DOCSLIB.ORG

Transit-Oriented Development Guide

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Transit-Oriented Development Guide A Resource Manual for Designing Good Urbanism Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority | Austin, Texas “We’re excited to be influencing the growth happening here in Central Texas and we’re pleased to be contributing to the vibrancy of our community.” Linda Watson, Capital Metro’s President/CEO “Austin needs more mobility choices to encourage those that will to get out of their cars. We need better transit, bike and pedestrian options.” Steve Adler, Austin Mayor “Mobility is about access to opportunities and Austinites of every age and ability need safe, reliable options to get where they need to go.” Ann Kitchen, Austin City Council, District 5 “We need more ‘live here, work here’ multi-use development resulting in less vehicular traffic, a greater sense of community, and parks/ped-friendly facilities.” Participant, Imagine Austin Community Forum #1 “Year after year we see one theme that continues to resonate. Our growing communities and worsening traffic congestion in Texas are, in fact, very real, and they call for a variety of solutions.” Marc Williams, TxDOT Deputy Executive Director “I want to protect people that have been born and raised here.... Everybody is feeling the pangs of affordability. One of the great things about Austin is its diversity and all kinds of people. We can’t just be a city of wealthy folks, we have to be a mix.” Delia Garza, Austin City Council, District 2 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDE | 1 TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE This document is a collection of best practices for creating transit-oriented developments (TOD) with bus and rail integration. As the Austin region continues to grow, there will be an increased demand for additional transit connections with pedestrian- friendly street design. Development plays a key role in making transit a success and, the more transit is considered in the design of a project early on, the more the development will benefit from its proximity to and integration with transit. TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT Transit-oriented development is a “type of community development that includes a mixture of housing, office, retail and/or other commercial development and amenities integrated into a walkable neighborhood and located within a half-mile of quality public transportation” (Reconnecting America). TOD features vibrant streetscapes, pedestrian-oriented built forms, and land use characteristics that make it convenient and safe to walk, cycle, and use public transit. TOD is not a building or a project; it’s a pattern of development: • Compact, relatively dense development. • Walking or biking distance from transit. • Safe, walkable, interconnected & lively. Components of TOD (source: ITDP) • A mix of uses - housing, jobs, services, shopping, entertainment, & education. • Strive for 24/7 land use mix. Rendering of Market Common-Clarendon in the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor (source: ARLnow) 2 | TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDE BENEFITS OF TOD the CDC encourages healthy community design “which TOD seeks to foster greater density than the community incorporates elements (such as transportation networks, average with a mix of uses, quality pedestrian environment, street designs, and zoning/land use policies) that work a defined center, and affordability. There are many social, synergistically to promote health and safety.” economic, and environmental benefits associated with For more information, see: www.cdc.gov/transportation/ and developing TOD. Some of these benefits include: www.cdc.gov/ obesity/downloads/Urban DesignPolicies.pdf • Reduced household driving and thus lowered regional congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. APTA GUIDANCE The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) • Walkable communities that accommodate more healthy developed standards, guidelines, and best practices to and active lifestyles. articulate the value in the planning and design of transit • Increased transit ridership and fare revenue. facilities, and the streets and neighborhoods connected to those facilities, in order to create “transit-oriented” • Potential for added value created through increased and/or communities. These are places in which: sustained property values where transit investments have occurred. • Transit services contribute to making a “place,” are attractive and functional, and serve as community • Improved access to jobs and economic opportunity for destinations. low-income people and working families. • Access to transit balances the needs of all modes and • Expanded mobility choices that reduce dependence on users to support and encourage pedestrian, bicycle, and the automobile, reduce transportation costs and free up transit trips. household income for other purposes. • The neighborhoods around transit facilities support and Source: Reconnecting America encourage a vital mix of activities through existing and new development. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) • Transit corridors take advantage of the variety of nearby recognize the health benefits of TODs. In April 2010, neighborhoods and destinations to encourage a diversity it published “CDC Recommendations for Improving of places and access modes. Health through Transportation Policy.” Listed among its recommendations were expanding public transportation • The transit network connects users to key regionaI destinations and supports the economics health of the and “work[ing] with government and nongovernment region and its communities. organizations to develop and implement model transportation planning policies that encourage transit- oriented developments and other mixed-use development, and increase connectivity among neighborhoods and communities for all transportation modes.” Additionally, TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDE | 3 DEMOGRAPHIC AND DEVELOPMENT TRENDS • Compared to other generations, Millennials placed more Changing demographic patterns, market demand, and public importance on walkable communities, providing convenient taste support the development of walkable, mixed-use alternatives to driving, expanding public transportation, having transit close by, and developing communities where communities with transit access. As stated by the National more people do not have to drive long distances. Transit Institute: • Many people want to live in a more walkable neighborhood • Singles will soon be the new majority. than they do now. Overall, 25% currently live in a detached, • Older people will outnumber young people by mid-century. single-family home, but would prefer to live in an attached home in a neighborhood where they could walk to places & • Generation X and Y value sustainability and community living. have a shorter commute. • Growth in foreign-born population. • People who currently live in neighborhoods with lots of • Americans want more housing and transportation choices places to walk to nearby are more satisfied with the quality and are looking for convenience and affordability. of life in their community. • May 2009 - transit ridership reached 10.3 billion trips. • Some regions (e.g., Denver) are choosing to tax themselves to build transit, rather than wait for federal funding. • Market demand for housing near transit, including employment patterns and location, as well as State and Local government incentive programs and land use subsidies. Source: National Transit Institute, Transit-Oriented Development Participant Workbook, 2013 The 2015 Community Preference Survey conducted by the National Association of Realtors found that: • When choosing a new home, respondents want transportation choices. 85% said that sidewalks were important and 79% said that being within an easy walk of places was important. Riders boarding MetroRail at Crestview Station. (source: Capital Metro) 4 | TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDE AND WHEN MILLENIALS AREN’T WALKING... Millenials use public transportation more than any other generation (40%, compared to 28% for Gen-X, 19% for Baby Boomers, and 8% for the Silent Generation). When asked about government trasportation spending priorities, millenials showed more preference than other generations for: Expanding public transportation, including trains and buses Developing communities where more people do not have to 59% 53% drive long distances to work or shop Providing convenient alternatives to driving such as walking, Building more sidewalks 58% biking, and public transportation 49% Soure: National Association of Realtors GENERATIONS DEFINED BY AGE IN 2010 5000000 Teens Millennials GenX Boomers Silents Greatest 4500000 4000000 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 PRESENT AGE 13-17 18-29 30-45 46-64 65-82 83-100 1993- BIRTH YEAR 1997 1981-1992 1965-1980 1946-1964 1928-1945 Before 1928 SOURCE: Brand Amplitude, LLC based on data from US Census (Projected Population by Single Year of Age, released 2008 based on 2000 data). Age categories based on Pew research. TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDE | 5 DIVERSITY IN DESIGN & PLACEMAKING DIVERSITY IN DESIGN All TODs are not the same. Some are primarily residential, some are primarily commercial, some are urban in nature and some are town-center oriented. In order to design a successful TOD, the following elements should be included: • Include engaging, high-quality public spaces (e.g. small parks or plazas) as organizing features and gathering places for the neighborhood.
Recommended publications
  • Village in the City Historic Markers Lead You To: Mount Pleasant Heritage Trail – a Pre-Civil War Country Estate

    Village in the City Historic Markers Lead You To: Mount Pleasant Heritage Trail – a Pre-Civil War Country Estate

    On this self-guided walking tour of Mount Pleasant, Village in the City historic markers lead you to: MOUNT PLEASANT HERITAGE TRAIL – A pre-Civil War country estate. – Homes of musicians Jimmy Dean, Bo Diddley and Charlie Waller. – Senators pitcher Walter Johnson's elegant apartment house. – The church where civil rights activist H. Rap Brown spoke in 1967. – Mount Pleasant's first bodega. – Graceful mansions. – The first African American church on 16th Street. – The path President Teddy Roosevelt took to skinny-dip in Rock Creek Park. Originally a bucolic country village, Mount Pleasant has been a fashion- able streetcar suburb, working-class and immigrant neighborhood, Latino barrio, and hub of arts and activism. Follow this trail to discover the traces left by each succeeding generation and how they add up to an urban place that still feels like a village. Welcome. Visitors to Washington, DC flock to the National Mall, where grand monuments symbolize the nation’s highest ideals. This self-guided walking tour is the seventh in a series that invites you to discover what lies beyond the monuments: Washington’s historic neighborhoods. Founded just after the Civil War, bucolic Mount Pleasant village was home to some of the city’s movers and shakers. Then, as the city grew around it, the village evolved by turn into a fashionable streetcar suburb, a working-class neigh- borhood, a haven for immigrants fleeing political turmoil, a sometimes gritty inner-city area, and the heart of DC’s Latino community. This guide, summariz- ing the 17 signs of Village in the City: Mount Pleasant Heritage Trail, leads you to the sites where history lives.
  • Transportation Planning and Regional Equity: History, Policy and Practice

    Transportation Planning and Regional Equity: History, Policy and Practice

    Research Report – UCD-ITS-RR-12-29 Transportation Planning and Regional Equity: History, Policy and Practice September 2012 Alex Karner Institute of Transportation Studies ◦ University of California, Davis One Shields Avenue ◦ Davis, California 95616 PHONE (530) 752-6548 ◦ FAX (530) 752-6572 www.its.ucdavis.edu Final Research Report D05-3 Transportation Planning and Regional Equity: History, Policy, and Practice Septtember 2012 Alex Karner Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of California, Davis One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616 Page 1 of 2 DISCLAIMER 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 Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. Page 2 of 2 Transportation Planning and Regional Equity: History, Policy, and Practice By ALEXANDER ANTHONY KARNER B.A.Sc. (University of Toronto) 2006 M.S. (University of California, Davis) 2008 DISSERTATION Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Civil and Environmental Engineering in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSIY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: _______________________________ Deb Niemeier, Chair _______________________________ Patricia Mokhtarian _______________________________ Jonathan London Committee in Charge 2012 -i- Abstract This dissertation investigates regional transportation planning in California from 1967 through the contemporary era, identifying advocates for regional equity as important actors for achieving desired planning outcomes including climate change mitigation. It begins with the creation of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
  • Hillcrest: the History and Architectural Heritage of Little Rock's Streetcar Suburb

    Hillcrest: the History and Architectural Heritage of Little Rock's Streetcar Suburb

    Hillcrest: The History and Architectural Heritage of Little Rock's Streetcar Suburb By Cheryl Griffith Nichols and Sandra Taylor Smith Butterworth House Hillcrest Historic District Little Rock, Arkansas Published by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program 1500 Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 324-9880 An agency of the Department of Arkansas Heritage 1 Hillcrest: The History and Architectural Heritage of Little Rock's Streetcar Suburb A Historic Context Written and Researched By Cheryl Griffith Nichols and Sandra Taylor Smith Cover illustration by Cynthia Haas This volume is one of a series developed by the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program for the identification and registration of the state's cultural resources. For more information, write the AHPP at 1500 Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, AR 72201, call (501) 324-9880 [TDD 501-324-9811], or send e-mail to [email protected] The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program is the agency of the Department of Arkansas Heritage responsible for the identification, evaluation, registration and preservation of the state's cultural resources. Other agencies in the department are the Arkansas Arts Council, the Delta Cultural Center, the Old State House Museum, Historic Arkansas Museum, the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, and the Mosaic Templars Cultural Center. 2 Contents Hillcrest Significance ............................................................................................ 5 Origins of Pulaski Heights ...........................................................................
  • Transit Planning Practice in the Age of Transit-Oriented Development by Ian Robinson Carlton a Dissertation Submitted in Partial

    Transit Planning Practice in the Age of Transit-Oriented Development by Ian Robinson Carlton a Dissertation Submitted in Partial

    Transit Planning Practice in the Age of Transit-Oriented Development By Ian Robinson Carlton A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in City & Regional Planning in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Daniel Chatman, Chair Professor Robert Cervero Professor Dwight Jaffee Fall 2013 © Copyright by Ian Robinson Carlton 2013 All Rights Reserved Abstract Transit Planning Practice in the Age of Transit-Oriented Development by Ian Robinson Carlton Doctor of Philosophy in City & Regional Planning University of California, Berkeley Professor Daniel Chatman, Chair Globally, urban development near transit stations has long been understood to be critical to transit’s success primarily because it can contribute to ridership and improve the efficiency of transit investments. In the United States in particular, fixed-guideway transit’s land use-shaping capability has been an important justification and goal for transit investment. In fact, today’s U.S. federal funding policies increasingly focus on achieving transit-oriented real estate development near new transit infrastructure. However, the widespread implementation of transit and land use coordination practices has been considered an uphill battle. The academic literature suggests the most effective practice may be for U.S. transit planners to locate transit stations where pre-existing conditions are advantageous for real estate development or transit investments can generate the political will to dramatically alter local conditions to make them amenable to real estate development. However, prior to this study, no research had investigated the influence of real estate development considerations on U.S.
  • Integrating Infill Planning in California's General

    Integrating Infill Planning in California's General

    Integrating Infill Planning in California’s General Plans: A Policy Roadmap Based on Best-Practice Communities September 2014 Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE)1 University of California Berkeley School of Law 1 This report was researched and authored by Christopher Williams, Research Fellow at the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Ethan Elkind, Associate Director of Climate Change and Business Program at CLEE, served as project director. Additional contributions came from Terry Watt, AICP, of Terrell Watt Planning Consultant, and Chris Calfee, Senior Counsel; Seth Litchney, General Plan Guidelines Project Manager; and Holly Roberson, Land Use Council at the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), among other stakeholder reviewers. 1 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 Land Use Element ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Find and prioritize infill types most appropriate to your community .......................................... 5 1.2 Make an inclusive list of potential infill parcels, including brownfields ....................................... 9 1.3 Apply simplified mixed-use zoning designations in infill priority areas ...................................... 10 1.4 Influence design choices to
  • Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: a Literature Review

    Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: a Literature Review

    Transit Cooperative Research Program Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration RESEARCH RESULTS DIGEST October 2002—Number 52 Subject Area: VI Public Transit Responsible Senior Program Officer: Gwen Chisholm Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review This digest summarizes the literature review of TCRP Project H-27, “Transit-Oriented Development: State of the Practice and Future Benefits.” This digest provides definitions of transit-oriented development (TOD) and transit joint development (TJD), describes the institutional issues related to TOD and TJD, and provides examples of the impacts and benefits of TOD and TJD. References and an annotated bibliography are included. This digest was written by Robert Cervero, Christopher Ferrell, and Steven Murphy, from the Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley. CONTENTS IV.2 Supportive Public Policies: Finance and Tax Policies, 46 I INTRODUCTION, 2 IV.3 Supportive Public Policies: Land-Based I.1 Defining Transit-Oriented Development, 5 Initiatives, 54 I.2 Defining Transit Joint Development, 7 IV.4 Supportive Public Policies: Zoning and I.3 Literature Review, 9 Regulations, 57 IV.5 Supportive Public Policies: Complementary II INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES, 10 Infrastructure, 61 II.1 The Need for Collaboration, 10 IV.6 Supportive Public Policies: Procedural and II.2 Collaboration and Partnerships, 12 Programmatic Approaches, 61 II.3 Community Outreach, 12 IV.7 Use of Value Capture, 66 II.4 Government Roles, 14
  • The Role of Transportation Planning and Policy in Shaping Communities by Naomi Cytron

    The Role of Transportation Planning and Policy in Shaping Communities by Naomi Cytron

    The Role of Transportation Planning and Policy in Shaping Communities By Naomi Cytron 2 Community Investments, Summer 20102010/Volume/Volume 22, Issue 2 Special Focus: Transit-Oriented Development Transit-Oriented Special Focus: The Role of Transportation Planning and Policy Introduction ar more than just laying pathways to get from one place to in Shaping Communities another, transportation infrastructure has played a fundamental By Naomi Cytron role in shaping the physical, social, and economic landscape in cities and regions all around the nation. The convergence of Frail lines in Chicago, for instance, primed the city to become a hub of trade and commerce, and established a framework for the geographic arrangement of industrial and residential development. The tangle of freeways in Los Angeles and the mass transit network in New York simi- larly influence the form and character of neighborhoods in those cities. By impacting development patterns and the cost and convenience of travel between locations, roads and transit services not only prescribe many of the options about where people live and work, but also deter- mine access to opportunity. The Far-Reaching Impacts of Transportation Policy For low- and moderate-income (LMI) and minority communities, though, the outcomes of transportation policy and planning over much of the past 50 years have been largely about isolation rather than access. Arguably, in many places transportation policy and planning have served to exacerbate the challenges that the community develop- ment field seeks to confront, such as socioeconomic segregation and limited economic development opportunities. Consider the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the interstate highway system and sparked the large-scale construction of roadways.
  • Transit-Oriented Development and Active

    Transit-Oriented Development and Active

    FOCUS 12 Essays Shifting the Tide: Transit-Oriented Development and Active Transportation Planning in Los Angeles Forrest Chamberlain William Riggs MCRP , Cal Pol an uis bispo Ph ssistant Professor, CRP epartment, Cal Pol an uis bispo Chamberlain and Riggs present an overview of the historical context of automobile dependency in Los Angeles, the current transit-oriented development strategies underway, and the planning and implementation of Complete Street strategies. The discussion illustrates how the city is using these strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts of climate change. os Angeles has the reputation of an auto dependent city. the urban form of Los Angeles. Before the private automobile LHistorically, much of the region was developed as suburban gained popularity, Los Angeles was served by an extensive sprawl, designed to accommodate automobile use. Although streetcar system, established in the late 1800s by powerful real the region is served by a robust public transportation system, estate moguls. These entrepreneurs not only constructed the the majority of the population commutes by automobile streetcar lines themselves, but also residential neighborhoods (SCAG, 2012a). As a result of excessive automobile use, adjacent to streetcar lines (Jackson, 1985). The streetcar the region has long suered from poor air quality, trac system thus enabled Los Angeles to grow outward from the congestion, unsafe streets, and environmental degradation. downtown core, fostering the development of “streetcar Sprawling development patterns have diminished the suburbs” that would eventually set the momentum for the environmental quality of natural areas on the urban fringe. region’s decentralization and sprawl (Bottles, 1987; Jackson, Automobile use has exacerbated the region’s greenhouse 1985; Longstreth, 1998).
  • Pre-Consolidation Communities of Los Angeles, 1862-1932

    Pre-Consolidation Communities of Los Angeles, 1862-1932

    LOS ANGELES CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT Context: Pre-Consolidation Communities of Los Angeles, 1862-1932 Prepared for: City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning Office of Historic Resources July 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 1 CONTRIBUTOR 1 INTRODUCTION 1 THEME: WILMINGTON, 1862-1909 4 THEME: SAN PEDRO, 1882-1909 30 THEME: HOLLYWOOD, 1887-1910 56 THEME: SAWTELLE, 1896-1918 82 THEME: EAGLE ROCK, 1886-1923 108 THEME: HYDE PARK, 1887-1923 135 THEME: VENICE, 1901-1925 150 THEME: WATTS, 1902-1926 179 THEME: BARNES CITY, 1919-1926 202 THEME: TUJUNGA, 1888-1932 206 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPY 232 SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement Pre-consolidation Communities of Los Angeles, 1862-1932 PREFACE This historic context is a component of Los Angeles’ citywide historic context statement and provides guidance to field surveyors in identifying and evaluating potential historic resources relating to Pre- Consolidation Communities of Los Angeles. Refer to www.HistoricPlacesLA.org for information on designated resources associated with this context as well as those identified through SurveyLA and other surveys. CONTRIBUTOR Daniel Prosser is a historian and preservation architect. He holds an M.Arch. from Ohio State University and a Ph.D. in history from Northwestern University. Before retiring, Prosser was the Historic Sites Architect for the Kansas State Historical Society. INTRODUCTION The “Pre-Consolidation Communities of Los Angeles” context examines those communities that were at one time independent, self-governing cities. These include (presented here as themes): Wilmington, San Pedro, Hollywood, Sawtelle, Eagle Rock, Hyde Park, Venice, Watts, Barnes City, and Tujunga. This context traces the history of each of these cities (up to the point of consolidation with the City of Los Angeles), identifying important individuals and patterns of settlement and development, and then links the events and individuals to extant historic resources (individual resources and historic districts).
  • Housing Issues & Opportunities (PDF)

    Housing Issues & Opportunities (PDF)

    HOUSING Credit: Jennifer Lutke Credit: Jennifer Lutke Credit: Jennifer Lutke INTRODUCTION Over the past 300 years, Brookline has evolved from an agricultural community and streetcar suburb to an incredibly diverse community that provides a wide-range of housing types and lifestyle choices from the mixed use, transit-oriented neighborhoods near Coolidge Corner, Brookline Village, and Washington Square to the suburban neighborhoods of South Brookline. Brookline offers a high quality of life to its residents. This report explores the current state of housing in This, in combination with its close proximity and Brookline and defines preliminary issues and oppor- transit connections to Boston and Cambridge, creates tunities related to our housing stock, policies, and an exceptionally desirable community to live in. programs. The report also provides a brief back- Brookline, which consists of roughly six square miles ground on housing in Brookline to foster an under- of land, is home to approximately 54,700 people of standing of where we have come from, in terms of diverse backgrounds, incomes, and lifestyles, includ- evolution of overall development, as well as the vari- ing families, young professionals,and elderly. ous programs and regulations related to housing. Background of Brookline Housing Development Brookline, which began as an agricultural community for veterans after World War II. As the BHA contin- in the 17th century, became a streetcar suburb of ued to develop housing, it added developments tar- Boston during the mid-19th century. At this time, geted to elderly housing to the mix. Brookline’s development opportunities were enhanced by the provision of strong public transit From the late 1950s to the 70s, Brookline engaged in with direct linkages to Boston.
  • Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility Solutions and Education

    Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility Solutions and Education

    Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility Solutions and Education Project ID: 2017 Project 03 Forecasting Ridership for Commuter Rail in Austin Final Report by Scott Kilgore, M.S. The University of Texas at Austin and Randy Machemehl, Ph.D., P.E. (ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4045-2023) Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering The University of Texas at Austin 301 E. Dean Keeton Street, Stop C1761, Austin, TX 78712 Phone: 1-512-471-4541; Email: [email protected] for Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility Solutions and Education (CAMMSE @ UNC Charlotte) The University of North Carolina at Charlotte 9201 University City Blvd Charlotte, NC 28223 September 2018 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project was funded by the Center for Advanced Multimodal Mobility Solutions and Education (CAMMSE @ UNC Charlotte), one of the Tier I University Transportation Centers that were selected in this nationwide competition, by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), U.S. Department of Transportation (US DOT), under the FAST Act. The authors are also very grateful for all of the time and effort spent by DOT and industry professionals to provide project information that was critical for the successful completion of this study. DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the material and information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program and Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority in the interest of information exchange. The U.S.
  • Work Your Way. Every Day

    Work Your Way. Every Day

    WORK YOUR WAY. EVERY DAY. AUSTIN, TEXAS HIGHLAND MALL BLVD A DIVERSE MIX. Residential ACC Future Phase Residential Office/ 1 Office/ Commercial A VIBRANT ECOSYSTEM. 2 Commercial WILL DAVIS DR Office/ ACC DENSON DR Commercial Phase 1 WAY KINSLOW STEPHEN JONATHAN DR JONATHAN Austin’s newest opportunity Highland By The Numbers HAGE DR 35 Office/ is on its way. Residential Commercial St. John’s ACC ACC ACC Encampment Phase 2 Future Phase Commons Y LAND AREA SIGNATURE OPEN SPACE A W Retail Below ACC HIGHLAND CAMPUS DR CAMPUS HIGHLAND ACC D L Office/ E An energetic, walkable and transit-friendly 3 I F T Commercial JACOB FONTAINE LN A H S HIGHLAND A mixed-use neighborhood is emerging in the WILHELMINA DELCO DR ACRES NEW PARKS M STATION O Proposed H 3 ACC T 81 relocation heart of Austin. Highland brings together a rich Phase 2 Retail Below mix of uses with 865,000+ square feet of Class ACC Future ACC Phase Duval St Residential Corporate MIDDLE FISKVILLE RD A office space, hundreds of new apartments NEW TRAILS RESIDENTIAL Academic and shops—and a new high-tech instructional MILES UNITS CLAYTON LN space built in partnership with ACC, one of Office/ 1.25 1,320 4 Office/Commercial Commercial Retail Below the nation’s most forward-thinking community TIRADO ST Residential AIRPORT BLVD college systems. At Highland, you’re not just Residential OFFICE ACC - HIGH TECH CAMPUS ACC doing business the smart way; you’re doing Potential Retail Below business your way. ACC SF SF HQ 1,065,000 1,300,000 Parking Garage CLAYTON LN RETAIL POTENTIAL POPULATION Highland 1 Highland 2 Highland 3 Highland 4 290 150,000 SF 28,600 150K - 500K SF 250K SF 250K SF 65K SF E KOENIG LN Developable Class A Office Space Developable Class A Office Space Developable Class A Office Space Developable Class A Office Space Structure Parked: 4/1,000 Structure Parked: 4/1,000 Structure Parked: 4/1,000 Structure Parked: 5/1,000 Conceptual Plan Subject to Change REINLI ST HIGHLAND 2 BUILT FOR BUSINESS ALL YOU NEED—AND THEN SOME.