density were all positively associated with the amount of time spent walking to transit.

 

 

Benefits and Costs

Transit Oriented Development reduces transportation costs and externalities, increases travel choice, and reduces per capita pavement area (Transit Evaluation). It can help achieve various planning objectives (Cervero, et al. 2004; Mudigonda, et al. 2014; Portland 2009). TOD can increase transit service the efficiency, resulting in improved performance and cost effectiveness. It can help create more Livable Communities, meaning that neighborhoods are physically and socially more desirable places to live. TOD typically reduces parking requirements by 20%, and more if implemented with other Parking Management strategies (Rowe, Bae and Shen 2010). Bailey (2007) estimates that households in Transit-Oriented Developments drive 45% less than residents of automobile-dependent neighborhoods, saving an average of 512 gallons of fuel and $1,400 in fuel expenses annually. Other studies indicate even larger total transportation cost savings (TransForm 2009). Nahlik and Chester (2014) find that TOD can provide substantial lifecycle resource savings by creating more efficient infrastructure and travel patterns.

 

Using a regional traffic model, Jeihani, et al. (2013) found that the lower trip generation rates in Washington DC and Baltimore TOD reduce total regional vehicle travel by 1.2%, which reduces 2.8% of regional and 20% of local congestion delay, with similar air pollution emission reductions. During the PM peak period, TODs decreased 12,648 vehicle miles (0.41%), and 3,959 total hours of delay (4.0%). Environmental impact analysis shows that this reduces GHG emissions and energy consumption by approximately 0.50%.

 

Kimball, et al. (2013) performed a comprehensive life-cycle energy and environmental impact assessment of the Phoenix light rail system, taking into account both direct impacts, and indirect impacts from more compact on embodied resources for vehicle and building production, and travel activity. The results indicate significant potential energy savings, and both local and global (greenhouse gas) emission reductions from more transit-oriented development, as well as economic and local “livability” benefits including increased affordability and urban redevelopment. It concluded that marginal benefits from new rail services are likely to significantly exceed marginal costs.

 

EDRG (2007) used quantitative analysis to estimate that the current Chicago region transit plan provides an estimated 21% annual return on investments, an enhanced plan provides a 34% return, and adopting Transit-Oriented Development, as proposed in the region’s official comprehensive plan, would increase the return to 61%.  E.V. Hovee (2008) found that the new Portland streetcar line stimulated significant new compact development. Developers maximized their building capacity (that is, they built as much as zoning codes allow) close to the streetcar line, with declining rates of development further away.

 

Per capita traffic casualty rates tend to be 50-75% lower in transit-oriented developments than in conventional, automobile-dependent areas (Litman 2016). This probably reflects a combination of reduced automobile travel, particularly by higher-risk drivers (youths, people impaired by alcohol and drugs, and people with mental disabilities), plus lower traffic speeds.

 

Research suggests that transit use also promotes physical activity, since most transit trips involve walking or cycling links. Analysis of U.S. travel survey data indicates that 16% of all recorded walking trips were part of transit trips, and these tend to be longer than average walking trips (Weinstein and Schimek 2005). Transit Oriented Development can provide a catalyst for urban redevelopment, and help create more Accessible communities, where people can obtain the things they need with less physical movement. These indirect impacts can be significant. Average vehicle ownership, vehicle travel, and vehicle expenditures per household decline with increasing residential densities, proximity to public transit, and the portion of regional travel by rail transit (Litman 2008).

 

Residents of cities with large, well-established rail transit systems spend an average of $2,808 on personal vehicles and transit (12.0% of their total household expenditures), compared with $3,332 in cities that lack rail systems (14.9% of total household expenditures), despite higher incomes and longer average commute distances in rail cities (Litman 2004). Similarly, McCann (2000) finds that per-household transportation expenditures vary significantly from one metropolitan region to another, due to land use and transportation factors. She found that households in automobile dependent regions devote more than 20% of household expenditures to surface transportation (more than $8,500 annually), while those in communities with more efficient land use and better transit service spend less than 17% (less than $5,500 annually), representing savings of hundreds of dollars a year. Similar differences are likely to exist between different neighborhoods within a metropolitan region, indicating that a household which chooses a more accessible location can save thousands of dollars annually on transportation costs. McCann also found that consumer expenditures on motor vehicles provide little economic return: a $10,000 spent on motor vehicles provides just $910 in equity, compared with $4,730 for the same investment in housing. This suggests that there are significant potential consumer savings from Transit Oriented Development.

 

In a study comparing residents of Orenco Station, a new Transit-Oriented, New Urbanist community, with other Portland communities, Steuteville (2009) found that:

·         Fifty-eight percent of those surveyed report that people are friendlier in Orenco Station than in the places where they previously lived. In the less walkable Beaverton suburb nearby, only 47 percent said people are friendlier there, and 45 percent and 42 percent said this about the two Portland neighborhoods.

·         Fifty-nine percent of Orenco Station residents engage in group activities, compared to only 30% in the Beaverton suburb, and 31% and 30% in the two Portland neighborhoods. The quality of group activities in Orenco Station appears to be higher than the other neighborhoods. Orenco Station residents most commonly cite group dinners, book clubs, and other informal neighborhood activities. The only common group activities in the other neighborhoods were neighborhood watch and homeowners association meetings. The study notes that in Orenco Station residents meet primarily for social reasons, while in the other neighborhoods they meet mostly to address safety and property issues.

·         Ten times more Orenco Station residents regularly walk to a store than do the inhabitants of the Beaverton suburb. Fifty percent of Orenco station residents report walking to a local store five or more times a week, compared to 5 percent in Beaverton. Only 7 percent of Orenco residents report never walking to the store, compared to 68 percent in Beaverton. This achievement likely contributes not only to environmental sustainability but to personal health in Orenco Station as well, the researchers note.

·         Sixty-seven percent of Orenco Station residents report using mass transit at least once a week, compared to 42 percent in the Beaverton suburb. Both communities are located within a quarter-mile of a light rail station. Orenco Station has pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, while the Beaverton suburb has few sidewalks.

·         Orenco Station has the highest occasional use of mass transit of any of the neighborhoods studied, with 51 percent of residents reporting that they use the light rail once or twice a week.

·         Orenco Station and the Beaverton suburb have a comparable number of regular light-rail users (16 percent). Twelve percent of Beaverton residents use mass transit 5 or more times a week, and 4 percent use it 3 to 4 times a week. Nine percent of Orenco Station residents use mass transit 5 or more times a week, and 7 percent use it 3 to 4 times a week.

·         Orenco Station reported by far the highest number (65 percent) of residents who use mass transit more since moving to the community. By contrast, 23 percent of the Beaverton suburb residents use mass transit more.

·         Of all the communities, Orenco Station had the lowest number of residents who reported never using mass transit (33 percent), but also the lowest number of people who reported using mass transit 5 or more times a week (9 percent).

·         Social activity rose substantially in Orenco Station in the 5-year period between the two surveys. In 2007, 59 percent reported participating in group activities, up from 40 percent in 2002. In 2007, 50 percent reported interacting with their neighbors in new ways — up from 8 percent in 2002.

·         Walking also rose substantially from 2002 to 2007 in Orenco Station, according to the study. In 2002, only 11 percent of Orenco Station residents reported walking to a local store five or more times a week. Part of this can probably be attributed to the completion of the town center.

·         An interest in social diversity is on the rise in the new urban community. Fifty percent of Orenco Station residents — who are 95 percent white — reported in 2007 that they would like greater diversity in their community. In 2002, when the makeup was also 95 percent white, only 35 percent had a desire for more diversity. A higher number of residents also supported more affordable housing in Orenco Station in 2007 relative to 2002. This finding could be interpreted in two ways — one is that Orenco residents are growing more open to diversity; another is that Orenco has failed to adequately attract minorities and accommodate those with lesser means.

·         Orenco Station gets very high ratings from residents, 95 percent of whom found the community superior to more typical suburbs. This rating held up even in light of the cost differential between Orenco Station and surrounding suburbs.

 

 

These benefits are reflected in higher property values and increased commercial activity, which can result in increased tax revenue. Proximity to transit stations typically increases property values by 10-20% (Smith and Gihring 2003; Mathur and Ferrell 2009) and commercial activity (Portland 2009). Rodriguez and Targa (2004) found that, after controlling for other factors, a reduction of 5 minutes walking time to BRT stations increases property prices 6.8% to 9.3% in Bogotá, Colombia. Munoz-Raskin (2007) found that middle-income households, who tend to use BRT most, are willing to pay 2.3% to 14.4% more for housing located close to Bogotá BRT stations, but lower-income households (which rely more on walking and mini-buses) and upper-class households (which rely more on automobile travel) do not. This suggests that to maximize BRT ridership and benefits planners should work with real estate developers to identify the best type of housing to locate nearby.

 

Table 9            Summary of Property Value Premiums (CTOD 2008)

Single Family Residential	+2% w/in 200 ft of station to +32% w/in 100 ft of station
Condominium	+2% to 18% w/in 2,640 ft of station
Apartment	+0% to 4% w/in 2,640 ft of station to +45% w/in 1,320 ft of station
Office	+9% w/in 300 ft of station to +120% w/in 1,320 ft of station
Retail	+1% w/in 500 ft of station to +167% w/in 200 ft of station

This table summarizes how property values are typically affected by proximity to rail stations.

 

Costs include any incremental transportation expenditures (pedestrian and cycling facility improvements, additional public transit services), and disamenities associated with higher density development, including increased local traffic congestion and noise exposure (as discussed in the Smart Growth chapter, and Litman 2003). Residents sometimes oppose development of major transit routes through their communities due to concerns about traffic impacts, noise, privacy loss and more strangers in their neighborhood.

 

Table 10          Benefit Summary

Objective	Rating	Comments
Congestion Reduction	2	Reduces total automobile trips, although congestion may increase within the TOD due to high densities.
Road & Parking Savings	2	Reduces automobile use.
Consumer Savings	2	Provides affordable mobility.
Transport Choice	3	Increases access and transport choices.
Road Safety	2	Reduces automobile use. Also provides health benefits.
Environmental Protection	2	Reduces automobile use.
Efficient Land Use	3	Reduces automobile use. Encourages higher-density development.
Community Livability	3	Reduces automobile use and increases local access.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Equity Impacts

Transit Oriented Developments can benefit virtually all groups of people, although some may benefit more than others. TODs can significantly benefit lower income people and non-drivers by improving income and racial diversity and household affordability (FTA 2008; Tomer et al. 2011), although some TODs are relatively expensive, and some transit oriented urban renewal projects may displace some low-income residents (CTOD 2006; Pollack, Bluestone and Billingham 2010). Location Efficient Development strategies that increase the supply of affordable housing in TODs increase housing Affordability. It may require additional public expenditures for nonmotorized transportation facilities and public transit, but these are often comparable to current public expenditures on automobile (roads, parking, traffic management, etc.). By improving travel options and accessibility, it improves Basic Mobility.

 

Table 11          Equity Summary

Criteria	Rating	Comments
Treats everybody equally.	2	Generally benefits all groups.
Individuals bear the costs they impose.	0	May involve public costs, but these are not necessarily greater than current public costs for automobile travel.
Progressive with respect to income.	3	Increases affordable transportation, provides savings.
Benefits transportation disadvantaged.	3	Increases transport choices for non-drivers.
Improves basic mobility.	3	Increases basic transport choices.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Applications

Transit Oriented Development can be implemented in urban and suburban areas where there is adequate public transit service. It is implemented by regional and local governments in conjunction with private developers and businesses.

 

Table 12          Application Summary

Geographic	Rating	Organization	Rating
Large urban region.	3	Federal government.	1
High-density, urban.	3	State/provincial government.	2
Medium-density, urban/suburban.	3	Regional government.	3
Town.	3	Municipal/local government.	3
Low-density, rural.	1	Business Associations/TMA.	3
Commercial center.	3	Individual business.	3
Residential neighborhood.	3	Developer.	3
Resort/recreation area.	3	Neighborhood association.	3
		Campus.	3

Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).

 

 

Categories

Land Use Management and Improved Transport Choice

 

 

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

Transit Oriented Development is a particular category of New Urbanism and Smart Growth, Location Efficient Development and Access Management. TOD supports and is supported by most other TDM strategies, such as Commute Trip Reduction, Public Transit Improvements Nonmotorized Transportation, Universal Design, Location Efficient Development, Parking Management, Parking Solutions, Parking Pricing, Traffic Calming, School Trip Management and Campus Trip Reduction, and Carsharing.

 

 

Role Of Stakeholders In Implementing This Strategy

Transit Oriented Development usually requires the coordinated support of local governments, private developers and transit agencies. Some measures, such as increased development density, may be opposed by some residents.

 

 

Barriers That Need To Be Overcome For Full Implementation

Transit Oriented Development may require changes in zoning codes and development practices to allow and encourage higher density development and lower parking requirements around transit stations (Venner and Ecola, 2007) It may also require additional funding for pedestrian and bicycle facility improvements.

 

 

Best Practices

A number of studies provide best practices recommendations for TOD development and design, including Dittmar and Ohland (2004), FTA (2008), Portland (2009); Reconnecting America (2009), NYSMPO (2009), and Wolf and Symington (2009). Best practices include:

·         Create a vision for an attractive community.

·         Integrate transit and land use planning.

·         Provide high quality pedestrian and cycling facilities around transit stations, based on Universal Design.

·         Manage Parking to minimize the amount of land devoted to vehicle parking around stations.

·         Encourage Carsharing to reduce the need to own automobiles.

·         Create compact, mixed-used communities. Transit-Oriented Development generally requires at least 6 dwelling units or 25 employees per acre, and more if possible.

·         Create complete communities, with shops, schools and other services within convenient walking distances within the TOD neighborhoods.

·         Structure property taxes, development fees and utility rates to reflect the lower public service costs of clustered, infill development.

·         Understand and expand the market for Transit Oriented Development. Identify the types of households and businesses that are most amenable to TODs. Educate public officials, planners, developers, residents and business managers concerning the potential benefits of locating in a Transit Oriented Development.

·         Encouraging commercial development around transit stations (Kolko 2011)

 

Wolf and Symington (2009) lists the following tools for effective Transit Oriented Development:

 

1. Accommodate Pedestrians. Reflect a pedestrian-orientation in built

environments. Every transit trip begins and ends on foot, dictating a pedestrian

emphasis.

 

2. Improve Access from Transit to Jobs and Residences. Locate new

development in proximity to transit opportunities to leverage the public’s

investment in transit capital and operating budgets.

 

3. Move from Node to Place. Create places for people, not cars. A place-making

orientation should take precedence over creating a node for commuters and

drivers.

 

4. Resolve Fiscal Challenges and Barriers. Continue diligent attention to

resolution of public and private fiscal barriers. The public sector is handicapped

by limited financing mechanisms for needed infrastructure.

 

5. Depoliticize Transit Service. More fully fund transit operations and focus new

service in areas with the greatest demand for transit service.

 

6. Integrate Views Among Actors. Approach urban centers and TODs in an

interdisciplinary fashion. To reach its potential, TOD should benefit from

integrated goals, resources and policies.

 

7. Enhance Leadership and Vision. Continue leadership and articulation of a

regional vision, consistent with GMA goals and objectives for development of

urban centers and TODs.

 

8. Enhance Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Related Tools.

Governments should continue to moderate auto use through TDM, balanced

parking requirements, emphasis on traffic calming approaches and expanded

social-cost pricing mechanisms.

 

9. Implement Proactive Zoning and Land Use Regulations. Seek graceful

growth and quality living environments through proactive planning. Zoning and

development regulations should reflect comprehensive planning objectives and

integrate with transit agency planning and implementation.

 

10. Acknowledge Political Opposition to Growth and Density Imposition.

Offset resistance to density by corresponding investments in services and

amenities. Public outreach should better anticipate “NIMBY” backlash and instill

a sense of ownership in projects and plans.

 

 

Wit and Humor A New England dairy farmer was showing a Texas rancher around his farm. The Texan asked, “How big is your spread.” The farmer answered, “About 40 acres. How big is your ranch?” The Texan replies, “Well, I can get into my truck and drive from sunrise to sunset and never reach the end of my land.” “Oh yes,” says the farmer, “I once had a truck like that too.”

 

 

Examples and Case Studies

Cervero, et al. (2004), Reconnecting America (2009) and NYSMPO (2009) describe numerous successful TOD case studies. The Center for Neighborhood Technology Transit-Oriented Development Database (http://toddata.cnt.org) and the California Transit-Oriented Development Searchable Database (http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov) have information on various transit oriented developments.

 

Tool for Transit-Oriented Development Planning (www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/stories/2501)

The Performance-Based Transit-Oriented Development Typology Guidebook created by the Center for Transit-Oriented Development is a user-friendly tool for evaluating conditions around transit stations and determining how they influence factors such as per capita vehicle ownership and travel, consumer transportation costs, public transit ridership, energy consumption and pollution emissions. It uses real performance outcomes measured at more than 3,700 existing transit station areas in 39 regions around the United States. This information gives stakeholders the ability to evaluate the performance of the transit zones in their neighborhoods. It also includes case studies of successful transit-oriented neighborhood developments.

 

 

Sunnyside Transit Village

The Sunnyside Village Transit Plaza is a Transit Oriented development located about 10 miles from downtown Portland, built with $2 million in combined federal, state and local funds. Apartments, townhouses, small-lot single-family residences, and professional offices surround a core of retail and public services, including a library, community center and daycare, around a transit plaza, all in a dense and walkable setting. The goal is to allow Sunnyside residents to satisfy more of their needs without adding to regional highway traffic congestion.

 

 

Philadelphia Region Maps Child Care-Rich Transit Stations

The Delaware Valley Child Care Council and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) recently developed a map showing where more than 1,600 licensed childcare centers are in relation to bus, train, subway and trolley routes in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.  The Kids’ Care Connections map, a colorful, two-sided spread, is expected to be particularly useful to parents starting new jobs and to businesses seeking workers in a competitive labor market.  The map helps identify where child care services may be inadequate, noting that there are few accredited child care facilities in some of the outer counties despite a high concentration of jobs and children in these areas.

 

 

King County TOD Program (www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/alts/tod/todindex.htm)

King County, Washington, has been working on bus-related TOD joint-development projects since 1998. King County projects are under way in the cities of Redmond, Renton, Seattle and Shoreline. These projects include transit centers, park-and-ride lots, off-street bus-layover facilities, and residential, institutional, retail, office, hotel and entertainment uses. Project concepts range from 300 apartments above a park-and-ride lot in Redmond (near Microsoft world headquarters) to four skyscrapers above an underground bus-layover facility in downtown Seattle near the state Convention &Trade Center.

 

 

Cochrane Village (Nelson/Nygaard 2002)

Cochrane Village is an affordable housing development located in Morgan Hill Ranch Business Park. In the late 1980s the business park struggled to find business occupants, in part because of the high cost of housing for employees. As a result, businesses, local government and a non-profit developer worked together to build 96 apartments and town houses, a playground and daycare facility within the office park, located with convenient access to retail shops.

 

 

Maplewood New Jersey (www.stationfoundation.org)

Maplewood New Jersey is a quaint little village that grew up around its rail station in the early 1900s and still looks like a Norman Rockwell Painting, although it is just 15 miles from downtown New York. Maplewood is hometown to many who work on and off Broadway. Yet the narrow, tree-lined main street in this town of 22,000 has little traffic and not even one traffic light.

 

The townspeople like it that way. So when the Township of Maplewood and New Jersey Transit, in an effort to accommodate steadily increasing ridership in the early ‘90s, proposed constructing a 400-car parking garage next to the Tudor-style train station in the heart of the picturesque downtown, people mounted a vigorous campaign against it. No one was going to turn their quiet little village into a parking lot.

 

The Township Committee huddled, then came up with an alternative: Why not use the town’s senior citizen bus as a jitney for commuters who could leave their cars at home? New Jersey Transit gracefully backed down in favor of this homegrown alternative. And it has proven such a successful partnership -- the agency has provided three small buses and some operating money, the state Department of Transportation has provided two more, and the Maplewood Township maintains and operates the jitneys -- that New Jersey Transit is now providing jitneys to another 20 stations.

 

But this was just the beginning of what turned out to be an enormously successful station revitalization experiment. New Jersey Transit had hired the non-profit Project for Public Spaces to help with the renovation of five of its 173 stations, including Maplewood. While the century-old station was one of the busiest on the Morristown rail line with some 1,200 daily riders, it was dilapidated. Commuters didn’t want to hang around, and they certainly didn’t want to use the restroom.

 

New Jersey Transit has been one of more progressive transit agencies in the U.S. ever since its creation in 1979 to coordinate and operate this most-densely populated state’s rich and historic transit network. Early on the agency understood that making its stations into good public spaces that could serve as a catalyst for the revitalization of town centers could have a dramatic impact on ridership.

 

“Many communities in New Jersey grew up around their train stations and we wanted to make these stations the center of community life once again,” says New Jersey Transit’s Mark Gordon. “So we began working with communities to make the stations more people-friendly and to make them relate better to the communities.”

 

In Maplewood, New Jersey Transit was spending $650,000 to renovate the station. Project for Public Spaces’ Kathy Madden remembers her early meetings with Maplewood residents, and the slide show she did that included a photo of a stern-looking concierge who kept watch over a neighborhood street in France while its inhabitants were away at work.

 

The image provoked interest: The idea of hiring a concierge to tend to the needs of commuters and watch over the station was very intriguing.

 

“Because I grew up I a hotel I thought it might work,” explains Madden. “At PPS we’ve found that 80 percent of the success of a public space has to do with management, which is why you need a human presence in train stations, especially now that electronic ticket machines mean there are fewer ticket sellers.”

 

It took a sales pitch by New Jersey Transit to convince the business community, but once businesses were on board the Chamber of Commerce ran with the idea, creating a for-profit entity called the Maplewood Concierge Company. It was decided this was better than creating a private venture because the Chamber could ensure that the concierge service would feature local businesses. Chamber volunteers run the business, and hire staff.

 

The service is similar to that provided by a concierge in a quality hotel, and commuters can get almost anything that’s available in Maplewood -- groceries, take-out food, car repair, film developing, dry-cleaning, videos, the return of library books, travel arrangements, the purchase of tickets to events. A dentist, doctor or roof repairman will be recommended, and the concierge can help with all municipal services, whether it’s payment of a parking ticket or purchase of a garage sale permit or dog license, or signing up for tennis lessons.

 

Local businesses become “passive” shareholders in the Maplewood Concierge Company for $500 plus an annual $399 fee, entitling them to advertise in the station, or “active” shareholders for $1,000, which means that they pick up and deliver orders and that the concierge will also promote them. The concierge charges customers 10 percent of the total bill; businesses are charged 5%.

 

After the initial burst of enthusiasm and media hoopla -- with newspaper and TV coverage as far away as Japan and Germany, and blanket coverage in the U.S. in publications from the New York Times to Family Circle -- business was spotty. It was hard to get commuters to slow down in their rush to catch the train. But gradually the concierge has become part of commuter culture. About half of the station’s 2,200 commuters are now registered with the concierge, and the number of participating businesses has climbed from 25 to 50 to 70.

 

Paige Kelley, who’s been concierge since the service opened, staffs the station counter from 6-9:30 a.m. High school students are hired to dispense people’s orders from 4-8 p.m. Most of the pick-up and delivery work is done by local businesses, but Kelley also runs errands. “I’ll do pretty much what anyone asks -- as long as it’s not illegal,” she says, laughing. She’s done research on the Internet for one customer, picked up another customer’s dog at the groomer, took it for a walk and then took it back to its home, and she delivered groceries for a stay-at-home new mother while her husband commuted to work.

 

“The company was never intended to make a profit but rather to promote local businesses, as well as to make riding transit more convenient,” says local realtor Robert Klein, who has led the business community’s effort to implement the concierge concept. “Entrepreneur Magazine says the most successful business enterprises are those that save people time, because people are willing to pay for it. If commuters use the concierge they don’t need to run errands on weekends. The weekend can last two whole days -- and that’s a heck of a thing.”

 

Moreover, the station has come to life again. New Jersey Transit landscaped and built a pedestrian plaza opening onto a large park on one side of the station and on the other side built another plaza opening onto the business district. There’s a picnic spot, and local garden clubs have ensured that the station area is blooming. Ridership has doubled since the introduction of Midtown Direct service, meaning that one of every ten residents now commutes -- there’s a commuter in one of every three households -- and more than three-quarters of them arrive at the station either by jitney or on foot.

 

“It’s a selling point for realtors in town,” says Kelley. “People want to live in a place where they don’t have to worry about sitting in traffic in order to get to work, where they don’t need to own a second car or have to worry about parking.” Klein agrees. “In Maplewood we’re selling a lifestyle, not bricks and mortar.”

 

But it’s inside the station where the change is most notable. The Heavenly Scent Cafe has opened for business in the morning, replacing a coffee concession, because there are so many commuters, many of whom come early to meet up with friends. There are coffee tastings, coffee klatches and business card exchanges, and at night there have been high school band concerts and other entertainment. Upcoming will be a “Taste of the Town” event featuring local restaurants. “People used to just race for the train, and they used to be so darned grumpy,” says Klein. “Now you don’t have to worry about getting into somebody’s space in the morning. The atmosphere has changed completely. People come early to meet friends over coffee. We’ve even created a Maplewood blend.”

 

 

TRAX drawing development and new housing to Murray

Zack Van Eyck, Deseret News, Salt Lake City, Sunday, March 9, 2003

 

MURRAY — You won't find a lot of vacant, undeveloped land in this mature Salt Lake Valley community. But that doesn't mean large housing projects — like the massive subdivisions popping up in the southern end of the valley — can't find a home in Murray.

 

Traditional, prosperous Murray is growing and changing with the times, targeting former industrial areas for transformation into housing and commercial centers. The Utah Transit Authority's TRAX light-rail line is proving to be a catalyst for that transition. Murray's trademark chimneys came down to make room for a new Costco and, eventually, a five-hospital medical campus near the Murray Central TRAX station.

 

Now Murray officials, regional planners and developers are turning their attention to the area surrounding the Murray North TRAX station at about 4400 South. Call it suburban renewal. Call it transit-oriented development. Or just call it the future of Murray —  reshaping how the city's land is used to generate more tax revenue and meet the population's future needs.

 

Proterra Inc. is planning an apartment/townhouse project that could bring about 500 housing units to a 21-acre parcel between the TRAX and freight lines, north of 4500 South at Fireclay Avenue (4295 South). A second group of developers is looking at an adjacent 15-acre parcel, which may need some environmental work before being

redeveloped.

 

"These projects will provide the impetus for revitalization and redevelopment of this underutilized portion of Murray city," said Murray Mayor Daniel Snarr. Proterra and the city have been working with Envision Utah to create the Fireclay Transit Community, which could be one of the larger transit-oriented developments along the north-south TRAX line.

 

As originally proposed to the city more than a year ago, Proterra's plans called for 504 housing units, 766 parking spaces and a convenience store with the possibility of office space and other small shops. The apartments would be within a quarter-mile walking distance of the TRAX line. Gerry Tully, executive vice president of Proterra, said Proterra is waiting for the city to finish an upgrade of its zoning ordinance for the area, which would give the company more flexibility in how it develops the property.

 

"Their zoning ordinance wasn't really written anticipating the types of development that are available to people around rail transit, but they are in the process of doing that right now," Tully said. "They've got an incredible opportunity in the 45th South area.

 

"Murray is fortunate to have a station right in the middle of an area that, really, there's nothing keeping the whole neighborhood from turning over into a better use." Between 80 and 200 acres of property located in the area, bordered by I-15 and State Street, could eventually be revitalized as part of the Fireclay Transit Community.

 

"There's excellent transportation access on TRAX, by 4500 South or the freeway or State Street," said Keith Snarr, Murray's economic development director. "Part of the surrounding property has some land uses that are underused, or perhaps uses where there might be opportunities for transition."

 

Jarret Wicker, a planner with Envision Utah, said the types of projects that could materialize at 4500 South should create a "destination" around the TRAX stop to enhance the transit system. "That area has an awful lot of open land that could be redeveloped fairly easily," he said. "It's not historic buildings. It's not going to have tenants that are going to be there, it seems like, forever. It's a good place. Plus, the city was fairly excited about it when we contacted them initially." Tully said Proterra would like to begin construction this summer or fall.

Transit-Oriented Development Planning Tools (World Bank 2018)

Transit-oriented development, commonly known as TOD, is a planning and design strategy that creates vibrant, diverse and livable urban communities where walking, bicycling and public transit are primary modes of transport. This is achieved by concentrating urban densities, communities and activities within a 5-10 minute walking distance from mass rapid transit stations (both bus and rail-based), developing quality urban space and providing convenient and efficient access to a diverse mix of land uses. TOD brings together elements of land use and transport planning, urban design, urban regeneration, real estate development, financing, land value capture, and infrastructure implementation to achieve more sustainable urban development. Since TOD implementation can be complex, it is essential that cities understand the dynamics at play related to all city systems- real estate economics, transit routing, infrastructure design, land use planning and zoning, the development of the local economy through urban regeneration, and urban design- to achieve the concept’s full potential. The World Bank’s TOD Implementation Resources and Tools helps policy makers, planners, developers and other stakeholders negotiate through varying urban priorities to ultimately prioritize inclusion and resilience in an optimized environment.

 

Portland TOD Zoning Code #33.450.010 (www.planning.ci.portland.or.us/zoning/ZCTest/400/450_Transit.pdf)

Purpose

The Light Rail Transit Station overlay zone encourages a mixture of residential, commercial, and employment opportunities within identified light rail station areas. The zone allows for a more intense and efficient use of land at increased densities for the mutual re-enforcement of public investments and private development. Uses and development are regulated to create a more intense built-up environment, oriented to pedestrians, and ensuring a density and intensity that is transit supportive. The development standards of the zone also are designed to encourage a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment near transit stations by encouraging an intensive area of shops and activities, by encouraging amenities such as benches, kiosks, and outdoor cafes, and by limiting conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.

 

 

Vancouver, BC Transit Oriented Development

SkyTrain transit stations have been a catalyst for regional town centers in Vancouver, British Columbia. Each center is intended to serve 100,000 to 200,000 people living and working in the area. Development within each center is controlled by local governments. There is a strong emphasis on pedestrian orientation with the centers, resulting in buildings with limited or no setbacks and minimal surface parking. Governments encourage commercial, employment and residential development within the centers by leasing office space, and by addressing developers needs, such as building parks. The result has been hundreds of millions of dollars in development and hundreds of thousands of square feet of new office and residential buildings, high population densities, and high levels of transit use.

 

 

Portland, Oregon Transit Oriented Development (www.trimet.org/inside/publications/sourcebook.htm)

Portland, Oregon has implemented several successful transit projects and Transit Oriented Developments, including the MAX regional rail system, Portland Streetcar, transit-oriented development projects like Orenco, and programs like TOD property tax exemptions. Portland’s transit agency, Tri-Met, has produced a Community Building Sourcebook which describes many of the projects, plans, programs and organizations that make the Portland region a national model for linking land use and transportation initiatives. This document discusses specific TOD projects, with information on their goals, design, real estate market, financing, neighborhood issues, and lessons learned.

 

 

“Economy Booms Along Light-rail Path” Home News Tribune, 24 April 2000

Jersey City– There are no locomotives powering trains on NJ Transit’s Hudson-Bergen light-rail system. There’s a different kind of engine at work: an economic one. Development is sprouting alongside the first segment of the Hudson-Bergen light rail, through Jersey City and Bayonne, which opened April 15, 2000. Hundreds of town houses and apartments are being built on Essex Street in Jersey City. Scrapyards and old warehouses are being cleared for office buildings and Jersey City Medical Center’s new complex. Union County officials hope economic growth for major cities, such as Plainfield and Elizabeth, will follow the tracks of the county’s proposed light-rail system.

 

Their line is being developed by the county and Raytheon Infrastructure, which is a partner with NJ Transit in the Hudson-Bergen line. “When the light rail is complete, you’ll see Union County totally changed,” said Union County Freeholder Lewis Mingo Jr. “It will make our major cities more valuable to the state.” More than 50 years ago, light-rail systems were electrically powered trolley cars, which ran on streets and private rights of way. The first 5.8-mile section of Union County’s light rail would connect Elizabeth’s train station, on the Northeast Corridor line, with stops at Elizabethport, the former Singer plant, a ferry to New York, Jersey Gardens Mall, IKEA and Newark Airport.

 

“This is a good plan, because if they never built another inch of track, it would be successful, would drive development and have good ridership,” said Bill Wright, secretary of the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers, about the first phase. A draft environmental-impact study of that line has been completed. Two other sections of the proposed light-rail system are still being debated and only exist on paper. One, an 11-mile section could operate on unused Central Railroad of New Jersey tracks from Elizabeth to Cranford. The other, paralleling the Raritan Valley Line to Plainfield, is possible if diesel-powered rail cars are used. Extending the line between Elizabeth and Plainfield could cost an estimated $228 million, according to a Raytheon study. Developers already have invested in light rail by donating land for the first phase of the Union County system, said Jeff Warsh, NJ Transit executive director. “It will save the project enormous amounts of time and money,” Warsh said. “Hudson-Bergen was built without a single penny of contribution from businesses and developers along the right of way.”

 

Developers along the Hudson-Bergen system will reap profits from having a rapid transit system. Some land owners along the line report property values already have increased because of light rail, Warsh said. “The landowners are donating land for the right of way because it increases the opportunity for development,” said Michael Lapolla, Union County manager. “We view this as an economic development tool,” Lapolla said. “For every piece of land, five-six developers are looking to build on it.

 

We foresee the same kind of development at each stop.” About 700,000 square feet of office space is being proposed in Elizabeth, Lapolla said. Developers are considering Elizabethport for hotels and conference centers, he said. Estimated cost of the first segment is $230 million to $250 million, Lapolla said. Newark Airport is the key to immediate success of the first segment. The airport could generate 12,000 light-rail trips per day from airport employees, Warsh said. Now, workers have to park off airport grounds to provide room for passenger parking, which is also in demand.

 

 

TOD Parking Management

There are often tradeoffs between devoting land around transit stations to development (housing, employment and commercial buildings) rather than parking facilities. Analysis by Tumlin and Millard-Ball (2006) and Willson and Menotti (2007) indicate that Transit-Oriented Development often results in more total ridership gains, lower total costs and greater revenue gains compared with devoting land to Park&Ride facilities, and Parking Management to maximize utilization of existing supply and support TOD design objectives (compact, multi-modal development).

 

 

Arlington County (www.co.arlington.va.us; Dittmar & Ohland, 2004)

Arlington County, adjacent to Washington DC, is one of the most successful examples in the U.S. of transit-oriented development. Nearly 18,000 residential units and more than 46 million square feet of office and retail space have been built during the last two decades. This type of development would not be possible without the Metrorail transit system. Prior to the development of this system the Rosslyn-Ballstron corridor was an aging, low-density commercial stretch with declining commercial activity. To help support the areas economic development County leaders insisted that Metro be built underground rather than in the freeway medians.

 

In return, the County channeled nearly all development along the Metrorail lines. It promoted high-density development adjacent and above rail stations, with relatively high density housing within convenient walking distance. Development follows a Bulls Eye pattern, with the greatest density around the rail station, where there are high-rise commercial and residential buildings (up to 20 stories), which declines with distance away from the center, into medium-density residential (apartments, duplexes and townhouses), and then into two-story single-family neighborhoods established prior to 1960. The areas General Land Use Plan (GLUP) has been adjusted as needed to allow additional development in the center while preserving older, established residential neighborhoods and historic buildings.

 

Despite population and employment growth, traffic volumes on local roads has increased little, and the area has far less commuter parking than would normally be required, due to high levels of transit ridership (most transit riders get to the rail station by foot, bicycle or bus), frequent local bus service, excellent walking and cycling conditions, and mixed land use that locates so many activities close together, minimizing the need to drive. As a result, the County has grown rapidly without major expansion of the highway network or parking facilities, while maintaining low tax rates. The Metrorail corridors provide 50% of the County’s tax base on only 7% of the land. The area enjoys low vacancy rates and higher lease and sale prices than otherwise comparable locations. Transit ridership has grown steadily. Mixed land use has resulted in relatively balanced ridership over the day, rather than two sharp peaks experienced on some systems.

 

The area also has aggressive Transportation Demand Management programs implemented by local governments, employers, developers, transit agencies, a local Transportation Management Association (TMA), and residents to encourage efficient travel behavior (Table 13). Performance guarantees and fines are applied if developers fail to implement required programs.

 

Table 13          Developer/Employer TDM Program Requirements

	Consistent with Land Use Plan	Consistent with Land Use Plan But Traffic Problems Forecasted	Requires Land Use Variation, No Traffic Problems Forecasted	Requires Land Use Variation, Traffic Problems Forecasted
Rideshare Promotion
Distribute brochures and posters	X	X	X	X
Conduct travel surveys	X	X	X	X
Operate vanpool program		X		X
Subsidize vanpool program		X		X
Employee transportation coordinator		X	X	X
Support TMA	X	X	X	X
Guaranteed Ride Home		X	X	X
Parking Management
Rideshare vehicle priority parking	X	X	X	X
Price SOV parking	X	X	X	X
Discounted vanpool parking	X	X	X	X
Transit Programs
Help fund shuttle buses	X	X	X	X
Commuter transit subsidy		X	X	X
Provide Onsite Facilities
Bike Parking & Showers	X	X	X	X
Van accessible garage	X	X	X	X
Off-street delivery	X	X	X	X
Roadway improvements	X	X	X	X
Help Fund Off-site Facilities
Pedestrian systems (SKYWALK)	X	X	X	X
Direct connections to Metro	X	X	X	X
Intersection improvements			X	X
New Metrorail station				X

This table indicates the TDM program measures required for development. Requirements vary depending on the location and size of development and whether it is forecast to cause significant traffic problems.

 

 

A survey performed in 2000 found that worksites that had TDM programs generated 1.97 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, about 10% less than the 2.17 vehicle trips generated at worksites that lack such programs (which is itself a low generation rate). The area also has between half and a quarter of the parking supply as would be required at an automobile-oriented development (buildings in the area have 1 to 2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, compared with the 3 to 4 spaces normally required), providing huge cost savings and allowing greater design flexibility and development density.

 

 

People Near Transit (PNT) Index (ITDP 2016)

The People Near Rapid Transit (PNT) index measure the portion of city residents located within a 1 kilometer walk of high quality public transit. It compares the ratings of various cities around the world. This is a good way to estimate accessibility and rapid transit coverage in large cities, and indicate the integration of land use and transport.

The report establishes five basic criteria for high-quality rapid transit, drawn from ITDP’s BRT Standard and other publications:

• Passengers purchase their fare in the station before boarding.

• Transit has consistent distances between stations that does not exceed 5km.

• Passengers have at most a 20-minute wait at every station between 6am and 10pm.

• For bus transit, vehicles must have their own lanes and a dedicated Right-of-Way.

• For rail transit, tracks must have a dedicated Right-of-Way physically separated from street traffic.

 

Analysis of 26 major cities around the world indicates that few cities are investing in the rapid transit systems that serve the less wealthy communities living outside of the urban core. For the 13 cities in industrialized countries that were scored, the average PNT was 68.5%, while those cities’ metropolitan regions averaged 37.3%. The metro regions of the six US cities averaged a score of 17.2%.

 

 

TOD Performance Evaluation

Renne (2009) makes the following recommendations for developing sustainable transportation proformance evaluation:

1.       Understand that most decisions are ultimately political – Planners need to understand that no matter how much data experts analyze, decisions are mostly made based on political factors. The importance of data is to confirm or reject assumptions that local communities make based on gut feelings. Data can assist to refine goals and objectives and ultimately create better policies to produce more sustainable outcomes.

2.       Define the goals of TOD – Each community needs to define their own goals for TOD. If multiple goals exist, they should be ranked. Some communities might encourage TOD primarily from a mobility perspective while others see it as a driver of economic development. Other communities might use TOD as a way to encourage location efficient affordable housing. Without specific prioritized goals for TOD, it becomes very difficult to define success.

3.       Establish baseline data across sustainability dimensions – This paper attempts to create multiple dimensions to evaluate TOD success. Baseline data is needed to track future changes to ensure that goals are not achieved at the expense of some other unintended negative externality. Collecting data from both primary (ie. the TOD Household Survey) and secondary sources (ie. census) is often necessary. Secondary sources do not provide the coverage and scope of data needed to fully evaluate TOD from a sustainability perspective. It is also important to ensure that at least some of the data collected can be compared to regional or sub-regional averages.

4.       Collect data at regular intervals to track success – Once the baseline data has been established, the only way to determine success is to collect the same data, using the same methodologies, at regular intervals. Change within the TOD could be compared to change within the region (or sub-region) to determine if the TOD is becoming more or less sustainable in comparison to the average.

5.       Analysis of data should include local and regional stakeholders – A mechanism needs to be established for local and regional stakeholders to discuss and debate the outcomes of the analysis. Local planners need to seek the input of the community and regional planners need to work collaboratively across agencies and layers of government to ensure political coordination.

 

 

National TOD Database (www.toddata.cnt.org)  

The National DOT Database by the Center for Transit-Oriented Development provides detailed demographic, geographic and economic data for 3,776 U.S. urban rail transit stations and 833 proposed stations in 47 metropolitan areas. This information can be used for research purposes (for example, to evaluate how proximity to high quality transit affects factors such as traffic fatality rates, household transportation expenditures and local economic development), for planning (to identify areas where transit-oriented development should be encouraged) and for real estate professionals (to allow developers and households identify multi-modal neighborhoods).

 

 

 

Bus Transit Oriented Development

Park East Development, Milwaukee, WI

As a part of the Milwaukee Master Plan there was a scheduled teardown of an antiquated freeway spur and the associated exits. The roadway separated two vibrant neighborhoods in the center of the city. In its place the city has planned a 64-acre TOD site that is pedestrian friendly, mixed-use and transit accessible. The project resulted from a community benefits agreement established between the city and a group called the Good Jobs and Livable Neighborhoods Coalition that focused on bringing jobs and affordable housing along with the aforementioned transit access and walkability. Currently two parcels have been sold by the city RSC and Associates and the third parcel is in the final stage of sale to MLG Development Inc. This project has been a model for other redevelopment projects in Milwaukee, which are starting to include TOD in their plans.

 

Linden Transit Center, Columbus, OH

The transit center is in a fairly blighted community in Columbus and COTA (the transit agency) has long been trying to connect the community with job opportunities through the transit center. The transit center is used like a community center, they hold jobs fairs and have even brought in services like dry cleaners and day cares to really use the facility as a way to increase the accessibility to jobs. More recently the city has chosen the transit center to anchor a Four Corners redevelopment project. There was a strong, diverse community coalition that promoted transit accessibility as an employment creation strategy.          

 

Village at Overlake, Redmond, WA (www.overlakestation.com/photos.htm)

This development includes two four-story buildings and a five-story building with apartments, a day-care facility, a parking structure and the transit center, located in Redmond, a mid-sized city located about 20 minutes east of Seattle. Public officials saw the vast surface parking lots around the existing center as a wasted space that could be used to connect residents with existing retail and commercial opportunities. Since the construction of the development transit ridership has almost tripled.

 

Redeveloping Transit-Station Area Parking Lots (CNT, 2006)

The study, Paved Over: Surface Parking Lots or Opportunities for Tax-Generating, Sustainable Development?” (www.cnt.org/repository/PavedOver-Final.pdf ) by the Center for Neighborhood Technology, evaluates the potential economic and social benefits if surface parking lots around rail transit stations were developed into mixed-use, pedestrian friendly, transit-oriented developments, with case studies of nine suburban communities with rail transit service in Cook County, Illinois. The analysis concludes that such development could help to meet the region’s growing demand for affordable, workforce, senior, and market rate housing near transit, and provide a variety of benefits including increased tax revenues and reduced per capita vehicle travel.

 

The parking lots in these nine case studies are estimated to be able to generate 1,188 new residential units and at least 167,000 square feet of new commercial space, providing additional property tax revenues in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per year at each site, plus significant reductions in trip generation and transportation costs compared with more conventional development.

 

 

Lloyd District, Portland (http://downtownaustin.com/downloads/RickWilliamsLloydTMA0509.pdf)

The Lloyd District is a TOD in East of downtown Portland, Oregon, across Willamette River. As of 2008 it had 275 acres, 600+ businesses, 23,000 employees and 1,000 residential units. It has achieved the following:

• Public transit service improvements. 3 new bus lines since 1997, rerouting of existing service to the commercial core, and a Fareless Square (area with free transit service).
• Over $1.5 million annual private investment in transit program.
• Restrictions on surface parking lot development and elimination of free commuter parking.
• Avg. built ratio of parking to 1.8 stalls per 1,000 SF (from 3.5+).
• Revenue sharing of meters and transit pass sales.
• Employee transit passes from 1,250 (1997) to 6,000+ (2008).
• Transit Commute Mode Splits from 21% (1997) to 41% (2008).
• Bicycle Mode Splits from 1% (1997) to 5% (2008).
• Pedestrian commute trips up 46% over three years.
• Commercial office vacancy rate 12% (2001) to 4% (2008)
• Over 1.75 million SF of new public/private development since 1995, no net increase in total parking supply (includes Convention Center expansion).

 

 

Demand for Transit Oriented Development (BBPC, 2008)

The City and County of Denver, Regional Transportation District, Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation, and Denver Regional Council of Governments hired a consultant team to develop a market study to assess the regional and station-specific potential for transit-oriented development (TOD) as part of the FasTracks regional transportation program. Work on the study began in 2007, and was completed in 2008. The goals of the market study were to:

• Understand regional and station-specific TOD potential
• Evaluate transit potential to induce demand
• Gauge short and long-term TOD demand
• Align station area plans with market realities
• Address phasing issues and implementation strategies
• Optimize future development opportunities

 

Six transit corridors and ten station areas were selected for in-depth analysis to help the City gauge the short and long-term demand for TOD and to better align station area planning with market realities and dynamics. The analysis indicates that a significant portion of regional employment and housing would choose TOD locations, and that accommodating this demand will increase total regional economic activity.

 

 

Transit-Oriented Development Reduces Parking Demand

Cervero, Adkins and Sullivan (2010) investigated the degree to which residential developments near urban rail stations are "over-parked," that is, more parking is provided than needed. They found the mean parking supply of 1.57 spaces per unit was 31% higher than the 1.2 spaces recommended in ITE Parking Generation, and 37% higher than the weighted-average peak demand of 1.15 parked cars per unit at 31 residential projects near BART rail stations. The analysis indicates that increased parking supply tends to increase vehicle ownership: an increase of 0.5 spaces per unit is associated with a 0.11 additional cars parked per unit at the peak. Parking demand tends to decline with improved pedestrian access to stations and improved transit service frequency. Rail access reduces vehicle trips at a faster rate than vehicle ownership, indicating that transit commuters still want vehicles for other trips, and so recommends incorporating carshare services into transit-oriented development as a substitute for private vehicle ownership.

 

 

Keys To Successful Retail In A Transit-Oriented Development (http://newurbannetwork.com/article/five-keys-successful-retail-transit-oriented-development-14358)

Fruitvale Village installs professional and community services in some ground-floor spaces, filling empty retail spots.

Five years ago, Fruitvale Village was a handsome mixed-use development adjoining a BART station in a modest-income section of Oakland, California. Yet for all its visual appeal, the project was encountering trouble in some respects.

“More than 20 percent of our commercial office space was vacant cold shell,” and 5,500 square feet of retail (four of the 23 retail spaces) were unoccupied, says Jeff Pace, chief operating officer of the Unity Council, the development’s prime driver. Retail is the Achilles’ heel of some transit-oriented developments (TODs), as New Urban New reported in a December 2006 about Fruitvale Village.

Even today, the Village serves as a warning against counting on commuters to make the shops prosper in TOD projects — especially if the stores and eating places are not on a convenient pedestrian path between the transit station and the parking areas that many commuters use.

But the 257,000 sq. ft. project, situated in a part of Oakland that’s about half Latino, offers insights into how the retail component can adjust.

Between 2006 and 2009, the nonprofit Unity Council, through its Fruitvale Development Corporation, filled nearly all the vacant storefronts, Pace says. As of this February, 94 percent of the retail space was occupied, and another 3 percent was on the verge of lease execution. Another component of the project — referred to by Pace as “community service commercial space” — has been largely filled by the Westcoast Children’s Clinic and ARISE High School, which together occupy 32,000 square feet.

From Fruitvale’s experience, Pace has found “there are at least five factors that lead to successful retail anywhere, but in particular at a TOD.” He identifies them as follows:

1. Location: “Retail needs to be where people are, unless you are building a megamall with box/department store/grocery store draws,” Pace says. “In a parking-restricted, walkable urban area, retail needs to be located near job centers, transit centers, or dense housing. Preferably all three. The Fruitvale Transit Village is in a good location.”
2. Density: “Retail needs to be supported by either dense housing or dense jobs (dense being relative to the amount of retail being installed), preferably both. While the dense housing piece is taking time here (for macroeconomic reasons), we’ve been very successful at filling the Village with people working, going to school, visiting community centers, or receiving community services. We have probably over 500 jobs on site, and thousands of people receive services here every month. Retail is a complement to the health, financial, and educational services people get at Fruitvale Village. High school kids eat a lot.”

1. Don’t build too much retail too soon: “Everyone wants a lot of retail for the jobs, the sales tax, the small business opportunities. Retail doesn’t exist in a vacuum, however, but in the context of the center and the neighborhood. If you build too much, you’re either going to have vacant space or under-performing tenants, or both. Like parking, build less retail space than you think you need. Better to have too much demand than too much supply in a tight urban envelope.”
2. Mix retail and services: “We evolved from a pure retail strategy on the ground floor to one with a mix of traditional retail and community and professional services. For example, we have a State Farm insurance office, and our children’s counseling clinic and high school both have ground-floor facilities as well as second-floor facilities. Altogether, almost 25 percent of the ground-floor retail is being used for non-traditional uses and an expansion of the community services presence on the second floor.”
3. Recruit quality retailers: “Our first crop of retailers included some home runs and a lot of strikes. Fifty percent of our original (2004) ground-floor tenants are still here and thriving. Twenty-five percent of our ground-floor tenants are expanded community services. Twenty-five percent are new retail tenants since 2006-2007. Our well-documented early problems in 2004-2006 were with warm bodies we had signed up in 2004 who weren’t necessarily ready to operate a successful small business in a new mixed-use project. Unfortunately it takes a long time and a lot of money to work through or work out nonperforming or perpetually underperforming retail tenants. You can’t just wish them away. Finding the right tenants at the right price for a brand-new mixed-use center at a TOD involves a lot of guesswork. Our initial guesswork wasn’t as good on retail as on residential and community services, and it took us a couple of years to work through it.”

“Put those factors together at a TOD, and you’ll have a thriving mixed-use component to complement your other uses,” Pace says.

 

 

Los Angeles Light Rail Line Impacts (http://priceschool.usc.edu/expo-line-study)

The study, The Exposition Light Rail Line Study: A Before-and-After Study of the Impact of New Light Rail Transit Service (Boarnet and Houston 2013) is the first-ever experimental – control group, before – after study of the impact of a major transportation investment in California. The project enrolled households located within ½ mile of a new Expo Line station, and control households, living beyond ½ mile from the station. In fall of 2011, those households were asked to track their travel for seven days, some using geographic positioning device (GPS) and accelerometers to measure travel and physical activity. The same households were invited to complete the seven day travel study again in fall, 2012, after the Expo Line opened. In total, 204 households (103 in the experimental neighborhoods, 101 in control neighborhoods) participated.

The analysis gives the following results.

• In “before opening” travel data collection, experimental and control households had the same travel patterns. There were no statistically significant differences across experimental and control households, before the Expo Line opened, in household daily average VMT, car driver trips, train transit trips, bus transit trips, walking trips, bicycle trips, walking minutes, or bicycling minutes.
• After opening, the differences-in-differences approach shows that the experimental group reduced their daily household VMT by 10 to 12 miles (about 30% of daily vehicle travel) relative to the control group. That result persists after outlier observations are removed and when alternative statistical methods are used. We interpret this as evidence that the Expo Line reduces VMT among households living within ½ mile of the Expo Line stations. The GPS data confirmed the vehicle travel reduction results.
• In some statistical tests, there is evidence that the Expo Line increased rail transit ridership among experimental households. Control group households also increased their rail ridership, but not by as much as experimental households. On net, the differences-in-differences evidence suggests that the Expo Line resulted in about 0.1 more daily train trips per household in the experimental group, although this result is not nearly as robust as the finding for VMT reduction among experimental group households.
• The experimental and control group households had no statistically significant differences in vehicle CO2 emissions before the Expo Line opened, but after opening experimental group households had approximately 30% less vehicle CO2 emissions than control group households. That “after opening” difference is statistically significant.
• The accelerometer data allow us to measure physical activity in minutes of moderate or vigorous activity per day. After the Expo Line opened, those individuals living in the experimental neighborhoods who were the least physically active had the largest increases in physical activity relative to control group subjects. The Expo Line opening was associated with increases in physical activity among approximately the 40 percent of experimental subjects who had the lowest physical activity levels before the line opened. The impact was as high as 8 to 10 minutes of increased daily moderate or vigorous physical activity among those experimental group subjects who were the least active before the Expo Line opened. Note though that for more than half of the experimental group subjects (those more physically active before the Expo Line opened) our statistical test suggests that the Expo Line is associated with decreases in physical activity.
• The impact of the Expo Line on VMT and rail ridership was larger near stations with more bus lines and near stations with streets with fewer traffic lanes, suggesting that bus service increases the impact of rail transit and that wide streets (which can be barriers to pedestrian access) reduce the impact of rail transit, at least in the Expo Line corridor.

 

 

Transit Oriented Development for Housing Affordability (www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/conplan/todjobs.pdf)

Grady and LeRoy (2006) evaluated Transit Oriented Developments concerning their ability to provide affordable housing and jobs suitable for non-professional workers, called “location-efficient job incentives.” The researchers found the most effective projects:

• Incorporated Community Benefits Agreement with a private developer for guaranteed concessions such as local hiring, living wages and affordable housing set-asides.
• Involved a community development corporation (CDC) that initiated the project and made it integral to the organization’s neighborhood improvement mission.
• Had exceptional private developer intentionally designed a project for the benefit of low-income families and/or commuters.

 

 

Park-And-Ride Into Transit-Oriented Development (UIC 2016)

The University of Illinois at Chicago’s 2016 UIC TOD Design Studio investigated opportunities for converting existing park-and-ride lots into transit-oriented development at two Chicago rail transit stations. The study examined the land value of current parking lots, their utilization and management, and the potential economic value and ridership that can be gained if some parking lots are developed for housing. In one example the studio developed a potential site plan which allows 40,000 square feet of new building space, with an incremental value of $2.6-3.6 million, while retaining approximately 60% of current parking capacity.

 

Attracting Residents to Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods (MTC 2010)

The report, Choosing Where We Live: Attracting Residents to Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area, identifies various housing market segments and describes ways to make transit oriented development more attractive in response to each groups’ specific needs and preferences. It includes specific recommendations for improving walking and cycling condition, transit service quality, neighborhood livability (quiet, cleanliness and safety), school quality and accessibility, parking management, and urban housing affordability.

 

 

Community Travel and Emission Modeling (Frank, et al, 2011)

The study, An Assessment of Urban Form and Pedestrian and Transit Improvements as an Integrated GHG Reduction Strategy, by the Washington State Department of Transportation (www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/765.1.pdf) evaluates the effects of various urban form factors on vehicle travel and carbon emissions. It found that increasing sidewalk coverage from a ratio of 0.57 (the equivalent of sidewalk coverage on both sides of 30% of all streets) to 1.4 (coverage on both sides of 70% of all streets) was estimated to result in a 3.4% decrease in VMT and a 4.9% decrease in CO². Land use mix had a significant association with both CO² and VMT at the 5 percent level. Parking cost had the strongest associations with both VMT and CO². An increase in parking charges from approximately $0.28 per hour to $1.19 per hour (50th to 75th percentile), resulted in a 11.5% decrease in VMT and a 9.9% decrease in CO². However, the required data were only available in more urbanized communities which limited the analysis.

 

Based on the study results, the research team developed and tested a spreadsheet tool

to estimate the potential reduction in CO² and VMT due to urban form, sidewalk coverage, transit service and travel cost changes suitable for neighborhood and regional planning. This tool was applied in two Seattle neighborhoods – Bitter Lake and Rainier Beach. Rainier Beach is the location of a new light rail (LRT) stop, while Bitter Lake is along a forthcoming bus rapid transit (BRT) service corridor, and both have a large degree of potential to transition into more walkable, transit supportive areas in the future. The results indicate that current policy will produce small decreases in VMT and CO²: a nearly 8% decrease in VMT, and a 1.65% decrease in CO2 for Bitter Lake; and a 6.75% decrease in VMT and a 2.2% decrease in CO² for Rainier Beach. This indicates that more investment in pedestrian infrastructure and transit service will almost certainly be needed in order to meet VMT and CO² reduction targets. A scenario was developed that was focused on VM2 / CO² reduction – complete sidewalk coverage, decreases in transit travel time and cost, and increases in parking costs, and slight adjustments to the mix of land uses. In total, these changes resulted in a 48% VMT reduction and a 27.5% CO² reduction for Bitter Lake, and a 27% VMT reduction / 16.5% CO² reduction for Rainier Beach – substantial departures from the trend that begin to illustrate what might have to happen in order to reach stated goals for VMT reduction.

 

Moderating Park and Ride Expansion and Promoting Access by More Sustainable Modes (Go Transit 2013)

GO Transit operates regional rail and bus services across the Toronto region that carry close to 250,000 riders daily. Approximately 60% of rail customers access their GO station by automobile, and GO operates over 65,000 parking spaces at 55 rail stations, making it one of the largest parking operators in North America. At over half of these stations, demand exceeds parking supply. The need to ensure good station access is projected to increase as more people move to the region and GO adds new rail service.

 

The GO Transit Rail Parking & Station Access Plan was completed in June 2013 to determine the most effective options to support ridership growth and manage the demand for new parking in the short-, medium-, and long-term, as part of a multi-modal approach to station access. The Plan is based on the overall policy direction of moderating parking expansion compared with historic trends, with the aim of taking auto drive mode share from 60% to 50% by 2031. The primary components of the Plan include a Parking & Station Access Policy Statement, a Decision Making Framework, Station Profiles and a set of prioritized recommendations for implementing the policy at a corridor and station level.  

 

 

Transit-Oriented Versus Transit-Adjacent Development

Transit-Oriented Developments (TOD) refers to mixed, walkable development designed to create complete communities around transit stations. Transit-Adjacent Developments (TAD) refers to large developments located near transit stations that are not neither complete nor very multimodal. The Article, “Comparative Case Studies: Trip and Parking Generation at Orenco Station TOD, Portland Region and Station Park TAD, Salt Lake City Region” (Ewing, et al. 2019) measures parking and trip generation rates at TODs and TADs. They find that TODs have less than half the peak-period parking and trip generation rates than Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidelines for suburban areas. TADs also have lower trip and parking generation rates, but the reductions are much smaller. They conclude that large-scale TODs dramatically outperform large-scale TAD.

 

 

“Does TOD Need the T?,(Chatman 2013)

The article, “Does TOD Need the T?,” found substantially lower vehicle ownership, and lower auto commute and shopping trip mode shares for households located in transit-oriented development, but that residential density, housing type, local bus service and limited parking supply had more impact than rail accessibility. He concludes that smart growth development policies, which help create more accessible, compact and multi-modal neighborhoods, can help increase transport system efficiency with or without rail transit development.

 

 

Arlington Transportation Demand Management (Jennings 2014)

Arlington County, Virginia in the heart of the Washington, DC region, provides a case study of an integrated approach to transportation and development using these principles that have transformed the county. In 1970 Arlington was a declining older

suburb, but the County leaders fought to have new Metrorail stations and create transit-oriented development. This began Arlington’s renaissance. Between 1980 and 2013, Arlington has accommodated 38% population growth and 35% employment growth. Today it is a thriving community of 213,000 residents and a major employment center of 229,000 jobs. Its 39 million square feet of private office space is more than that of downtown Denver, CO; Los Angeles, CA; or Seattle, WA. This growth has been

accomplished with virtually no increase in road infrastructure and no increase in vehicular traffic.

 

In an article titled, “Providing Travel Choices for Vibrant Streets,” published in the ITE Journal, Howard M. Jennings (2014) describes how Arlington, Virginia uses transportation demand management strategies to significantly reduce automobile trip generation, resulting in vehicle traffic to decline on major arterials despite major growth in residents and jobs.

 

Arlington’s TDM programs is based on a three-pronged strategy:

1. Walkable, Mixed-Use “Urban Villages.” The County land use plan concentrates most commercial, retail, and multi-family development in high-density clusters around

underground Metrorail stations or surface transit bus nodes unified by highly walkable pedestrian open spaces.

2. Balanced Array of Transportation Resources. The County is served not only by a network of expressways and urban arterials, but also a full complement of mode options, including HOV lanes, subway and commuter rail, bus transit, bike trails and routes, and walking infrastructure. These options and a serious commitment to Complete Streets help commuters and residents naturally employ alternatives to driving.

3. TDM: Information, Encouragement, and Incentives. The final layer is the TDM services provided through Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) that make it easy for people to know about and use the transportation options available to them.

The Arlington County Commuter Services (ACCS) program provides various services for employers, residential complexes, and developers using a professional sales force which educates them about the business-friendly programs available to their employees and building occupants. These sales agents work with a liaison in the business to help set up internal marketing and incentive programs (e.g. the Federal tax-free transit benefit) to

entice trial and usage of alternatives to driving and to help balance parking subsidies that are often offered. The Employer Services program is responsible for approximately 60 percent of the daily trip shifting. Other services include a series of CommuterStores

and a call center providing personal information and assistance, sophisticated websites, online transit fare sales, bike and walking programs, carsharing, Capital Bikeshare, and a comprehensive electronic and traditional marketing program.

 

The County supports a Mobility Lab (www.mobilitylab.org ) a transportation think tank that focuses on advancing the practice of transportation demand management by communicating best practices, collaboration with individuals and organizations to develop innovative solutions, and developing technologies that make transportation more user-friendly through direct development, encouraging open source developments, nurturing new start-ups, and supporting a group of transportation technology enthusiasts with monthly “hack” meetings.

 

Results:

• The percentage of Arlington residents driving alone to work has dropped from 63% in 2001 to 53% in 2013.
• The percentage of Arlington workers driving alone, including those coming in from other jurisdictions, has dropped from 59% in 2001 to 54% in 2013.
• In the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor of central Arlington (Metro Orange Line), between 1996 and 2009, office space grew by 6 million square feet, retail by 1 million square feet, and
• residential by 11,000 units, but vehicular traffic counts on the two major arteries of the corridor, Clarendon Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard, declined by 6% and 25% respectively, and travel lanes were actually reduced to make room for bike lanes and wider sidewalks. County-wide, during the same period, traffic on the seven largest arterials in the county averaged zero growth.
• Comparing worksites that offer TDM services with those that do not, transit use is approximately double, and the drive alone rate is approximately 30 percent lower.
• A study of 16 residential buildings with TDM programs found traffic generation rates 40-50% lower than those published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
• The Commuter Services program on a typical weekday shifts approximately 45,000 trips from drive alone to other modes (most during peak periods), reducing an estimated 750,000 daily vehicle-miles of travel.

 

Arlington’s goal is for population and employment to grow 19% and 33% respectively by 2030 while keeping traffic within 5% of 2005 levels and avoid increasing roads capacity. This will require reducing automobile commute mode shares from 60% to 40% by 2030.

 

 

TOD Priority Tool (www.capmetro.org/tod)

The Austin, Texas area Capital Metro transit system developed the TOD Priority Tool which provides a foundation for planning and investment strategies around transit stations. It examines the existing state of transit-oriented development around transit stations, and helps integrate land use and transit system planning decisions in order to improve services and increase ridership.

 

TOD Travel Impacts and Benefits (TransForm 2014)

The report, Why Creating And Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit Is A Highly Effective Climate Protection Strategy used detailed data from the California Household Travel Survey to measure how demographic, geographic and economic factors affect household travel activity and fuel consumption. The results indicate that all types of households, and particularly lower-income households, tend to own fewer vehicles, drive less and consume less fuel if they live in transit-oriented neighborhoods. All else being equal, lower-income households drive 25-30% fewer miles when living within 1/2 mile of transit than those living in non-TOD, and 50% fewer miles when living within 1/4 mile of frequent transit service. The analysis also indicates that extremely low-income households living within 1/4 mile of frequent transit own half as many vehicles and drive half as many annual miles as higher income households located the same distance from frequent transit service. The researchers conclude that increasing the supply of affordable housing in transit-oriented development is a cost-effective way to reduce energy consumption and pollution emissions, and increase affordability.

 

 

Transforming the Urban Space through Transit-Oriented Development

The World Bank report, Transforming the Urban Space through Transit-Oriented Development (Salat and Gerald Ollivier 2017) describes the 3 Value (3V) Framework, which outlines a typology to facilitate TOD implementation at the metropolitan and urban scale in various contexts. This Framework equips policy and decision makers with quantified indicators to better understand the interplay between the economic vision for the city, its land use and mass transit network, and urban qualities and market vibrancy around its mass transit stations. It provides examples of approaches taken by cities like London and New York to align their economic, land use, and transport planning to generate jobs and high value. This book can help readers develop a coherent vision, policies, and strategy to leverage the value created through enhanced connectivity and accessibility and make cities even more appealing places to live, work, play and do business.

 

 

TOD Certification Rating System (www.tod.org/certification.html)

The Transit Oriented Development Certification is a national project evaluation and endorsement program to promote sustainability by highlighting exemplary projects showcasing TOD best practices. TOD has proven highly successful in creating vibrant, livable, sustainable communities that are successful financially, as well as creating great places for people to live, work, and play.

Eligibility
Eligible projects range from infill and building conversions, to clusters of buildings that are part of a larger project, to entire new neighborhoods and large-scale developments. Eligible project stages include proposed, under construction, or already completed. Projects can be located anywhere in the world to be eligible for Certification.

Project Report
For every project submitted, the TOD Institute prepares a brief report to accompany the rating and/or certification. Even projects that do not get certified receive a report. The report outlines the importance of TOD within the local context of the project, along with the elements of the project that meet TOD standards of design, mixed-use, placemaking, and pedestrian prioritization. The report provides an overall project analysis and explanation of the project rating. The report can be used as an educational tool to distribute to the local community, elected officials, the media, and others to help build political and financial support for the project.

Judging Criteria
Projects are judged based on how well they meet the spirit, principles, and best practices of Transit Oriented Development, and specifically by how many of the 8 TOD Elements are met. Projects that meet the criteria become Certified and receive one of the Stars of Excellence TOD Seals:  3 Stars (our highest rating), 2 Stars (second highest rating), and 1 Star (third highest rating).

 

 

Affordable Accessible Housing Development Review (https://bit.ly/2EmJV2w)

The Housing and Mobility Toolkit for San Mateo County (Alexander and Kott 2019) critically evaluates various case studies of efforts to develop affordable housing in transit-oriented neighborhoods to provide guidance for implementing successful programs in other communities.

 

 

TOD Index Analysis (www.todindex.com)

The TOD Index includes data on home values for over 3,000 fixed-transit station areas and data on rent prices for over 3,500 station areas across the United States (Renne 2014).  Stations are categorized as TODs, Hybrids and TADs. Each category is also benchmarked against the national Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) or the national Zillow Rent Index (ZRI). This provides data for evaluating how train station areas perform economically. This analysis indicates:

• Since, 1996, growth of home values in TODs has outpaced the growth of home values nationally by nearly 2-to-1.
• Since January 2012, the growth of rent values in TODs has significantly outpaced all other categories.
• TOD households had the largest disposable income after housing and transportation costs

 

 

Westside MAX Light Rail Project Transit Oriented Development Program (www.todadvocate.com/pdxcasestudy.htm)

Westside Station Area Development -- About 7,000 dwellings and more than $505 million of residential and non-residential development have been built, permitted or proposed since 1990 within one-half mile of west side light rail stations. About 3,600 of the dwellings were completed in 1998. Over 3,000 of them are located in two station areas.  One developer is building about 2,000 of these units in three station areas with backing from a pension fund.

 

Westside Station Area Planning -- A four year intergovernmental effort to update comprehensive plans, development regulations and capital improvement programs for areas within one-half mile of westside light rail stations. Hillsboro, Portland and Washington County adopted interim development regulations early in the process to minimize parking, increase density, prohibit inappropriate land uses, and require pedestrian oriented design.  By 1998, new plans and development regulations had been adopted for almost all of the light rail station areas.

 

Sunset Transit Center -- Detailed design standards were adopted in October 1997 by

Washington County for an area including 190 acres under a single ownership.  This was a major milestone in a debate that has lasted more than a decade on the best use of this property. The new plan and code was based on intensive discussions between adjacent neighborhoods, the property owner and county staff as well as urban design, market analysis and transportation consultants. A mixed use center is planned adjacent to the station and more than 2000 housing units in the balance of the area.

 

Beaverton Central Mixed Use Project -- One day the “The Round” will be the “jewel” of Westside Light Rail. Ground breaking was in October 1997 for this $100 million mixed-use project. The light rail station is in the middle of the site. The project includes a civic plaza with amphitheater, 154 for-sale dwellings, 152,000 square foot of class A office, 70,000 square foot of retail/office flex space, sister cities garden, 109 unit hotel, 10 screen movie theater, and 810 space parking garage. City staff are managing the project; regional technical and financial assistance is being provided. It took five years from the first study to ground breaking.

 

Murray West Master Plan -- A preliminary public/private master plan for a 120-acre area around the Beaverton Creek light rail station was completed in 1995. Trammell Crow Residential (TCR) completed construction of 830 dwelling units in 1998. Tri-Met’s park & ride was relocated, redesigned and coordinated with TCR’s project to create a pedestrian friendly environment. Nike plans to expand its world headquarters campus on 75 acres north of the station. City plan and code amendments for the 120-acre area were adopted in December 1997. Tri-Met managed the master plan effort. The City of Beaverton was lead on the plan/code amendments.

 

Hillsboro Light Rail Station Area Urban Design -- In 1993, this project dealt with issues that were not resolved during preliminary engineering and the draft EIS. There was concern that intergovernmental consensus would be difficult to achieve. In a five-week intensive effort, agreement was reached to remove two stations and redesign or relocate four others to reduce costs, improve access, and preserve opportunities for station area development.  This was a joint effort with Metro, the City of Hillsboro and Washington County. Tri-Met was the lead agency.  This is an excellent example of an interagency, interdisciplinary team approach with the right people with the right assignment at the right time.

 

Orenco/PacTrust Master Plan -- In January 1999, the National Home Builders selected “Orenco Station” out of nearly 1,000 entries for their “Master Planned Community of the Year” gold award. In 1998, it won the Governor’s Livability Award. See www.orencostation.com for more information. More than 2,000 dwellings, a mixed use center, parks, and a sub-regional retail “power” center are planned, permitted or under construction between the light rail station and the new $2 billion Intel facility.  The City of Hillsboro was the lead agency.  Six-hundred apartments and the small lot single family home models were completed in 1997.

 

Downtown Hillsboro LID -- The City Council approved the Hillsboro Downtown Business Association petition for creation of a local improvement district (LID) in August 1996.  The project implements the vision of the downtown (TOD) plan and began construction in summer 1997.  The design for new sidewalks, curbs, decorative paving, street lamps, and greenery are complementary to light rail street improvements.

 

Portland TOD Property Tax Exemption Ordinance - It provides for a ten-year exemption for high density housing and mixed use projects. The City of Portland adopted an ordinance in October 1996 based on state legislation passed in 1995. Washington County and Tri-Met sought passage of the new state law; Tri-Met prepared a model ordinance.

 

Joint Development Projects -- Tri-Met has four projects in the Goose Hollow station area just west of downtown Portland. Arbor Vista (“Tree House” site) and Stadium Station Apartments (“Civic Stadium”) are done; the project at Collins Circle is under construction; and the Butler Block project is in process. These projects pioneered the FTA waiver to the common grant rule for joint development; now all USA transit agencies can take advantage of these opportunities to increase ridership through TOD based on new regulations adopted in spring 1997 by FTA.

 

 

References and Resources for More Information

 

Serena Alexander and Joseph Kott (2019), Housing and Mobility Toolkit for San Mateo County, Mineta Transportation Institute (http://transweb.sjsu.edu); at https://bit.ly/2EmJV2w.               

 

AllTransit (http://alltransit.cnt.org) is a multi-facetted transit performance index system that provides quantitative data on transit connectivity, access, and frequency for 805 U.S. transit agencies. This information can be used transit service and transit-oriented development evaluation and planning.

 

APTA (2009), Defining Transit Areas of Influence, American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at www.apta.com/resources/standards/Documents/APTA%20SUDS-UD-RP-001-09.pdf.

 

G.B. Arrington, et al. (2008), Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, Report 128, Transit Cooperative Research Program (www.trb.org/CRP/TCRP); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf. Also see G.B. Arrington and Kimi Iboshi Sloop (2010), “New Transit Cooperative Research Program Research Confirms Transit-Oriented Developments Produce Fewer Auto Trips,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 79, No. 6, June, pp. 26-29; at http://tinyurl.com/q2usu3r.

 

Linda Bailey (2007), Public Transportation and Petroleum Savings in the U.S.: Reducing Dependence on Oil, ICF International for the American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at https://bit.ly/1tY5S8x.

 

BBPC (2008), Denver TOD Economic Analysis and Market Study: A Market Study to Assess the Regional and Station-Specific Potential for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) as Part of FasTracks, Denver City and County (www.denvergov.org); http://denvergov.org/HomePage/EconomicDevelopmentandTOD/tabid/425422/Default.aspx.

 

Eric Beaton (2006), The Impacts of Commuter Rail in Greater Boston, Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (www.ksg.harvard.edu); at www.hks.harvard.edu/var/ezp_site/storage/fckeditor/file/pdfs/centers-programs/centers/rappaport/policybriefs/commuter_rail.pdf.

 

Antonio M. Bento, Maureen L. Cropper, Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak and Katja Vinha (2003), The Impact of Urban Spatial Structure on Travel Demand in the United States, Working Paper 2007, World Bank (http://econ.worldbank.org); at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/18279.

 

Lilah M. Besser and Andrew L. Dannenberg (2005), “Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations,” American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vo. 29, No. 4 (www.acpm.org).

 

Ariel Bierbaum, Jeffrey Vincent and Deborah McKoy (2010), “Linking Transit-Oriented Development, Families and Schools,” Community Investments, Vol. 22 No. 2: Summer, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (www.frbsf.org); at https://bit.ly/1DeyaB3. Also see, “Putting Schools on the Map,” Transportation Research Record 2357, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 77-85; at http://trid.trb.org/view/1242944.

 

Marlon G. Boarnet and Doug Houston (2013), The Exposition Light Rail Line Study: A Before-and-After Study of the Impact of New Light Rail Transit Service, Price School of Public Policy (http://priceschool.usc.edu), University of Southern California for the Haynes Foundation; at http://priceschool.usc.edu/expo-line-study.

 

CALTRANS (2008), California Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Searchable Database, California Department of Transportation (http://bit.ly/2rVLn85).

 

CAP (2017), TOD Priority Tool, Capital Metro (www.capmetro.org): at www.capmetro.org/tod.

 

CAP (2018), Transit Design Guide, Capital Metro (www.capmetro.org): at www.capmetro.org/tod.

 

CAP (2018), TOD Guide, Capital Metro (www.capmetro.org): at www.capmetro.org/tod.

 

Center for Neighborhood Technology Transit-Oriented Development Database (http://toddata.cnt.org).

 

Center for Transit-Oriented Development (www.reconnectingamerica.org/html/TOD) supports transit investments that spur development to improve housing affordability and choice, revitalize downtowns and urban and suburban neighborhoods, and provide value capture and recapture for individuals, communities and transportation agencies.

 

Robert Cervero, et al (2004), Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experience, Challenges, and Prospects, TCRP Report 102, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board (http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_102.pdf).

 

Robert Cervero (2006), “Office Development, Rail Transit, and Commuting Choices,” Journal of Public Transportation, Volume 9, No. 5 (www.nctr.usf.edu), pp. 41-55; at www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%209-5%20Cervero.pdf.

 

Robert Cervero, Arlie Adkins, and Cathleen Sullivan (2010), “Are Suburban TODs Over-Parked?” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 13, No. 2; at www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT13-2.pdf.  

 

Robert Cervero and G. B. Arrington (2008), “Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit-Oriented Housing,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 1-17; at www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-3.pdf.

 

Robert Cervero and Erick Guerra (2011), Urban Densities and Transit: A Multi-dimensional Perspective, Paper UCB-ITS-VWP-2011-6, UC Berkeley Center of Future Urban Transport (www.its.berkeley.edu); at www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2011/VWP/UCB-ITS-VWP-2011-6.pdf.

 

Daniel G. Chatman (2013), “Does TOD Need the T?,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 17-31 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2013.791008); at www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01944363.2013.791008.

 

Mary Kay Christopher (2007), Bus Transit Service in Land Development Planning, TCRP Synthesis 67, TRB (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_67.pdf.

 

CNT (2010), Transit Oriented Development and the Potential for VMT-related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Growth Reduction, Center for Neighborhood Technology (www.cnt.org) for the Center for Transit Oriented Development; at www.cnt.org/repository/TOD-Potential-GHG-Emissions-Growth.FINAL.pdf.

 

CNT (2013), The New Real Estate Mantra: Location Near Public Transportation, Center for Neighborhood Technology (www.cnt.org), American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com), National Association of Realtors (www.realtor.org); at www.cnt.org/repository/The_New_Real_Estate_Mantra.pdf.

 

CTOD and CNT (2006), The Affordability Index: A New Tool for Measuring the True Affordability of a Housing Choice (http://htaindex.cnt.org), Center for Transit-Oriented Development and the Center for Neighborhood Technology, Brookings Institute (www.brookings.edu/metro/umi/20060127_affindex.pdf).

 

CTOD (2006), Preserving and Promoting Diverse Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods, Center for Transit-Oriented Development, funded by the Ford Foundation (www.reconnectingamerica.org); at http://ctod.org/pdfs/2006PreservingPromotingDiverseTOD.pdf.

 

CTOD (2008), Capturing the Value of Transit, Center for Transit-Oriented Development  (www.reconnectingamerica.org); for the Federal Transit Administration (www.fta.dot.gov); at www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/ctodvalcapture110508v2.pdf

 

CTOD (2009), Mixed-Income Housing TOD Action Guide, Center for Transit Oriented Development (CTOD) for Reconnecting America, the Center for Neighborhood Technology (www.reconnectingamerica.org); at http://mitod.org/home.php.

 

CTOD (2010), Transit-Oriented Development: Tools for Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Center for Transit-Oriented Development and Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org); at http://reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/ctod_mpotod_final.

 

CTOD (2010), Performance-Based Transit-Oriented Development Typology Guidebook, Center for Transit-Oriented Development (www.reconnectingamerica.org); at www.reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/books-and-reports/2010/performance-based-transit-oriented-development-typology-guidebook.

 

CTOD (2010), Transit Corridors and TOD, Center for Transit-Oriented Development (www.reconnectingamerica.org); at www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/stories/2514.

 

CTOD and CC&S (2012), TOD 205 - Families and Transit-Oriented Development: Creating Complete Communities for All, Center for Transit-Oriented Development (www.ctod.org) and the Center for Cities & Schools (www.citiesandschools.berkeley.edu); at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/PDFs/20120620TODandFamiliesfinal.pdf.

 

CTS (2010), How Light-Rail Transit Improves Job Access for Low-Wage Workers: A Transitway Impacts Research Program (TIRP) Research Brief, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota (www.cts.umn.edu); at www.cts.umn.edu/Research/Featured/Transitways/documents/lowincome.pdf.

 

CTS (2013), Transforming Community, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota (www.cts.umn.edu); at www.cts.umn.edu/sites/default/files/files/publications/researchsummaries/TIRP_synthesis.pdf.  

 

Deborah Dagang (1995), Transportation Impact Factors – Quantifiable Relationships Found in the Literature, JHK & Associates for Oregon DOT.

 

Rhonda Daniels and Corinne Mulley (2011), Explaining Walking Distance to Public Transport: The Dominance 0f Public Transport Supply, World Symposium on Transport and Land Use Research (http://wstlur.org); at http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/106501/Daniels-Mulley-Explaining.pdf.

 

Jennifer Dill (2006), Travel and Transit Use at Portland Area Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs), Transportation Northwest (TransNow), University of Washington (www.transnow.org/publication/Reports/TNW2006-03.pdf).

 

Hank Dittmar and Gloria Ohland (2004), The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development, Island Press (www.islandpress.com).

 

EDRG (2007), Time is Money: The Economic Benefits of Transit Investment, Economic Development Research Group for the Chicago RTA (www.metropolisstrategies.org/documents/TimeisMoney.pdf).

 

John E. Evans and Richard H. Pratt (2007), Transit Oriented Development; Chapter 17, Travel Response To Transportation System Changes, TCRP Report 95, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Transit_Oriented_Development_-_Traveler_Response_to_Transportation_System_Changes_TCRP_Report_95.pdf.

 

Reid Ewing, et al. (2017), Trip and Parking Generation Study of Orenco Station TOD, Portland Region, NITC-RR-767, Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC); at  https://doi.org/10.15760/trec.157.  

 

Reid Ewing, et al. (2019), “Comparative Case Studies: Trip and Parking Generation at Orenco Station TOD, Portland Region and Station Park TAD, Salt Lake City Region,” Cities, Vol. 87, pp. 48-59 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.12.020).

 

Lawrence D. Frank , et al. (2011), An Assessment of Urban Form and Pedestrian and Transit Improvements as an Integrated GHG Reduction Strategy, Washington State Department of Transportation (www.wsdot.wa.gov); at www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/765.1.pdf.

 

FTA (2008), Better Coordination of Transportation and Housing Programs to Promote Affordable Housing Near Transit, Federal Transit Administration, USDOT and Department of Housing and Urban Development; at www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/better_coordination.pdf.

 

FTA (2014), Transit Oriented Development Research and Publications (www.fta.dot.gov/16046_2364.html). Provides information on Transit Oriented Development, including reports and case studies.

 

Thomas A. Gihring (2009), The Value Capture Approach To Stimulating Transit Oriented Development And Financing Transit Station Area Improvements, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/smith.

 

Go Transit (2013), GO Transit Rail Parking and Station Access Plan, MetroLinx (www.metrolinx.com); at www.metrolinx.com/en/regionalplanning/projectevaluation/studies/GO_Transit_Rail_Parking_and_Station_Access_Plan_EN.pdf.

 

David Goldstein (2007), Saving Energy, Growing Jobs: How Environmental Protection Promotes Economic Growth, Profitability, Innovation, and Competition, Bay Tree Publishers (www.baytreepublish.com).

 

Sarah Grady and Greg LeRoy (2006), Making the Connection: Transit-Oriented Development and Jobs, Good Jobs First; at Housings and Urban Development http://community-wealth.org/content/making-connection-transit-oriented-development-and-jobs.

 

Zhan Guo, et al. (2011), The Intersection of Urban Form and Mileage Fees: Findings from the Oregon Road  User Fee Pilot Program, Report 10-04, Mineta Transportation Institute (http://transweb.sjsu.edu); at http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/2909_10-04.pdf.

 

Chris Hale (2011), Station Access and the Modern Transit System, Australasian Transport Research Forum 28 - 30 September 2011, Adelaide, Australia (www.atrf.info); at www.atrf.info/papers/2011/2011_Hale_A.pdf.

 

David R. Heres, Darby Jack and Deborah Salon (2014), “Do Public Transport Investments Promote Urban Economic Development? Evidence From Bus Rapid Transit In Bogota´, Colombia,” Transportation,  Vol. 41, Is. 1, pp 57-74; summary at http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11116-013-9471-8.

 

John Holtzclaw (2000), Does A Mile In A Car Equal A Mile On A Train? Exploring Public Transit’s Effectiveness In Reducing Driving, The Sierra Club, (www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/articles/reducedriving.asp).

 

E.V. Hovee (2008), Streetcar-Development Linkage: The Portland Streetcar Loop, E.V. Hovee and Company (www.edhovee.com); at www.edhovee.com/streetcar_report.pdf.

 

ICF (2010), Current Practices in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Savings from Transit: A Synthesis of Transit Practice, TCRP 84, TRB (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_84.pdf.

 

Aseem Inam (2011), From Intentions to Consequences: San Diego TOD Design Guidelines and Rio Vista West Project, Urban Design and Preservation Division, American Planning Association (www.planning.org/divisions/urbandesign); at www.planning.org/divisions/urbandesign/newsletter/2012/Inam.pdf.

 

ITDP (2016), People Near Transit: Improving Accessibility and Rapid Transit Coverage in Large Cities, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.itdp.org); at www.itdp.org/publication/people-near-transit.

 

Lisa Jacobson and Rachel R. Weinberger (2016), Transit Supportive Parking Policies and Programs, Synthesis 122, Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP), Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/main/blurbs/174287.aspx.

 

Mansoureh Jeihani, et al. (2013), Development of a Framework for Transit-Oriented Development (TOD), Office of Policy & Research, Maryland State Highway Administration (www.roads.maryland.gov); at http://tinyurl.com/mejjc84. 

Howard M. Jennings Jr. (2014), “Providing Travel Choices for Vibrant Streets: Transportation Demand Management in Arlington, Virginia, USA,” ITE Journal, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 24-28; at http://tinyurl.com/mx8uptg.

 

Jeff Kenworthy (2008), “An International Review of The Significance of Rail in Developing More Sustainable Urban Transport Systems in Higher Income Cities,” World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 14, No. 2 (www.eco-logica.co.uk); at www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp14.2.pdf.

 

Mindy Kimball, Mikhail Chester, Christopher Gino, and Janet Reyna (2013), “Assessing the Potential for Reducing Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts through Transit-Oriented Development Infill along Existing Light Rail in Phoenix,” Journal of Planning Education & Research (http://jper.sagepub.com), December, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 395-410; at http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/33/4/395.full.

 

Kittleson & Associates (2007), Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide, Report 118, Transit Cooperative Research Program, TRB (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_118.pdf.

 

Kittleson & Associates (2013), Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual – Third Edition, TCRP Web Document 165, Transit Cooperative Research Program, TRB (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_165fm.pdf.

 

Jed Kolko (2011), Making the Most of Transit Density, Employment Growth and Ridership around New Stations, Public Policy Institute of California (www.ppic.org); at www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_211JKR.pdf.

 

Chuck Kooshian and Steve Winkelman (2018), Matrix of Potential Policy Tools for Transit Oriented Development in Colombia, Center for Clean Air Policy (www.ccap.org); at http://ccap.org/assets/CCAP-TOD-Policy-Tools-Matrix-for-Colombia-Sept-2018-CR.pdf.

 

Michael Kuby, Anthony Barranda and Christopher Upchurch (2004), “Factors Influencing Light-Rail Station Boardings In The United States,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 38, No. 3 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra), March, pp. 223-247.

 

Jacob Larsen, Ahmed El-Geneidy and Farhana Yasmin (2010), “Beyond the Quarter Mile: Examining Travel Distances by Walking and Cycling, Montréal,” Canadian Journal of Urban Research: Canadian Planning and Policy (supplement), Vol. 19(1), pp. 70-88; at http://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Travel%20distance.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2003), Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/sgcritics.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2004), Rail Transit in America: Comprehensive Evaluation of Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf; summarized in “Impacts of Rail Transit on the Performance of a Transportation System,” Transportation Research Record 1930, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 23-29.

 

Todd Litman (2006), Land Use Impacts on Transport: How Land Use Factors Affect Travel Behavior, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/landtravel.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2005), Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf. Summarized in “Evaluating Rail Transit Benefits: A Comment,” Transport Policy, Vol. 14, No. 1 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol), January 2007, pp. 94-97.

 

Todd Litman (2008), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2008), “Valuing Transit Service Quality Improvements,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 2, Spring, pp. 43-64; at www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-2Litman.pdf; a more complete version is at  www.vtpi.org/traveltime.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2010), Raise My Taxes, Please! Evaluating Household Savings From High Quality Public Transit Service, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/raisetaxes.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2010), Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits, American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at www.vtpi.org/tran_health.pdf.  

 

Todd Litman (2015), Affordable-Accessible Housing in a Dynamic City: Why and How to Support Development of More Affordable Housing In Accessible Locations, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/aff_acc_hou.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2016), The Hidden Traffic Safety Solution: Public Transportation, American Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); at www.apta.com/mediacenter/pressreleases/2016/Pages/Hidden-Traffic-Safety-Solution.aspx. 

 

Todd Litman (2016), Selling Transit Oriented Development: Communicating the Direct Benefits to Households, Businesses and Governments, presented at the TOD and Economic Development Conference, Los Angeles, California (www.tod.org); at www.tod.org/images/TOD_and_Economic_Dev_Selling_TOD_ToddLitmam.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2017), Evaluating Public Transit Criticism, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf.

 

Hollie M. Lund, Robert Cervero and Richard W. Willson (2004), Travel Characteristics of Transit-Oriented Development in California, Caltrans Statewide Planning Studies (www.csupomona.edu/~rwwillson/tod/Pictures/TOD2.pdf).

 

Praveen K. Maghelal (2011), “Walking and Transit: Influence of the Built Environment at Varying Distance,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 81, No. 2, February, pp. 38-43.

 

Shishir Mathur and Christopher E. Ferrell (2009), Effect Of Suburban Transit Oriented Developments On Residential Property Values, Mineta Transportation Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at http://tinyurl.com/qafwsfk.

 

Oliver Mietzsch (2010), Non-Fiscal Instruments of Public Transit Infrastructure Funding: Experiences in the United States and Lessons for German Cities, German Marshall Fund (www.gmfus.org); at www.gmfus.org/galleries/cdp-tcn/Mietzsch__Final_Report_Long__June_2010.pdf.

 

Adam Millard-Ball and Patrick Siegman (2006), “Playing the Numbers Game: When it Comes to TODs, Trip-Generation Figures Can Make All the Difference,” Planning Magazine (www.planning.org); at http://people.ucsc.edu/~adammb/publications/Millard-Ball_Siegman_2006_Playing_the_Numbers_Game.pdf.

 

Barbara McCann (2000), Driven to Spend; The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses, STPP (www.transact.org).

 

Nathan McNeil, et al. (2018), Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit, Federal Transit Administration (www.transit.dot.gov); at https://bit.ly/2JeKL1V.

 

Simon McPherson and Adam Haddow (2011), Shall We Dense? Policy Potentials, SJB Urban (www.sjburban.com.au); at www.sjb.com.au/docs/shall-we-dense_policy-potentials.pdf

 

Mixed-Income Transit-Oriented Development Action Guide (www.mitod.org), developed by the Center for Transit-Oriented Development, is a comprehensive website providing information on ways to create mixed-income housing in transit-oriented development, in order to create more affordable-accessible housing.

 

MTC (2010), Choosing Where We Live: Attracting Residents to Transit-Oriented Neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area; A Briefing Book for City Planners and Managers, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (www.mtc.ca.gov); at www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/5-10/Briefing_Book-Choosing_Where_We_Live.pdf.

 

Sandeep Mudigonda, et al. (2014), “Quantifying Transportation Benefits of Transit-Oriented Development in New Jersey,” Transportation Research Record, Vo. 2417, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 111-120 (http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/2417-12); at http://engineering.nyu.edu/citysmart/trbpaper/14-4888.pdf.

 

NACTO (2016), Transit Street Design Guide, National Association of City Transportation Officials (http://nacto.org); at http://nacto.org/transit-street-design-guide.

 

Matthew Nahlik and Mikhail Chester (2014), “Transit-Oriented Smart Growth Can Reduce Life-Cycle Environmental Impacts and Household Costs in Los Angeles,” Transport Policy, Vol. 35, pp. 21–30 (www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X14001036); summary at www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-2015/life-cycle-impacts-of-transit-oriented-development.  

 

National TOD Database (www.toddata.cnt.org) by the Center for Transit-Oriented Development provides detailed demographic, geographic and economic data for 3,776 U.S. urban rail transit stations and 833 proposed stations in 47 metropolitan areas.

 

Nelson/Nygaard Consulting (2002), Housing Shortage/Parking Surplus, Transportation and Land Use Coalition (www.transformca.org); at www.transformca.org/resource/housing-shortageparking-surplus.

 

Antonio Nigro, Luca Bertolini and Francesco Domenico Moccia (2019), “Land Use and Public Transport Integration in Small Cities and Towns: Assessment Methodology and Application,” Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 74, pp. 110-124 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.11.004); at www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692318300802.

 

NJDOT (2007), “How to Handle Parking,” Transit Friendly Development: Newsletter of Transit Oriented Development and Land Use In New Jersey, Vol. 3, No. 1; at http://policy.rutgers.edu/vtc/tod/newsletter/vol3-num1/TODParking.html.

 

Robert B. Noland, Daniel G. Chatman and Nicholas J. Klein (2014), Transit Access and the Agglomeration of New Firms: A Case Study of Portland and Dallas, Mineta National Transit Research Consortium (http://transweb.sjsu.edu); at http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1145-transit-access-and-firm-births-portland-dallas.pdf.

 

Robert B. Noland and Stephanie DiPetrillo (2015), “Transit-oriented Development and the Frequency of Modal Use,” Journal of Transportation and Land Use, Vol. 8, No. 2; at http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2015.517.

 

Robert B. Noland, Kaan Ozbay, Stephanie DiPetrillo and Shri Iyer (2014), Measuring Benefits of Transit Oriented Development, Mineta Transportation Institute (http://transweb.sjsu.edu); at http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1142-measuring-TOD-benefits.pdf.

 

NYSMPO (2009), Transit Supportive Development in New York State: A Guide for Communities, New York State Association of MPOs (www.nysmpos.org); at www.nysmpos.org/pdf/TSD_Final_Report.pdf.

 

Gloria Ohland and Shelley Poticha (2006), Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century, Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org/html/TOD/StreetcarBook.htm).

 

Chelsey Palmateer, Andrew Owen and David M. Levinson (2016), The Synergistic Effects of Transit Oriented Development and Transit Hubs on Accessibility in the San Francisco Bay Area, University of Minnesota ; at http://hdl.handle.net/11299/181535.

 

Colin Parent (2017), Transit Oriented Development: A strategy for the City of San Diego to Advance the Climate, Affordability, and the Economy, Circulate San Diego (www.circulatesd.org); at www.circulatesd.org/TODReport.  

 

Bruce Podobnik (2002), The Social and Environmental Achievements of New Urbanism: Evidence from Orenco Station, Department of Sociology Lewis and Clark College (http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice164.pdf).

 

Stephanie Pollack, Barry Bluestone and Chase Billingham (2010), Maintaining Diversity in America’s Transit-Rich Neighborhoods: Tools for Equitable Neighborhood Change, Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy (www.dukakiscenter.org); at https://www.bostonfed.org/commdev/necd/2010/issue1/diversity-transit-rich-neighborhoods.pdf.

 

Stephanie Pollack, Anna Gartsman and Jeff Wood (2013), eTOD Station Area Rating System, Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy (www.dukakiscenter.org); at www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ES-final-10-17-13.pdf. 

 

Portland (2009), Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan: A Framework for Future Corridor Planning and Alternatives Analysis, Portland Bureau of Transportation (www.portlandoregon.gov); at https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/321180.

 

PPS (1997), The Role of Transit in Creating Livable Metropolitan Communities, Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 22, TRB (www.trb.org); at http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_22-a.pdf.

 

Richard H. Pratt (1999-2007), Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, TCRP Report 95 Series, Web Document 12 (www.trb.org/trbnet/projectdisplay.asp?projectid=1033).

 

PSU ITE Student Chapter (2007), Parking and Mode Split Study for Transit Oriented Development: Pearl District, Portland, OR, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.westernite.org/datacollectionfund/2007/PSU_report.pdf).

 

Boris S. Pushkarev and Jeffrey M. Zupan (1977), Public Transportation and Land Use Policy, Indiana University Press (Bloomington); summarized in http://davidpritchard.org/sustrans/PusZup77/index.html.

 

Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org) is a national organization that works to coordinate transportation networks and the communities they serve. Their Resource Center (http://reconnectingamerica.org//resource-center/browse-research/Tag/5) contains more than 500 research papers and reports related to TOD, tagged by subject. 

 

Reconnecting America (2004), Hidden In Plain Sight: Capturing The Demand For Housing Near Transit, Center for Transit-Oriented Development; Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org); Federal Transit Administration (www.fta.dot.gov); at www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/download/hipsi.

 

Reconnecting America and CTOD (2007), Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit, Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org) for the Federal Transit Administration and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

 

Reconnecting America (2007), TOD 101: Why Transit-Oriented Development and Why Now?, Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org); at www.reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/browse-research/2007/tod-101-why-transit-oriented-development-and-why-now.

 

Reconnecting America (2008a), TOD 202: Station Area Planning: How to Make Great Transit-Oriented Places, Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org); at www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/download/tod202.

 

Reconnecting America (2008b), Capturing the Value of Transit, Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org); at www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/projects/318.

 

Reconnecting America (2009a), Case Studies for Transit Oriented Development, Local Incentives Support Corporation, Regulatory Barriers Clearinghouse (www.huduser.org); at www.lisc.org/content/publications/detail/8185.

 

Reconnecting America (2009b), Realizing the Potential for Sustainable and Equitable TOD:  Recommendations to the Interagency Partnership on Sustainable Communities, Reconnecting America (http://reconnectingamerica.org); at http://tinyurl.com/phdz9gx.

 

John Renne (2008), “Smart Growth and Transit-Oriented Development at the State Level: Lessons from California, New Jersey, and Western Australia,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 77-108; at www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-3Renne.pdf.

 

John Renne (2009), “From Transit-Adjacent to Transit-Oriented Development,” Local Environment, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 1-15.

 

John Renne (2009), “Evaluating Transit-Oriented Development Using a Sustainability Framework: Lessons from Perth’s Network City,” in Planning Sustainable Communities, Sasha Tsenkova, ed., University of Calgary: Cities, Policy & and Planning Research Series, pp. 115-148; at www.vtpi.org/renne_tod.pdf.

 

John Renne (2009), “Measuring the Success of Transit Oriented Development,” in Transit Oriented Development: Making It Happen, Carey Curtis, John Renne and Luca Bertolini (Eds.) Ashgate (www.ashgate.com), pp. 241-255.

 

John L. Renne and Jan S. Wells (2004), “Emerging European-Style Planning in the USA: Transit-Oriented Development,” World Transport Policy & Practice (www.eco-logica.co.uk/worldtransport.html), Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 12-24; at http://policy.rutgers.edu/vtc/documents/TOD.WTPP_summer2004.pdf.

 

John L. Renne and Jan S. Wells (2005), Transit-Oriented Development: Developing a Strategy to Measure Success, Research Results Digest 294, National Cooperative Highway Research Program (http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_294.pdf).

 

John L. Renne (2013), “The Pent-Up Demand for Transit-Oriented Development and Its Role in Reducing Oil Dependence,” Transport Beyond Oil: Policy Choices for a Multimodal Future, (Renne and Fields, eds), Island Press (www.islandpress.com); at http://islandpress.org/ip/books/book/islandpress/T/bo8637519.html

 

John Renne (2014), The TOD Index, TOD Group (www.thetodgroup.com); at https://todindex.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/tod-index-report-december-2014.pdf.

 

Daniel H. Rowe, Chang-Hee Christine Bae, and Qing Shen (2010), “Assessing Multifamily Residential Parking Demand and Transit Service,” ITE Journal, Vo. 80, No. 12, December, 20-24.

 

Bill Sadler and Elizabeth Wampler (2013), Enhancing Economic Opportunity through Transit: Lessons Learned from Denver's Southeast Light Rail Line, Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org); at http://reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/books-and-reports/2013/enhancing-economic-opportunity-through-transit-lessons-learned-from-denver-s-southeast-light-rail-line.

 

Serge Salat and Gerald Ollivier, Gerald (2017), Transforming the Urban Space through Transit-Oriented Development : The 3V Approach, MDTF Sustainable Urbanization, World Bank (www.worldbank.org).; at  https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/26405.

 

Marc Schlossberg, et al. (2008), How Far, by Which Route, and Why? A Spatial Analysis Of Pedestrian Preference, Mineta Transportation Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at  http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/06-06/MTI-06-06.pdf

Robert J. Schneider, Susan L. Handy and Kevan Shafizadeh (2014), “Trip Generation for Smart Growth Projects,” ACCESS 45, pp. 10-15; at http://tinyurl.com/oye8aqj. Also see the Smart Growth Trip-Generation Adjustment Tool (http://ultrans.its.ucdavis.edu/projects/smart-growth-trip-generation).

 

SJSU (2011) A Parking Utilization Survey of Transit-Oriented Development Residential Properties in Santa Clara County, San José State University (www.sjsu.edu/urbanplanning/communityplanning) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority; at www.sjsu.edu/urbanplanning/docs/VTA-TODParkingSurveyReport-VolI.pdf.

 

Jeffery J. Smith and Thomas A. Gihring (2004), Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography, Geonomy Society (www.progress.org/geonomy); at www.vtpi.org/smith.pdf; originally published as “Financing Transit Systems Through Value Capture: An Annotated Bibliography,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Volume 65, Issue 3, July 2006, p. 751.

 

Matthew Soursourian (2010), “Equipping Communities to Achieve Equitable Transit-Oriented Development,” Community Investments, Vol. 22 No. 2: Summer, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (www.frbsf.org), at www.frbsf.org/publications/community/investments/1008/M_Soursourian.pdf. 

 

Robert Steuteville (2009), “New Urban Community Promotes Social Networks and Walking,” New Urban News (www.newurbannews.com); at www.newurbannews.com/14.6/sep09newurban.html.

 

Hiroaki Suzuki, Robert Cervero and Kanako Iuchi (2013), Transforming Cities with Transit: Transport and Land Use Integration for Sustainable Urban Development, Urban Development Series, World Bank (www.worldbank.org); summary at http://elibrary.worldbank.org/content/book/9780821397459; at www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/transforming%20cities%20with%20transit.pdf.

 

Gil Tal, Susan Handy and Marlon G. Boarnet (2014), Policy Brief on the Impacts of Transit Access (Distance to Transit) Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature, for Research on Impacts of Transportation and Land Use-Related Policies, California Air Resources Board (http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm).

 

TCRP (2004), Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects, Report 102, Transit Cooperative Research Program (www.trb.org/TCRP), Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org).

 

TCRP (2012), Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations, Report 157, Transit Cooperative Research Program (www.trb.org/TCRP), Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_153.pdf

 

TCRP (2015), Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision-Making: Guidebook for Transit Agencies, Report 182, Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/main/blurbs/173473.aspx.

 

The TOD Index (https://todindex.com) includes data on home values for over 3,000 fixed-transit station areas and data on rent prices for over 3,500 station areas across the United States. 

 

Adie Tomer, Elizabeth Kneebone, Robert Puentes, and Alan Berube (2011), Missed Opportunity: Transit and Jobs in Metropolitan America, Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program (www.brookings.edu); at www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/Metro/jobs_transit/0512_jobs_transit.pdf.

 

TransForm (2009), Windfall for All: How Connected, Convenient Neighborhoods Can Protect Our Climate and Safeguard California’s Economy, TransForm (www.TransFormCA.org); at www.transformca.org/windfall-for-all.

 

TransForm (2014), Why Creating and Preserving Affordable Homes Near Transit is a Highly Effective Climate Protection Strategy, TransForm (www.TransFormCA.org) and the California Housing Partnership Corporation (www.chpc.net); at www.chpc.net/dnld/AffordableTODResearch051514.pdf.

 

TransLink (2012), Transit-Oriented Communities Design Guidelines: Creating more livable places around transit in Metro Vancouver, TransLink (www.translink.ca); at www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and-Projects/Transit-Oriented-Communities/Resources.aspx.

 

Jeffrey Tumlin and Adam Millard-Ball (2003), “How to Make Transit-Oriented Development Work,” Planning Magazine, American Planning Association (www.planning.org); at www.sonic.net/~woodhull/sctlc/PDF/How%20to%20Make%20TOD%20Work.pdf.

 

Jeffrey Tumlin, Jarrett Walker, Jemae Hoffman and Ria Hutabarat (2005), Performance Measures for the Urban Village Transit Network, Transportation Research Board 84^th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org).

 

Jeffrey Tumlin and Adam Millard-Ball (2006), Parking For Transit-Oriented Development, ITE Annual Meeting (www.ite.org); at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.441.4608&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

 

UIC (2016), 2016 UIC TOD Design Studio, University of Illinois at Chicago, funded by the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA)

 

Marie Venner and Liisa Ecola (2007), “Financing Transit-Oriented Development: Understanding and Overcoming Obstacles,” Transportation Research Record 1996, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 17-24.

 

Asha Weinstein and Paul Schimek (2005), How Much Do Americans Walk? An Analysis of the 2001 NHTS, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting.

 

Richard Willson and Val Menotti (2007), “Commuter Parking Versus Transit-Oriented Development: An Evaluation Methodology,” Transportation Research Record 2021, pp. 118-125, TRB (www.trb.org); at http://eco-rapid.org/Project/studies_reports/commuter-parking-verus-transit-oriented-development.pdf.

 

Charles R. Wolfe and Paul Symington (2009), From Barriers to Solutions and Best Practices: Urban Centers and TOD in Washington, by the Runstad Center for Real Estate Studies for The Quality Growth Alliance, Reconnecting America (www.reconnectingamerica.org); at www.crwolfelaw.com/downloads/From%20Barriers%20to%20Solutions.pdf.

 

World Bank (2018), TOD Implementation Resources and Tools, Global Platform for Sustainable Cities; World Bank (www.worldbank.org); at

http://hdl.handle.net/10986/31121.

 

Lloyd Wright (2017), Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (www.itdp.org); at https://brtguide.itdp.org.

 

WSP–Parsons Brinckerhoff, et al. (2016), Linking Transit Agencies and Land Use Decision Making Guidebook for Transit Agencies, Report 182, Transportation Research Cooperative Program, TRB (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/main/blurbs/173473.aspx. 

This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.

 

 

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

www.vtpi.org       info@vtpi.org

1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA

Phone 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

 

#45