Evaluation of the New Jersey Transit Village Initiative Executive Summary Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy Rutgers University December 2003 www.policy.rutgers.edu/vtc/tod/transitvillages Executive Summary Introduction Background From September 2002 to October 2003, the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center1 The Transit Village Initiative is a program that (VTC) at Rutgers University conducted an seeks to revitalize and grow selected evaluation of the New Jersey Transit Village communities with transit as an anchor. Initiative, funded by the New Jersey Although the Transit Village Initiative is Department of Transportation (NJDOT). As staffed and directed by the New Jersey part of this evaluation, VTC has produced the Department of Transportation, a Task Force of following reports in our assessment of the representatives from several state agencies Initiative: meets regularly to guide the Initiative. The participating agencies are: · State of the Literature: Transit-Oriented Development · New Jersey Department of Transportation · Demographics of the New Jersey Transit · New Jersey Department of Environmental Villages Protection · Transit Villages in New Jersey: Success · New Jersey Redevelopment Authority Factors, Obstacles, and Recommendations · New Jersey Transit · Transit Villages in New Jersey: · New Jersey Department of Community Recommendations for Assessment and Affairs Accountability - Office of Smart Growth - MainStreet New Jersey In addition to these written reports, a · New Jersey Economic Development symposium was held at the Edward J. Authority Bloustein School of Planning and Public · New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Policy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, Finance Agency New Jersey, on October 10, 2003, to release · New Jersey Commerce & Economic our findings. All the materials from the Growth Commission symposium, including the PowerPoint · New Jersey Council on the Arts presentation, and all the written reports can be downloaded at: Within each agency, at least one person has www.policy.rutgers.edu/vtc/tod/ been appointed the Transit Village transitvillages. representative. Each municipality also has a contact person who works directly with this This Executive Summary highlights the major representative, in addition to working with the findings of the evaluation of the New Jersey Transit Village coordinator at NJDOT. The Transit Village Initiative. benefit of being a Transit Village is that this designation not only gives these municipalities priority for state grants but also allows the municipalities to have direct contact with the representatives of these agencies. This is 1 Originally, transportation policy studies were carried often helpful in expediting development out under the name Transportation Policy Institute approvals. (TPI) as part of the Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center (VTC). As of September 2003, TPI is no longer The Transit Village is designated as the half- an active entity and all research activity is encompassed mile area around the transit facility (this is by the VTC designation. Evaluation of the New Jersey Transit Village Initiative 1 Executive Summary also typically referred to as a transit-oriented practice manner, but the Brookings report development area). The Transit Village begins to outline necessary goals and Initiative fits into the larger smart growth objectives for a coherent public vision. agenda in New Jersey because it helps to The California report takes the Brookings promote the growth of businesses and report’s recommendations and develops a residential population around existing (or model of state policy to promote TOD. planned, in one case) transportation 3. It is necessary to develop a typology and infrastructure investments. Its aim is to guidelines for success: Although TOD is reduce traffic congestion and improve air subject to local market constraints, it is quality by promoting increased transit necessary to develop a system for ridership, pedestrian activity, and bicycle use. classifying different places and then In addition, the goals of economic creating guidelines for success. Future revitalization and increasing the housing stock TODs should learn from the successes are part of an overall effort to create vibrant, and/or failures of the past—it is necessary enjoyable, and exciting areas around major to define obstacles to success, especially in transit nodes. a local context. 4. Housing, parking, and financing need State of the Literature: Transit-Oriented special attention: All three of these Development (December 2002) reports identify the importance of housing, parking, and financing for TODs. These A literature review was conducted as the first issues need to be worked on in a general task in our evaluation. This report was a sense, again to develop guidelines for meta-review of three literature reviews about success, but they also need to be addressed transit-oriented development (TOD). We in a local context for each new project. summarize Transit Oriented Development: 5. Measuring and evaluating success is Moving from Rhetoric to Reality (Belzer and necessary: To ensure that TODs are Autler 2002) by the Brookings Institution, successful, a process of evaluation is Transit Oriented Development and Joint important to discern how well goals are Development in the United States: A being realized. As is stated in the TCRP Literature Review (Cervero, Ferrell, and report, most TODs in the United States are Murphy 2002) by the Transit Cooperative so new that adequate data have not yet Research Program (TCRP), and Statewide been collected to evaluate their success. Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors for Success in California (California Demographics of the New Jersey Transit Department of Transportation 2002). Villages (October 2003) Our general conclusions are: The goal of the demographics analysis was to understand the unique character of each 1. Collaboration is key: To successfully Transit Village and to determine if there were build a TOD, it is vital not only for public any patterns across the municipalities. Our and private sectors to work together but findings reveal three typologies across the also for different levels of government and seven municipalities.2 We found similarities different agencies across government to cooperate. 2 Metuchen was not included in this analysis because it 2. Public policies are lacking: The TCRP did not receive the Transit Village Designation until report discusses case studies in a best- December 2002, which was after the start of this evaluation. Evaluation of the New Jersey Transit Village Initiative 2 Executive Summary among the Traditional Bedroom Communities · Rental vacancy rate goes up in all of Morristown, Rutherford, and South Orange. Villages, but only in Pleasantville does it Rahway and South Amboy are characterized get critically high as Urban, Industrial-Based Communities, and · In terms of percentages, there are more Pleasantville and Riverside are the South households without cars in all Villages Jersey, Non-Commuter Rail Communities. · In terms of percentages, there are fewer households with 3 or more cars in all Furthermore, in general, the characteristics of Villages the Transit Village (the half-mile area around · A higher percentage of workers in the the transit station) shift from the municipal Transit Village use mass transit profile with remarkable consistency: · A higher percentage of workers walk to work in all Villages except South Orange · School-age population percentage goes up in the Transit Village (except in South To summarize: Transit Villages in New Orange and Rutherford) Jersey feature a younger population, more · Senior population percentage drops in the racial and ethnic diversity, more Transit Village (except in South Orange immigrants, lower household economics, and Rutherford, where it increases) more singles, more rental housing, higher · White non-Hispanic population level goes vacancy rates, and better transit habits— down in the Transit Village (except in fewer cars, more use of trains and buses, South Orange, where it increases) and more residents walking to work. · Hispanic levels increase in all Transit Villages except South Orange Transit Villages in New Jersey: Success · Foreign-born population percentage Factors, Obstacles, and Recommendations increases in all the Transit Villages except (October 2003) South Amboy · Married couple households drop in share This report presents the findings of in-depth in the Transit Villages except in Riverside interviews with stakeholders, including state and South Amboy officials, municipal officials, and private · Female single parent households in all the developers. The following bulleted items Transit Villages stay at about the same summarize each of the success factors, level as in the municipalities obstacles, and recommendations: · Single-person households increase in share in all Villages Success Factors · Poverty rate goes up in all Villages except South Orange, where it stays the same State Government · Unemployment levels go up in all Transit · A Task Force that meets regularly with Villages except Morristown and Riverside designated agency representatives to · Single-family housing stock drops in monitor progress in the designated percentage in all Transit Villages except municipalities, to discuss problems, and Pleasantville propose solutions · Homeownership rate drops in all Transit · Engaged Task Force members who help Villages, except