BUILDING TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITIES
Julie Goodwill Graduate Student Assistant Principal Investigator
Sara J. Hendricks, AICP Co-Principal Investigator
November 2002
i
CENTER FOR URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 (813) 974-3120, SunCom 574-3120, Fax (813) 974-5168
Edward Mierzejewski, Ph.D., P.E., CUTR Director Joel Volinski, NCTR Director Dennis Hinebaugh, Transit Program Director
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author, who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Research Institute Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.
ii TECHNICAL REPORT STANDARD TITLE PAGE 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 473-135 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Building Transit Oriented Development in Established Communities October 2002 6. Performing Organization Code
7.
8. Author(s) 9. Performing Organization Report No. Sara J. Hendricks and Julie Goodwill 10. Performing Organization Name and Address 11. Work Unit No. National Center for Transit Research Center for Urban Transportation Research, 12. Contract or Grant No. University of South Florida DTRS98-G-0032 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100, Tampa, FL 33620-5375 13. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 14. Type of Report and Period Covered Office of Research and Special Programs U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. 20690 15. Sponsoring Agency Code Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 26, Tallahassee, FL 32399 16. Supplementary Notes Supported by a grant from the Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation 17. Abstract This report provides a synthesis of the steps that established car oriented communities have taken to transform into transit oriented communities. The report identifies several approaches, such as the use of transit oriented design, focusing transit oriented development (TOD) around park-and-ride lots, making changes to land development regulations, parking management, offering development incentives, coordinating stakeholders, incorporating transit into future development/redevelopment, crafting TOD design guidelines, predesignating transit corridors, ensuring pedestrian and bicycle access, adapting transit services to the needs of suburban- style communities, offering location efficient mortgages and ideas for dealing with community resistance toward applying transit friendly measures to car oriented communities. This report presents a literature review with conclusions, an annotated bibliography and five case studies of communities that have taken steps to become transit oriented. These communities include Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando, the Central Puget Sound Region in Washington and Denver.
18. Key Words 19. Distribution Statement Transit oriented development, Available to the public through theNational Technical Information Service public transit, transit oriented (NTIS),5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22181 ph (703) 487-4650 design 20. Security Classif. (of this report) 21. Security Classif. (of this page) 22. No. of pages 23. Price Unclassified Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-69)
i Table of Contents
Executive Summary...... i
Introduction ...... 1
The Emergence of Suburbia ...... 3 Characteristics of Suburban Land Development...... 4 Implications of Suburban Development for Transit...... 6 The Reestablishment of Transit Oriented Communities...... 7 Reinstituting Transit Oriented Design ...... 7 Trends Supporting Transit Oriented Development ...... 7 Perceived Benefits of Transit Oriented Development...... 8 Typical Transit Oriented Development Design Features...... 9 Performance Criteria for Successful Transit Oriented Development ...... 10 Challenges To Transit Oriented Development ...... 11 Financial Risk To Developer...... 12 High Initial Public Investment Costs...... 12 Unsupportive Regulatory Framework...... 12 Community Resistance ...... 12 Community Approaches to Becoming Transit Friendly...... 14 Applying Financing Methods for Transit Oriented Development...... 14 Offering Incentives...... 14 Coordinating Stakeholders ...... 15 Tailoring Land Use Regulations To Promote Transit Oriented Design ...... 16 Crafting Transit Supportive Design Guidelines ...... 17 Providing Effective Pedestrian and Bicycle Access...... 17 Managing Parking ...... 18 Building Transit Oriented Development At Park-And-Ride Lots ...... 19 Predesignating Transit Corridors ...... 20 Incorporating Transit Service Into Future Development/Redevelopment...... 20 Adapting Transit Services to Suburbia ...... 21 Offering Location Efficient Mortgage®...... 23 Offering Car Sharing Programs ...... 24 Overcoming Community Resistance Through Public Education ...... 24 Conclusions ...... 27
Appendix A: Case Studies...... 30 Charlotte, North Carolina...... 31 Public Support...... 31 Corridor Transit Planning ...... 31 South Corridor...... 32 Transit Station Area Principles...... 32
i Joint Development Principles...... 33 Pedestrian Overlay Districts ...... 33 Recent Transit Improvements...... 33 Conclusion...... 34 Denver, Colorado ...... 35 Blueprint Denver...... 35 FasTracks ...... 35 The T-REX Project ...... 35 Examples of Transit-Oriented Development ...... 36 The Point Project...... 36 I-25 and Broadway...... 36 Union Station ...... 37 Conclusion...... 37 Atlanta, Georgia...... 38 Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) ...... 38 Atlanta Regional Commission Initiatives ...... 39 Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority TOD ...... 39 Lindbergh City Center ...... 39 Medical Center...... 40 Conclusion...... 40 Orlando, Florida...... 41 Land Development Code ...... 41 Bicycle Plan...... 42 Central Florida Mobility Design Manual...... 42 Lymmo ...... 42 Examples of Transit-Oriented Development ...... 43 Naval Training Center Redevelopment...... 43 Southeast Orlando Sector Plan ...... 43 Other Examples...... 44 Conclusion...... 44 The Central Puget Sound Region, Washington...... 45 Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority ...... 45 King County Transit Oriented Development Program...... 46 The Village at Overlake Station ...... 46 Metropolitan Place...... 46 Station Area Planning ...... 47 Location Efficient Mortgage® Program ...... 48 The Ave Street Project...... 48 Conclusion...... 49 Appendix B: Annotated Bibliography...... 50
Endnotes ...... 57
ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is a synthesis of the actions and processes undertaken by car oriented communities that desire to transform into transit oriented communities. This report is part of the Public Transportation Syntheses Series, prepared by the National Center for Transit Research through the sponsorship of the Florida Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Transportation. This topic addresses the fact that the majority of American communities developed after 1950 are oriented to be served by private automobile transportation rather than transit. Such orientation, as characterized by factors like location, land use mix, and site design, have made it difficult for transit to successfully serve these communities. Some ongoing efforts exist that serve as examples of the growing interest to retrofit older communities to promote alternative modes of travel. This study has summarized information from available written sources, but with special emphasis upon direct contact with transit agencies and planning and land development departments of selected local governments. In addition to illustrative examples of community efforts provided throughout the report, five detailed case study examples were developed describing progress toward transit orientation in Charlotte, Denver, Atlanta, Orlando, and the Central Puget Sound Region in Washington State.
The report describes the characteristics of suburban land development, the trends that reinforce suburbanization, the benefits of suburbia as perceived by those who choose to live there, and the implications of suburban development upon the delivery of transit service. However, the perceived benefits of transit oriented development (TOD) and shifting public policy and demographic trends that lend support to TOD have helped to make it a favored model for land development by land use planners and transit professionals. Reestablishing transit orientation includes a transportation system that is designed and constructed to enable transit vehicles to navigate easily through communities and allow transit patrons to safely and conveniently access transit service. Reestablishing transit orientation also includes transit oriented design concepts applied to the residential and commercial land development that is served by the transportation system. However, the major challenges to implementing transit oriented development include the real and perceived financial risk to the developer, higher initial public investment costs, an unsupportive land regulatory framework in many cities, and community resistance to changing the existing nature of suburban neighborhoods. While financial return on investment to the developer is usually a deciding factor whether TOD is built, other criteria have been identified in the review of literature to measure the performance and success of TOD. A noticeably absent criterion from consideration by transit professionals and land use planners is the market appeal of TOD to homebuyers. The individual homebuyer is the single most powerful decision making unit in shaping suburban land development. Those who support the application of TOD cite more mobility choices, less traffic congestion, and improved air quality as benefits to residents of TOD; however, it is not clear that these benefits are motivating factors for suburban homebuyers and apartment lessees to relocate to a TOD. While it is the work of marketing professionals in the land development arena to assess and develop communities that appeal to the home buyer market, these professionals do not share the same motivation as the land planning and transit service community to influence society to embrace TOD development patterns. Therefore, this report suggests that it is up to the professionals who support the use of TOD to more proactively and carefully consider the perspective of the individual homebuyer in order to better accomplish TOD.
i
This report also suggests that good transit oriented design alone is not enough to make TOD work. It must be supported by some combination of other tools as described in this report, including: