TargeTing TransiT: Assessing Development Opportunities Around New Jersey’s Transit Stations September 2012 Assessing Development Opportunities Around New Jersey’s Transit Stations GETTING TO WORK: R E C O N N E C T I N G J O B S W I T H T R A N S I T September 2012 November 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary 2 Acknowledgements 2 Introduction: The Importance of Transit Ridership and Transit-Oriented Development 3 Executive Summary 5 Part 1: Basic Facts About New Jersey’s Public Transportation System 5 Introduction 5 Documenting Job Decentralization 11 Part II: Characteristics of Individual Stations 7 Centralized vs. Decentralized Models of Employment Distribution 14 Part III: Characteristics of “Station Areas” 9 Concentrated Employment and Commuting: Sharing the Ride 19 Part IV: Different Stations, Different Functions 10 Transit Ridership to the Big City 22 Part V: From Data to Information 11 New Jersey Jobs Migrating Away from Transit 33 Part VI: Potential Users of the Inventory 12 More Solo Drivers 35 Part VII: Recommendations 14 Commute Times Increasing 15 Job Loss in Older Job Centers 18 Reconnecting Jobs with Transit Maps 20 The Need for Transit Hubs within New Jersey 5 Map 1: Transit Commuting Rates by County 22 Recommendations 7 Map 2: The Rail Transit System in New Jersey 29 Endnotes 8 Map 3: Northern New Jersey Detail of New Jersey Transit Rail System 8 Map 4: Detail of Philadelphia-Area Rail Transit Figures 9 Map 5: New Jersey and New York Ferry Terminals 5 Relative Job Center 7 Job Decentralization: Employment Spreading Among More Municipalities 8 Centralized and Decentralized Employment Models Tables 10 Job Distribution Models: Monocentric, Polycentric, and Dispersed 6 Table 1: States with Transit Commute Mode Shares Exceeding the National Average 11 Percent of Employed Residents Commuting to Manhattan or Philadelphia 23 Table 2: Stations Served by Multiple Rail Lines 12 Municipalities Joining or Dropping Off the List of Absolute Job Centers 24 Table 3: Stations Served by More Than One Mode of Transportation Making Up Half the State’s Total Private-Sector Employment, 1980-2000 25 Table 4: Transit Municipalities With the Largest Ratios of Jobs to Employed Residents 13 Changing Commuting Characteristics Among Absolute Job-Center Municipalities 25 Table 5: Transit Municipalities with the Greatest Number of Jobs Comprising Half of Total Statewide Private-Sector Employment 14 Non-Single-OccupancyVehicle Commuting, New Jersey and United States, 1980-2000 26 Table 6: Station Areas Featuring the Highest Population Densities 15 Top 10 States by Average Travel Time to Work,Transit vs. Non-Transit 27 Table 7: Stations in Neighborhoods With Lowest Percentages of Single-Family Detached Housing 16 Biggest Job-Gaining and Job-Losing Municipalities, 1980-2003, Relative to the Rail Transit Network 28 Table 8a: Stations in Neighborhoods Where at Least One-Third of Households Do Not Own a Vehicle 17 Commuting Characteristics in Large Job-Losing and Job-Gaining Municipalities 29 Table 8b: Additional Stations in Neighborhoods Where at Least Two-Thirds of Households Own (1980-2003),Tabulated by Municipality of Employment at Most One Vehicle 18 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Declining Job Centers vs. New Jersey Total 30 Table 9: Stations in Neighborhoods Having Median Household Income Less Than 60 Percent 21 Population Density vs. Per-CapitaVehicle-Miles Traveled for New Jersey Counties 23 Municipalities/Rail Transit Stations Recommended for Consideration as Transit-Oriented Employment Hubs of Statewide Media 31 Table 10: Stations in Neighborhoods Having Median Home Value Less Than 60 Percent of Tables Statewide Median 30 Absolute Job-Center Municipalities Comprising 50 Percent of Statewide 31 Table 11: Stations in Neighborhoods Having Median Home Value Greater Than 200 Percent of Private-Sector Employment, 1980 and 2003 Statewide Median 32 Top 20 Job-Gaining and Job-Losing Municipalities, 1980-2003 32 Table 12: Stations with Disproportionately Large Supplies of Parking 32 Table 13: Stations with Large Supplies of Underutilized Surface Parking GETTING TO WORK: RECONNECTING JOBS WITH TRANSIT 1 Appendix: 39 List of Transit Stations in New Jersey by Host County and Municipality Assessing Development TargeTing Opportunities Around TransiT: New Jersey’s Transit Stations Executive Summary New Jersey is iN possession of a valuable resource: private real estate developers have all embraced TOD one of the most extensive public transportation systems to varying degrees. But not all TOD is necessarily in the country, an artifact of a transportation past that equal; some transit station areas may be particularly pre-dates the Interstate Highway System and the om- well suited to one type of development (office, retail, nipresence of the automobile. The legacy bequeathed residential, parking) but not to others. The unique by this resource is a rate of transit commuting that is characteristics of each individual station area can in- second highest among the 50 states. Transit ridership form decisions about what kind of development should creates many societal, economic, and personal benefits: be encouraged at what locations. for example, reducing congestion on the state’s roads; Thus far, the determination of which stations are ap- alleviating the emission of pollutants and greenhouse propriate for which type of development has largely gases; reducing the need for vehicle ownership; and been an ad-hoc, opportunity-driven process rather freeing up commuters’ time for other uses (reading, than a systematic one. A comprehensive and objec- sleeping, etc.) rather than having to pay attention to tive assessment of conditions around all of New Jersey’s the road. In general, transit creates efficiencies and transit stations would help identify those stations that reduces the per-capita impact of the transportation sys- pose the greatest opportunities for TOD in general, tem by allowing multiple travelers to share the ride. and for which variety of TOD. This in turn will help If increasing transit ridership is a desirable goal, then an to direct limited public and private investments more intermediate goal must be to improve access to transit. efficiently and strategically. The more activity centers (homes, stores, workplaces) The purpose of this report is to present and describe an are clustered near the transit system, the more people analytic tool for prioritizing TOD investments that has will be able to use transit for some of their daily ac- been developed by New Jersey Future: an inventory tivities. Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a term of the state’s transit stations, populated with key data used to describe a development pattern that concen- items pertaining to each station and the area surround- trates activity centers near transit stations and fosters ing it. The report will also provide examples of the the kinds of pedestrian connectivity and amenities that kinds of questions that can be answered with results help translate that physical proximity into actual foot generated from the inventory. From such a tool for traffic and transit use. quantitatively assessing and ranking transit stations and The transportation community, policy leaders with- their host neighborhoods, a systematic, targeted TOD in New Jersey state government, local officials, and promotion strategy might evolve. IntroductioN: The Importance of Transit ridership and Transit-oriented development New Jersey is iN possessioN of a valuable resource: to a more dispersed workforce. In general, it creates one of the most extensive public transportation systems efficiencies and reduces the per-capita impact of the in the country, an artifact of a transportation past that transportation system by allowing multiple travelers predates the Interstate Highway System and the om- to share the ride. nipresence of the automobile. The legacy bequeathed If increasing transit ridership is a desirable goal, for by that resource is a rate of transit commuting that, at any or all of the above reasons, then an intermediate 1 2 11.2 percent, is second highest among the 50 states, goal must be to improve access to transit, namely by in- taking hundreds of thousands of private vehicles off creasing the number of people who can get to a transit the road every day. (Although this report will fo- station – whether on foot, by car, or some other means cus primarily on rail transit, because of the more per- – from their point of origin within an elapsed time manent nature of its physical facilities, it should be that does not exceed their tolerance threshold. A ma- noted that bus commuting exceeds rail commuting in jor factor that affects how many people have realistic New Jersey – the 11.2 percent transit commuting rate access to transit is the pattern of the built environment breaks down as 6.6 percent bus, 4.4 percent rail, and surrounding transit stations. The more activity cen- 0.2 percent ferry.) ters (homes, stores, workplaces) are clustered near a transit station, with proximity generally being framed Not all TODNot isall necessarily TOD is necessarily equal. The equal. unique The unique in terms of walking distance, the more people will be characteristicscharacteristics of each individual of each station individual areastation area able to use transit for some of their daily activities. may informmay informdecisions decisions about about what what kind kind of of devel- Transit-oriented development,3 or TOD, is a term development should be encouraged at what locations.