<%BANNER%>

Impact of Transit-Oriented Developments on Housing and Transportation Affordability

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022221/00001

Material Information

Title: Impact of Transit-Oriented Developments on Housing and Transportation Affordability Applying Case Study Results and Previous Research to Gainesville in 2060
Physical Description: 1 online resource (104 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 2060, affordability, developments, gainesville, hill, housing, light, mockingbird, oriented, pleasant, rail, station, tods, transit, transportation
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Using a new definition of affordability as a function of both housing and transportation costs, this thesis uses an economic model to determine how transit-oriented developments around rail systems impact the combined affordability for residents. Pleasant Hill Station, along the Bay Area Rapid Transit line in the Bay Area of California, and Mockingbird Station, along the Dallas Area Rapid Transit line in Dallas, are used as the two case studies for this report. Monetary cost models for each case study take into account driving distances to central business districts, rent premiums around TODs, parking and gasoline costs, automobile ownership costs, and transit costs for a series of commuters in different locations to determine the most equitable result. The outcome of these case studies, combined with previous research, then became the basis for testing the affordability of the Gainesville 2060 Long Range Transportation light rail alternative proposed by Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization Director Marlie Sanderson. Affordability within Gainesville was measured by balancing rent premiums with the reduction in automobile ownership and resulted in a significant net savings for residents within TODs. A hypothetical light rail line traversing along Newberry Road, University Avenue, and Waldo Road containing ten stops and seven planned TODs was created to determine the percentage of the population affected. Though many of the variables within the model may change over time, the results of this thesis challenge the assertion that costs increase for citizens upon the construction of a rail transportation system when affordability is defined as a measure of combined housing and transportation costs. Generally, research is lacking regarding the area-wide affect that recent light rail systems have had on rents and property values, and further research in this area would help strengthen some of the assumptions within this model. Specifically relating to the Gainesville in 2060 model, transportation modeling software should be used to analyze the potential ridership along the proposed light rail line, and a cost estimate should be calculated to determine the amount of funding required to complete such a project.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022221:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022221/00001

Material Information

Title: Impact of Transit-Oriented Developments on Housing and Transportation Affordability Applying Case Study Results and Previous Research to Gainesville in 2060
Physical Description: 1 online resource (104 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 2060, affordability, developments, gainesville, hill, housing, light, mockingbird, oriented, pleasant, rail, station, tods, transit, transportation
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Using a new definition of affordability as a function of both housing and transportation costs, this thesis uses an economic model to determine how transit-oriented developments around rail systems impact the combined affordability for residents. Pleasant Hill Station, along the Bay Area Rapid Transit line in the Bay Area of California, and Mockingbird Station, along the Dallas Area Rapid Transit line in Dallas, are used as the two case studies for this report. Monetary cost models for each case study take into account driving distances to central business districts, rent premiums around TODs, parking and gasoline costs, automobile ownership costs, and transit costs for a series of commuters in different locations to determine the most equitable result. The outcome of these case studies, combined with previous research, then became the basis for testing the affordability of the Gainesville 2060 Long Range Transportation light rail alternative proposed by Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization Director Marlie Sanderson. Affordability within Gainesville was measured by balancing rent premiums with the reduction in automobile ownership and resulted in a significant net savings for residents within TODs. A hypothetical light rail line traversing along Newberry Road, University Avenue, and Waldo Road containing ten stops and seven planned TODs was created to determine the percentage of the population affected. Though many of the variables within the model may change over time, the results of this thesis challenge the assertion that costs increase for citizens upon the construction of a rail transportation system when affordability is defined as a measure of combined housing and transportation costs. Generally, research is lacking regarding the area-wide affect that recent light rail systems have had on rents and property values, and further research in this area would help strengthen some of the assumptions within this model. Specifically relating to the Gainesville in 2060 model, transportation modeling software should be used to analyze the potential ridership along the proposed light rail line, and a cost estimate should be calculated to determine the amount of funding required to complete such a project.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Larsen, Kristin E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022221:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





IMPACT OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS ON HOUSING AND
TRANSPORTATION AFFORDABILITY: APPLYING CASE STUDY RESULTS AND
PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE TO GAINESVILLE IN 2060


















By

JEFF DAVIS


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2008

































O 2008 Jeff Davis































To all who hold out hope that hard work can triumph over talent, and to all who have inspired me

and encouraged me to continue, despite a lack of abundance of the latter.









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first off like to thank my supervisory committee chair, Dr. Ruth Steiner; my

cochair Dr. Kristin Larsen; and Dr. Zhong-Ren Peng for taking time out of their busy schedules

to review my thesis and ask the tough questions to further facilitate my learning.

More specifically I would like to thank Dr. Steiner for taking a break from her sabbatical

to talk with my Housing class about the housing and transportation connection, which gave me

the inspiration for my topic. I would also like to thank Youngseok Jang for teaching me ArcGIS

in three hours and Gainesville City Commissioner and Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Board member Ed Braddy for empowering me to include a future analysis of Gainesville in

2060.

Last but not least, I would like to thank all of my friends, family, coaches, bosses, and

teachers who have encouraged me, inspired me, and made me laugh, including John Davis for

leading by example; Margie Davis for showing me everything that life had to offer (though she

could have left out gymnastics and the piano); Amy Barrett for cleaning my dishes and doing my

laundry during the preparation of this document, and in general making me happy; Gene Boles

for employing me and allowing me free reign over the dry erase board; the Troupe (Fingaz,

Thief, Bullet, Rainbow, and the Biz) for the heists, the laughs, and the stingers; Brooke Pate for

pushing me to the limits; Caleb Stewart for taking me to the hospital and giving me the

opportunity to live my life with a straight left ring finger; the City of San Francisco for keeping

me excited about the future, and the Auburn and Florida water polo teams for providing me with

a healthy release for my frustration for all of these years.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............. ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ................. ...............7......._.....


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............8.....


LI ST OF AB BREVIAT IONS ........._..... ...._... ...............9.....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 10...


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............12.......... ......


2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................. ...............15................


Introducti on ................. ...............15.................

Affordable Housing .............. ...............15....
D efinition............... .. .............1

Why is This a Problem? ............ ...............16.....
Local Affordability ................. ........... ...............18......
Housing and Transportation Connection ................. ...............19................
Evidence .............. ...............19....

H history .................. ...............20..
Public Transportation .............. ...............23....
Transit-Oriented Developments............... ..............2
Definition............... ...............2

Design ................. ...............28.................
Benefits ................. ...............29.................

Challenges .............. ...............33....
Criticisms............... ...............3
Future ................. ............. ...............37.......

Light Rail in Gainesville? .....__ ................ ...............38. ....
Summary ................. ...............40.................


3 METHODOLOGY .............. ...............42....


Case Shtdies............... ...............42

Gainesville Application .............. ...............46....

Background ................. .......... ...............46.......
Why Alternative Three? ............ ...............47.....
Expected Results and Limitations .............. ...............47....
Gainesville Methodology .............. ...............48....
Gainesville TOD Locations ................. ...............51................












TOD Classifications............... ............5
Suburban............... ...............52
Transitional ................. ...............52.................
Urban ................ ...............53.................


4 CASE STUDIES ................. ...............56........... ....


Introducti on ................. ...............56.................
Pleasant Hill Station .............. ...............56....

Background and Overview ................. ...............56........... ....
M odel ................. ...............58.................
M ockingbird Station ........._.__........_. ...............62....
Back ground and Overview ........._.___..... .___ ...............62....
M odel ........._.__....... .__ ...............63....

Case Study Conclusions .............. ...............65....


5 APPLICATION FOR GAINESVELLE IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS .............. ..................69


Lessons Learned from Case Studies ................. ...............69........... ...
Gainesville TOD Descriptions....................... ...............7
Oaks Mall/North Florida Regional Medical Center ................. ................ ........ .70
Forty-Third Street and Newberry Road............... ...............71..
Thirty-Fourth Street and University Avenue............... ...............71.
Thirteenth Street and University Avenue .....__.....___ ..........__ ...........7
Waldo Road and University Avenue ................. ...............72........... ...
T wel fth Avenue and Wal do Road .............. ...............73....

Thirty-First Avenue and Waldo Road ................ ...............74........... ...
Stations Not Designated as TODs .............. ...............74....
Transportation and Housing Calculations .............. ...............75....
Factors That May Change the Conclusion .............. ...............75...
Factors That May Affect, but Not Change the Conclusion ................ ............. .......78
Gainesville Conclusion............... ...............8


6 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS............._.._.. .....94


Conclusion ........._ ..... ...._._. ........___.........94
Further Research Recommendations .............. ...............96....


LI ST OF REFERENCE S ........._.. ........_. ...............98...


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........._. ........_. ...............104...










LIST OF TABLES

Table page

4-1 Pleasant Hill Commuter Costs ................. ...............68.............

4-2 Mockingbird Station Commuter Costs .............. ...............68....

5-1 TOD Developmental Totals............... ...............92.

5-2 Factors that May Change the Conclusion ................ ...............92........... ..

5-3 Factors that May Affect the Result, but Do Not Change the Conclusion..........................93










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

3-1 Four Types of Commuters Used in the Case Studies .............. ...............54....

3-2 Proposed Gainesville Light Rail Line ........._.. .......... .. ...............55..

5-2 Oaks Mall and NFRMC Current Conditions ................. ...............82........... ..

5-3 Forty-Third Street and Newberry Road Current Conditions .............. .....................8

5-4 Thirty-Fourth Street and University Ave Current Conditions............__ ..........___.....83

5-5 Thirteenth Street and University Avenue Current Conditions............... ...............8

5-6 Waldo Road and University Avenue Current Conditions............... ...............8

5-7 Twelfth Avenue and Waldo Road Current Conditions ................. .......... ...............84

5-8 Thirty-First Avenue and Waldo Road Current Conditions ................. .......................84

5-9 Parcel Analysis for the Oaks Mall and North Florida Regional Medical Center
Suburban TOD ............_. ...._... ...............85....

5-10 Parcel Analysis for the Forty-Third Street and Newberry Road Transitional TOD..........86

5-11 Parcel Analysis for the Thirty-Fourth Street and University Avenue Urban TOD ...........87

5-12 Parcel Analysis for the Thirteenth Street and University Avenue Urban TOD ................88

5-13 Parcel Analysis for the Waldo Road and University Avenue Urban TOD........................89

5-14 Parcel Analysis for the Twelfth Avenue and Waldo Road Transitional TOD ..................90

5-15 Parcel Analysis for the Thirty-First Avenue and Waldo Road Suburban TOD ................91









LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research

CEDA Community and Economic Development Agency

DART Dallas Area Rapid Transit

DOT Department of Transportation

MTPO Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization

NFRMC North Florida Regional Medical Center

OHA Oakland Housing Authority

TOD Transit-Oriented Development

UF University of Florida

US United States









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the
University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning

IMPACT OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS ON HOUSING AND
TRANSPORTATION AFFORDABILITY: APPLYING CASE STUDY RESULTS AND
PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE TO GAINESVILLE IN 2060

By

Jeff Davis
May 2008
Chair: Ruth Steiner
Cochair: Kristin Larsen
Major: Urban and Regional Planning

Using a new definition of affordability as a function of both housing and transportation

costs, this thesis uses an economic model to determine how transit-oriented developments around

rail systems impact the combined affordability for residents. Pleasant Hill Station, along the Bay

Area Rapid Transit line in the Bay Area of California, and Mockingbird Station, along the Dallas

Area Rapid Transit line in Dallas, are used as the two case studies for this report. Monetary cost

models for each case study take into account driving distances to central business districts, rent

premiums around TODs, parking and gasoline costs, automobile ownership costs, and transit

costs for a series of commuters in different locations to determine the most equitable result.

The outcome of these case studies, combined with previous research, then became the

basis for testing the affordability of the Gainesville 2060 Long Range Transportation light rail

alternative proposed by Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization Director

Marlie Sanderson. Affordability within Gainesville was measured by balancing rent premiums

with the reduction in automobile ownership and resulted in a significant net savings for residents

within TODs. A hypothetical rail line traversing along Newberry Road, University Avenue, and

Waldo Road containing ten stops and seven planned TODs was created to determine the

percentage of the population affected. Though many of the variables within the model may









change over time, the results of this thesis challenge the assertion that costs increase for citizens

upon the construction of a rail transportation system when affordability is defined as a measure

of combined housing and transportation costs.

Generally, research is lacking regarding the area-wide affect that recent light rail systems

have had on rents and property values, and further research in this area would help strengthen

some of the assumptions within this model. Specifically relating to the Gainesville in 2060

scenario, transportation modeling software should be used to analyze the potential ridership

along the proposed light rail line, and cost estimates should be conducted to determine the

amount of funding required to complete such a project.









CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

"If a city has rapid transportation, it will hold together and renew itself. If it does not have

a means of rapid travel, it will decentralize and the obsolete will be forsaken and left to fester

and blight" (Sidney Waldron, Detroit Rapid Transit Commission: March 23, 1944). Much irony

exists in the previous statement, from the city to the year, and unfortunately Mr. Waldron's

statement was all too prophetic. Since the end of World War II, a massive shift has occurred in

the way cities develop. The United States economy has transitioned from a blue collar industrial

economy to a service economy, diversity in the workplace has increased as both men and women

began working full-time jobs, and the automobile has become the preferred, if not only, means of

transportation. In the process, many wealthy citizens have moved to the suburbs, leaving the

poor behind in the inner-cities. The suburban form that has emerged differs greatly from the

traditional form by favoring large lot sizes and controlled access neighborhoods that distribute

traffic onto high capacity roads or arterials over town-centered developments. Accommodation

of this traffic has become one of the main functions of community policy and planning, and in

the process a lack of affordable housing has become an increasing problem (Eisenberg, 2004).

With cities sprawling and commute times lengthening, the search for affordable housing

cannot be discussed without taking into account the transportation costs associated with getting

from this housing to and from work, commercial districts, and other activities. Currently,

transportation is the second highest household expenditure behind housing in the United States,

and it combines to account for over 50% of the budget for the average American family (Canby,

2003). To counteract this trend, planning departments around the country have begun to explore

the use of transit oriented developments (TODs). These developments attempt to concentrate a

mix of residential and commercial uses around a transit station, and offer an opportunity for the










provision of medium to high density affordable housing and a reduction in transportation costs

through improved accessibility and mobility.

The Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization (MTPO) recently

announced plans for testing various alternative directions for long range transportation planning

in the area in the next 50 years using the future population proj sections developed by the 1000

Friends of Florida. The four alternatives named by MTPO director Marlie Sanderson at the

meeting of that commission on October, 11i, 2007 were (1) a western grid network, (2) a circular

beltway around the city, (3) a light rail system along maj or arterials, or (4) a bus rapid transit

system along maj or arterials.

A light rail system should not be considered out of the realm of possibilities for a City the

size of Gainesville in the next fifty years, as cities such as Norfolk, Virginia and others with

populations under 250,000 have light rail systems either in the construction or planning stages.

Though the current size of Gainesville is relatively small (estimated population of 1 10,000 in

2006), the City has nearly six times more riders per capital on its RTS bus system than central

Florida companion Orlando, (Central Florida, 2007; Gainesville Regional, 2007) while nearly

matching the ridership of Hillsborough Counties' HART system, which serves an urban area of

over 2 million and recently opened a downtown streetcar line (Hillsborough Area, 2007).

Gainesville presents a unique opportunity for a city of its size due to the large number of students

and faculty commuting to a single location with restricted parking. Students are typically more

willing to take transit than the population as a whole, and many make several trips to and from

class during the day due to gaps between classes.



SComparing annual ridership for the 2006-2007 year, Gainesville's RTS system had 8.9 million riders while
Hillsborough Counties' HART system had 10.6 million riders (Gainesville Regional, 2007; Hillsborough Area,
2007).









The first part of this thesis will attempt to quantify the effectiveness of current transit-

oriented developments at reducing the combined housing and transportation costs for low and

middle income families through case studies of two TODs: Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas

and Pleasant Hill Station in the Bay Area of Northern California. The second part of this thesis

will combine previous research on TODs with the findings of the two case studies, and apply it

to Alternative Three of the 2060 long range transportation plan for the Gainesville Area

presented at the October 11Ith Meeting of the Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Board. The final verdict of this thesis will answer whether an argument can be made for or

against the light rail alternative in Gainesville on the grounds that it will increase combined

housing and transportation affordability for low and middle income households. The result will

include the percentage of the population affected and the extent, along with a critical analysis of

the results.

A key to the success of the American democracy is an informed citizenry. In the absence

of empirical studies with definitive conclusions, special interest groups and ideologues, more

interested in a specific agenda than the public good, have free reign over the debate and much

greater leeway in affecting public opinion. In cities from California to Florida the merits of TOD

have been thoroughly debated, but little research has been undertaken specifically intended to

determine the affordability, in terms of both housing and transportation, of living within these

developments. The final result of this thesis will hopefully provide empirical data to better

inform the public regarding the combined housing and transportation costs experienced by

residents of TODs, and serve to dispel many of the myths and rumors regarding TODs and their

effect on affordability.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

While little literature exists specifically connecting transit-oriented developments (TODs)

with their effect on combined housing and transportation costs, a large body of research exists

regarding each part of the research question. This literature review will take a comprehensive

approach by summing the individual parts of research to provide an extensive background for the

subsequent analysis on the topic.

The conventional way to view locational affordability is principally through housing costs,

so this area will be examined initially. The connection between housing and transportation costs

will then be established to develop an overall measure of affordability as a combination of the

two. Upon establishing combined housing and transportation affordability as the problem, TODs

will be examined as a possible solution. This examination will include a background on the

definition, design, benefits, challenges, and criticisms of TODs. Finally, the feasibility of a light

rail system in a city the size of Gainesville will be investigated.

Affordable Housing

Definition

The threshold for affordable housing is commonly defined as 30% of family income.

Housing stock within a given area is typically defined as affordable when the annual rent total is

less than 30% of the median income. Likewise, families spending over 30% of their pre-tax

family income are deemed to have an excessive housing cost burden. Using the later criterion,

nearly 25% of all homeowners and 40% of all renters surveyed nationwide have an excessive

housing cost burden, with these burdens concentrated among low income families (Schwartz,

2006). In the City of Gainesville, possibly due to the large percentage of college students, the









numbers are more polarizing as only 20.2% of homeowners, but 50.4% of renters' surveyed pay

more than 30% of their annual income on housing (Alachua County, 2003).

Why is This a Problem?

As regulation has increased the overall quality of the housing stock, affordability has

become an increasing problem throughout the United States. Over the past several decades, rents

have increased faster than the incomes of renters, leading to an increasing percentage of the

population without access to housing, not because of a lack of units, but rather a lack of

appropriately priced units (Schwartz, 2006). Government regulation of the housing market

initially sought to improve the conditions in the inner city slums of the early 20th century.

Overcrowding, unsanitary waste disposal, fire-prone and structurally deficient buildings,

immoral behavior, and political unrest were the chief deficiencies of the tenement housing and

the environments they created (Hall, 2002). Studies confirming that the living conditions

expedited the spread of disease combined with both j ournalistic works and the newly invented

photographs convinced city commissions to take action. Regulations were adopted by local, and

later the federal government, increasing the size and quality, while decreasing the density of

housing that could be provided (Schwartz, 2006). In the second half of the 20th century, in order

to protect property values, suburban land use regulations began to segregate housing types,

further limit density, and increase lot sizes through setback requirements, severely hampering the

ability of the private market to provide affordable housing. Given the positive stigma and

profitability of this type of housing and neighborhood development, it remains unclear whether

the removal of these regulations would increase the amount of affordable housing (Schwartz,

2006).

From a units perspective, the lack of affordable housing likely results from both the

reduction in federally subsidized housing stock and the inability of the private market to profit









from creating affordable housing. Visible failures of public housing proj ects during the 1950s

and 1960s combined with a growing public sentiment for lower taxes and smaller government

have decreased the percentage of units provided by the government over the last several decades

(Schwartz, 2006). Many of the housing proj ects built during the era of urban renewal have been

torn down for smaller-unit developments, while the displaced units have not been re-created

elsewhere.

With vouchers increasing to over 54% of HIUD's budget in 2004 (Schwartz, 2004: 176),

the private market has become the chief mechanism for providing both subsidized and

unsubsidized housing to low and middle income families. As rents increase, governments must

pay more and more for each voucher, placing increased importance on the private market to

provide affordable units. If funding doesn't increase proportionately with rents, fewer families

can be provided with vouchers, and thus affordable housing. For low income families who don't

qualify for vouchers, the private market is the only alternative and an ever worsening

alternative at that. During the 1990's the number of units renting for under $400 fell by 13%,

and the number of units considered affordable to renters making below 30% of area median

income fell by 19% (Schwartz, 2006: 34). Schwartz (2006) describes the difficulty of the private

market in supplying affordable housing:

The rents collected from affordable housing affordable to the lowest income households
are often simply too low to cover the cost of maintenance, upkeep, debt service, and taxes,
to say nothing of profit for the investors. As a result, almost all new unsubsidized rental
housing is built for upscale markets. Owners of the affordable low-income housing that
does exist are all too frequently left with two choices: gradually disinvest until the property
becomes uninhabitable or reposition the property for higher income tenants (pg. 36).

In recent years local, state, and the federal government have searched for new methods of

providing and promoting affordable housing to low and middle income families, but no solution

has proven effective in all circumstances or without drawbacks and serious political opposition.









Besides vouchers and housing units, which directly address the problem, one new tool which has

become increasing used by local governments is inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning is

defined by Wilson (1994) as "zoning ordinances or policies that either tie development approval

to, or create regulatory incentives for, the provision of low to moderate income housing as part of

a proposed development" (p. 17). While inclusionary zoning may provide affordable housing at

little or no cost to local governments, create income-integrated communities, and reduce sprawl,

some critics argue that it unfairly taxes developers, removes the "best" of the poor from their

communities, and encourages unsustainable development (Galley and Burchell, 2000).

Local Affordability

Upon investigating the housing elements of the comprehensive plans of both Alachua

County and the City of Gainesville, the two jurisdictions do not appear to recognize a significant

affordable housing problem in either case, and only a portion of each element is dedicated to this

topic, with neither employing aggressive strategies to address the problem. This complacency

may be due to the large amount of generally wealthy, co-dependent college students who make

up a substantial portion of the population. The statistics however, point to an existing problem

for low income families, as 12, 184 of the 39,206 households surveyed in Alachua County in

1999, earned less than $10,000 per year and over 75% of these households paid over 30% of

their income on housing (Alachua County, 2003). The abundance of available land in western

Gainesville and Alachua County will likely mean that the problem of affordable housing may not

become pronounced for several decades. History has proven though, that planning for this issue

must begin ahead of time, because upon buildout, creating affordable housing as infill housing

become much more difficult, both politically and economically.









Housing and Transportation Connection


Evidence

Over the years, numerous models have been created that have attempted to quantify

which factors have the greatest effect on housing prices. A model of the San Francisco Bay area

found that commonly believed location factors such as proximity to a land-use mix, sales and

service jobs, and parks and open space were found to have little correlation with housing prices.

The one factor that had the greatest effect was the proximity to the central business district,

illustrating the significant role that transportation plays in determining the cost of housing

(Kockelman, 1997). This proximity to the central business district is such a significant indicator

due to the value that residents place on time, which was estimated by the same model as

approximately "$5/hr across all adult traveler trip types (in 1989 dollars)" (Kockelman, 1997).

An earlier study of the San Francisco Bay Area concluded that the transportation cost savings for

residents of Nob Hill, a neighborhood adj acent to the central businesses district, over those of

San Ramon, an East Bay suburb lacking regional transit access, were around $6,000 a year due

to an "efficient location" (Holtzclaw, 1994).

Due to the direct relationship between transportation and housing, one cannot begin to

discuss affordable housing without mentioning the combined housing and transportation costs.

Unlike housing costs, which tend to fluctuate relative to the state of the market, the cost of

transportation has continued to steadily rise over the last several decades before leveling off just

shy of 20% of pre-tax income for the average American family. As of 2001, the two largest

expenditures for the average American family were housing at 32.9% and transportation at

18.6% (Canby, 2003: 4). For a family living under the poverty line though, the percentage spent

on transportation increases drastically to 39. 1% (Canby, 2003: 4).









Before discussing methods to reduce transportation costs, one must attempt to understand

the relationship between transportation costs and housing costs. It seems intuitive that if you

reduce the cost of transportation, you will reduce the combined transportation and housing costs.

Urban economic theory, however, challenges the transitive property of mathematics by claiming

that rents will rise to offset the savings in transportation costs. This theory presumes that,

assuming all other factors are equal, the combined housing and transportation costs should be the

same for all families, irrespective of location; therefore, someone living in the suburbs should be

paying the same combined costs as someone living in the central business district. In reality

though, this is not often the case due to market miscalculations and the self reinforcing effects of

urban and suburban development (O' Sullivan, 2006).

History

Present day housing costs are best explained by examining the history of the modern

American City. When cities began to swell following the industrial revolution, people chose to

locate their homes close to work and their businesses close to their products and their labor

market, because shorter distances meant lower transportation costs. This transportation cost for

workers was mainly in the form of time, as nearly all residents walked to work, and the longer

distance walked meant less time that they could be doing other tasks. As the mid-1800's

approached, downtown cores of these walking cities began overflowing as development was

unable to expand beyond 2 miles of City Hall due the slow speed of a pedestrian commute

(Warner, 1962).

Between 1870 and 1900, the "whole scale and plan" of many industrialized metropolitan

areas, such as Boston, was "entirely made over" with the advent of the electric streetcar (Warner,

1960: 22). The electric streetcar facilitated the development of suburbs extending as far as "ten

miles" (Borchert, 2007) from the center of the city as upper and middle class citizens










"sympathizing with the rural ideal" (Warner, 1960: 14) escaped the tenement slums of the inner

city. At the time it was a common belief among "street railway managers, real estate men,

politicians, philanthropists, health officers, school teachers, and the middle class" in general that

"open country surroundings and the small community" were the ideal locations to raise a family

(Warner, 1960: 64). As lines extended and service frequency increased, development followed,

rapidly filling the spaces along corridors parallel and within walking distance of the lines in a

continuous strip from the center city.

Even with the suburban boom, cities of the late 1800s and early 1900s revolved around a

dense urban core that housed most of the population and commercial businesses, while

manufacturing plants located linearly along railroad lines and in proximity to ports within

downtown areas (O'Sullivan, 2006). For the manufacturing industry, transportation was

accomplished through the horse-drawn wagon for intracity transport and waterways or railroad

lines for intercity transport. Offices chose to locate in a central location to be close to their labor

market, and for the benefits of agglomeration economies, such as knowledge spillovers, sharing

intermediate inputs, labor pooling, and labor matching (O'Sullivan, 2006).2

These patterns changed in the last half of the twentieth century though, mainly due to the

advent of the automobile as the primary, and in some cases only, form of transportation for both

people and goods. This change had the largest impact on the location of residents, as they were

no longer restricted to either walking or public transportation. As post World War II incomes

rose for many middle and upper class residents, they chose to move away from the small living

spaces of the central business district and into the larger lot sizes of the suburbs. Urban

2 Agglomeration economies are the economic forces which cause firms to locate close to one another. Within this
realm, knowledge spillovers occur when businesses share ideas; sharing intermediate inputs occurs when clustering
firms share suppliers decreasing productions and transportation costs; labor pooling occurs when the sharing of labor
during the bust and boom cycle of local industries leads to a more stable labor market; and labor matching occurs
when workers with more choices are better able to find the firm which better suits their skill set.









economics justifies this move because land is a normal good, and thus, as income increases, the

desire for land increases (O' Sullivan, 2006). In theory the cost of this land should increase to

account for the trade-off between the increased transportation cost and the desire for space

(Boarnet and Crane, 2001: 34). This didn't hold true in reality though, as suburban land was

under priced, and a move away from the central business district became a more Einancially

sound decision (O' Sullivan, 2006).

Besides economics, there have been many other explanations for the suburban boom and

the deterioration of the downtown that occurred in the mid to later half of the 20th century.

Isenberg (2004) attributes it to four factors. First, the Great Depression for causing the

demolition of large downtown structures to enable the construction of parking lots and one-story

buildings, which reduced property taxes. Second, Urban Renewal for subsidizing the demolition

of historic structures with intrinsically lower property values to make room for larger, more

modern buildings and infrastructure. Third, racial riots, sit-ins, demonstrations and boycotts for

causing many customers to fear shopping downtown. And finally, traffic congestion, for

increasing the difficulty suburban shoppers faced in reaching downtown businesses (Isenberg,

2004). Peter Hall, a lifetime devotee of cities, gives four different reasons for the suburban

boom. New roadways allowed development to take place in any direction. Zoning stabilized

property values within monolithic residential developments. Government-guaranteed mortgages

made it possible for those with lower incomes to buy housing, and the baby boom produced a

surge in demand for family housing. Given that the roadways, zoning, and mortgages were in

place in some form prior to the Second World War, Hall (2002) concludes that these three were

facilitators, and the baby boom was the trigger for the flight from downtown (pg. 316).









The mass exodus from the central city has led to several reinforcing effects. With the

maj ority of the population moving to the suburbs, the commercial service industry has followed

in order to lower the transportation costs between themselves and their clients. As

telecommunications technology has allowed the passage of information over large distances with

ease, office firms began decoupling their operations into central and suburban locations to

shorten the commute distance between their offices and the maj ority of their employees

(O'Sullivan, 2006). These changes in the commercial sector have further encouraged residents

to locate outside of the central city due to lower housing costs and lower transportation costs.

Some other maj or effects and causes of the decreased desirability of downtown include: a

deteriorating housing stock, central city fiscal problems, increased intercity crime, and a lower

quality education system (O'Sullivan, 2006). The combination of these factors has led to a

development pattern of cities that favors the wealthy through reducing their housing costs by

locating them far from the city, and reducing their transportation costs as businesses and services

have located nearby in suburban locations. The poor, however, have been left in the inner city,

far from services and jobs located in the suburbs.

Public Transportation

Formerly the principal means of suburban commutation, public transit is currently an

afterthought as only 9% of residents in the 28 largest metropolitan areas used this form of

transportation to get to work (Dawkins, Haas, and Sanchez, 2003: 64). From a time standpoint,

public transportation is not as efficient a means of travel as the automobile. In the 28 largest

metropolitan areas, the average commute time by automobile took 26. 1 minutes and traveled 9.5

miles, while the average public transit commute traveled 7.7 miles in 45.9 minutes (Dawkins,

Haas, and Sanchez, 2003). Even in the city of Los Angeles, which is infamous for congestion,

the commute times on transit were still over 15 minutes longer than for automobiles, as was the










case in all 28 metros surveyed. This indicates that traffic congestion does not play a significant

role in commute choice except along specific routes in which automotive traffic flow is

significantly restricted while transit is not.3

While driving is the least time consuming way to commute, public transportation has

proven to be the least costly method of transportation to and from work. The two cities with the

lowest percentage of annual household costs spent on transportation, San Francisco, CA and

New York, NY, also have the highest percentages of transit commuters (Dawkins, Haas, and

Sanchez, 2003). McCann (2000) found a 3% decrease in annual transportation costs for

households within communities with more diverse transportation systems. Monetarily, Canby

(2003) places the cost of commuting on public transportation nationwide at between $800 and

$1,500 per worker per year, whereas the average personal automobile commuter can spend this

much on gas alone. The total cost of owning and operating a vehicle, which includes insurance,

maintenance, fuel, and lease payments costs the average American over $6,000 per year (Canby,

2003: 5).

Given the lower costs, one would assume that most low-income families would choose

not to own an automobile, and instead would take public transit to work, but most low-income

families own vehicles. One reason for automobile ownership among economically distressed

families is a lack of transit access. Less than half of all Americans live within a quarter mile of a

transit stop (Canby, 2003). Another reason is the lack of transit connectivity. Many regional

transit networks revolve around connecting suburban residential neighborhoods with office

employment centers in the central business district, rather than connecting low-income



3 An example of this would be where major rivers funnel traffic onto a few bridges leading to significant congestion
while rail transit systems are given a dedicated right of way which allow them to travel unobstructed, such as the
BART tunnel vs. the Bay Bridge between San Francisco and Oakland.









residential urban areas with suburban commercial service activity centers. A Einal reason is the

presence of rent premiums near transit. Within the current marketplace, realtors and appraisers

value land near transit at a higher value because of the increased accessibility and the presumed

reduction in transportation costs. Rent premiums are consistent with the urban economics model

that states that rents will rise to offset the savings in transportation costs. In some extreme cases

rents have seen increases as large as 30% 50% in areas near a transit station relative to those

without transit connectivity (Cervero et. al., 2004: 166, 173).

Many studies have been conducted in an attempt to quantify the effect that proximity to

public transit has on housing prices in different locations around the country. Cities that have

noticed significant rent premiums near transit include Philadelphia (6.4%), Boston (6.7%),

Portland (10.6%), San Diego (17%), Chicago (20%), and Dallas (24%) (Cervero et. al., 2004:

162). With bus routes ability to change freely, combined with a societal preference for rail

transit over buses, no significant rent premiums are typically associated with traditional bus

transportation (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1977). Thus, most studies have focused on three different

types of Eixed guide-way transportation: light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail. The San Diego

Coaster Commuter Rail noticed a 46.1% rent premium for condos and a 17% increase for single

family homes (Cervero et. al., 2004: 166). The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) heavy rail line

in Alameda County noticed sale prices rose by $2.39 for every meter closer to the BART

(Cervero et. al., 2004: 173). A study of Orenco Station along the MAX light rail line in suburban

Portland, Oregon found a 20% to 30% increase in rents in the area surrounding the station

(Cervero et. al., 2004: 161).

While the previous research forms a near consensus that Eixed guideway transportation

investment yields an increase in property values around the stations and corridors, a limited body









of research also suggests that this increase in property value is redistributive rather than

generative. Stated more clearly, current findings indicate that the overall value of land within a

metropolitan area adding a rail system will remain the same because the rising price of land

around transit will be offset by an equal and opposite reduction in land value elsewhere. This

effect is demonstrated more generally by the Gauthier (1970) study that indicated that

improvement in transportation may help some parts of the region while harming others.

Particularly relating to transportation and residential property values, Mohring (1961) found that

an increase in land value near a highway was balanced by relative decreases in other areas not

served by the highway. Relating specifically to transit, Spengler (1930) concluded that new

transit lines shift value, rather than create it. More recently, impact studies of the Bay Area

Rapid Transit System (BART) found that while concentrated development occurred around

many stations, municipalities without BART access received a similar increase in housing units

as those areas with BART stations, demonstrating that the presence of BART merely

concentrated inevitable local growth (Cervero and Landis, 1997). Using residential development

as a surrogate measure of property values, this experience could be further used to indicate that

residential rents are distributive rather than generative.4

Transit-Oriented Developments

Definition

In the last several decades, local governments and private investors have, for different

reasons, begun to try to exploit the housing and transit connection through the use of transit-

oriented developments (TODs). A loose definition of a TOD is a mix of uses at various densities

centered around a transit stop. Hank Dittmar and Gloria Ohland (2004) argue that this acronym



4 This statement also assumes a strong correlation between residential property values and rents.









should be reserved only for proj ects that achieve five goals: (1) homes are located within

proximity to transit; (2) there is a rich mix of housing, shopping, dining, cultural, and recreation

choices within walking distance of the transit stop; (3) there is a substantial increase in property

values in and around the TOD; (4) the design of the development is attractive and pedestrian

friendly; and finally (5) the station is designed to be flexible enough to respond to changes in

lifestyle and demographics, as well as being forward thinking in terms of energy efficiency and

innovation. Bernick and Cervero (1997) believe that successful transit oriented developments

should accomplish six things: enhance mobility and environment, be pedestrian friendly, allow

for suburban residents to live without an automobile, revitalize the surrounding neighborhood,

increase public safety, and provide a space for public celebration.

By more inclusive definitions, the origins of TODs can be traced back to the early hub and

spoke transit systems of the nineteenth century, which used cable cars, electric trolleys, and

streetcars to transport residents from suburban areas along the spokes to the hub in the city center

(Bernick and Cervero, 1997). In the modern era, the planning for, and constructing of, the new

wave of transit-oriented developments coincided with the beginning of the New Urbanism

movement in the late 1980s. The first TOD projects were implemented in the early 1990s in the

metropolitan areas of the western cities of Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, and Los Angeles.

Eastern cities such as Atlanta and Washington D.C. followed suit, and as of 2003, local

metropolitan areas have classified over 100 station area developments as TODs nationwide

(Cervero et. al., 2004: 16). These TODs accommodate transit uses that vary from light rail, to

buses, and even ferries, though by Dittmar' s definition, few, if any, of these new developments

would be classified as TODs.S For the purposes of this thesis, a TOD will be defined as a high


5 At the time of publishing, Dittmar believed that by his definition no TODs had been constructed in the modern era.









density, planned development with a mix of uses located within walking distance of a rail transit

stop.

Design

The typical design elements of TODs are rooted in New Urbanist philosophy. The transit

stop itself is the focal point of the development with intensities decreasing relative to the distance

from the stop (Bernick and Cervero, 1997). The area around a stop, typically one-quarter to one-

half a mile, is designed as a traditional neighborhood with a mixture of uses. From the transit

stop outward, dense mixed-use commercial retail/apartment structures are followed by office-

employment, civic buildings, and parks, followed by a less dense area of residential apartments,

duplexes, and townhouses at a minimum density of 10 units/acre (Calthorpe, 1993). Buildings

should be oriented to the street with minimal setbacks and signs and entrances should be

designed at the scale of the individual rather than the automobile. TODs in more urban locations

should contain a higher percentage of commercial employment and retail space and less housing

than less urban and more neighborhood-oriented TODs (Calthorpe, 1993).

The transportation infrastructure for many TODs should be designed quite differently than

the conventional automobile-oriented land use patterns that have developed over the past several

decades. The mass transit line provides a second alternative to the arterial as the principal means

of traveling to interurban employment and retail centers. This multi-modal approach shifts

parking to a secondary role, removing it from the fronts of buildings and either hiding it

underground, in building interiors, or at the rear of buildings, returning the street back to

pedestrians. Unlike the conventional suburban street networks consisting of loops, cul-de-sacs

and low connectivity, TODs should be designed with a modified, interconnected grid system that

evenly distributes traffic out over a number of parallel streets, rather than onto a single principle










arterial. The grid system is oriented towards the transit stop and the central core of development

to provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access (Calthorpe, 1993).

Benefits

Transit-oriented developments have the possibility of providing several benefits to their

residents and the surrounding community. The first possible benefit is that these developments

may become a catalyst for future development and economic growth. This theory involves three

components: (1) high-density residential developments located near TODs are more profitable

for developers than low-density development; (2) proximity to transit produces lower

transportation costs for residents and businesses, allowing developers to increase rents; and (3)

commercial development will cluster around TODs, similarly to the agglomeration of retail

which occurs within a suburban mall. While these three outcomes are typical in transit oriented

developments, studies have yet to determine if development occurs as redistribution from other

parts of the city, or if the TOD generates new development. (Cervero et. al., 2004).

A second benefit of TODs is that they may create an environment for a diversity of

housing choices. While diversity may occasionally occur naturally through market forces,

government intervention is typically needed due to the efficiency found in creating large,

monolithic housing developments.6 The City of Austin, Texas has included in their TOD

guidebook a requirement that a "housing affordability analysis and feasibility review that

describes potential strategies for achieving specified affordable housing goals" (pg. 27) be

conducted for every T.O.D (City of Austin, 2006). In one of the nation' s leading cities for

transit-oriented developments, Oakland, California, the Community and Economic Development


6 Large housing developments with similar interior designs, exterior designs, and building materials increase profits
due to the economic principle of economies of scale. Developing lands in smaller portions with more diversity of
housing options typically generates less profit. This principal is illustrated in reality by the differing suburban
development forms found in the older inner ring suburbs relative to the current trend in the outer ring.










Agency (CEDA) and the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) recently began collaborating on

several maj or proj ects to "rebuild large public housing developments, reduce density, create

mixed income neighborhoods, and provide a mix of public housing, privately-owned assisted

rental housing, and affordable homeownership" (City of Oakland, 2003: 2). A large number of

these projects, the most ambitious of which being Coliseum Gardens, are TODs. A final tool for

governments to provide affordable housing is conditional upon the provision of resources. Local

governments and municipalities that have contributed public funds or lands for TODs may make

future development contingent upon the developer making a percentage of the units affordable.

One final overall advantage of transit oriented developments, and most likely the principal

justification for their use, rests on their ability to reduce urban sprawl. Over the last 50 years,

commuting costs have risen sharply due to the prerequisite, in most US cities, of the automobile

for commute. Inhabitants and surrounding residents of TODs who can live without an

automobile can save between $4,000 and $5,000 a year on commuting costs (Canby, 2003). The

cost burden also affects local governments as costs for providing infrastructure and services

increase significantly in areas with sprawling land use patterns. Many more miles of drainage

systems, roads, and utilities must be installed to cover a lower density population, and more

schools, fire stations, and police stations must be built to cover a larger geographical area,

forcing local governments to either raise taxes or face budget deficits.

In addition to monetary benefits, a reduction in urban sprawl can have a positive benefit on

the environment through the reduction of automobile usage. Mobile sources (mainly cars and

trucks) account for around 21% of the emissions of the 166 air toxins monitored by the EPA, and

40% of the 33 most dangerous toxins (Meyer & Miller, 2001). In general, mobile sources

account for around 30% of emissions of both oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons two gases









that in the presence of sunlight produce ozone, a known airway irritant, which combines with

carbon dioxide to form the leading causes of global warming (Frumpkin, 2002: 203-205). In the

auto-dependent sprawling metropolis of Atlanta, Georgia, the amount of nitrogen oxides and

hydrocarbons derived from vehicles is substantially higher at 58% and 47% respectively

(Frumpkin, 2002: 202). Several studies comparing strategies emphasizing TOD implementation

over increasing highway capacity predict reductions in automobile travel by 20-25% (1000

Friends of Oregon, 1997; Cambridge Systematics, 1993). These predictions are supported by a

Bailey (2007) study that determined that households located within three-quarters of a mile of

high-quality transit service reduce their daily vehicle miles traveled by 26%. Besides reducing

automobile usage, TODs have the added benefit of reducing automobile ownership. Ohland and

Poticha (2006) analyzed the land use and transit impacts on vehicle ownership and found that

good transit access reduced automobile ownership by 16% while good transit access combined

with a mixed use environment reduced ownership by 87%. Reconnecting America (2004)

further strengthens this conclusion through a nationwide study that found households within a

half mile of fixed-guideway transit stations owned an average of 0.9 cars compared with an

overall metropolitan average of 1.6 cars.

Urban sprawl has also been proven to reduce water quality and quantity. Sprawling land

use patterns lead to an 1 1% increase in water runoff relative to undeveloped grassland leading to

a depleted water table' and a shortage of groundwater in parts of the country, such as Florida,

which derive their drinking water from this source (Frumpkin, 2002). Other studies have

indicated that toxic chemicals and organic waste in surface water are present at higher levels in

suburban development than in traditional developments, likely due to increased automobile


SRefers to subsurface water










usage and runoff (Frmpkin, 2002: 206). The highways connecting sprawling land uses are also

a concern, as byproducts of highways such as metals and sodium have been shown in high

concentrations in topsoil near highways, potentially leading to serious effects on ecosystem

processes (Meyer & Miller, 2001).

Finally, reducing sprawl and returning to a more traditional, less auto-dependent land use

pattern likely encourages physical fitness and improves the overall health of the community. A

considerable body of research shows that low residential density, low employment density, and

low connectivity are associated with less walking and bicycling (Frumpkin, 2002: 205). This

sedentary lifestyle leads to higher rates of obesity and lower life expectancies (Frumpkin, 2002:

205). Using the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Besser and Dannenberg (2005)

concluded that Americans who use public transportation daily spend a median of 19 minutes

walking to and from transit lines, and that 29% of these users achieve the recommended half

hour of physical activity simply by walking between their origins and destinations and transit.

A RAND Corporation study found that "people who live in areas with a high degree of

suburban sprawl are more likely to report chronic health problems such as high blood pressure,

arthritis, headaches and breathing difficulties than people who live in less sprawling areas"

(Sturm and Cohen, 2004). Urban sprawl also lends itself to auto-oriented strip development and

their associated formula fast food restaurants serving foods high in calories, saturated fat and

trans-fat, known causes of heart disease and even certain cancers (Schlosser, 2002). Listed

perennially as one of the healthiest cities in the US, s San Francisco has enacted ordinances

limiting the use of formula restaurants in order to promote economic vitality and healthier eating

habits, while New York City has banned trans-fats from all restaurants. The irony of the current


SListed as the 3rd Healthiest City by Sperling's Best Places (2007), and as the healthiest city for Men by Men's
Health Magazine (2005).









situation is that one of the initial factors that lead people to flee the inner city during the post

Civil War and post World War II periods was health, but currently, these sprawling suburbs

appear to be substantially less healthy than the urban centers they surround.

Challenges

Given the benefits of transit-oriented developments, one would assume that their

application would be more widespread. The fact remains, though, that several significant

challenges face TODs in the 21st century. A survey of transit agencies, local governments,

redevelopment agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and state departments of

transportation (DOT) found that the biggest obstacle to these developments were automobile-

oriented land uses (Cervero et. al., 2004: 110). Problems with the built environment are difficult

to tackle in this fashion because the problem is self-reinforcing; the problems with the built

environment to which transit oriented developments respond, are the very problems preventing

their use. The other main challenges listed in order of significance include: lack of lender

interest, lack of local expertise, lack of market demand, and local zoning restrictions (Cervero et.

al., 2004: 110). Of the other problems listed, many will solve themselves over time. Lack of

lender interest and local expertise will increase over time as more proj ects are successfully

completed, and local zoning restrictions will be altered more readily once more information is

available to inform citizens and planners of the benefits of TODs. The lack of market demand

may be due to poor advertisement or proj ect design, because a 1998 survey of real estate

homebuyers in Arizona, California, Colorado, Texas, and Florida found that 72% favored

neighborhood development that clustered around a town center (Eisenberg, 2004). Market

demand may also be increasing, as a recent study by the National Survey on Communities










concluded that "the weight of evidence from survey research combined with home-buying

trends suggests a fundamental shift in favor of compact living" (Ewing, 2007: 52).9

The success or failure of many new light rail proj ects can be traced back to one main

factor, whether the system significantly altered land use patterns. Cervero and Landis (1997)

conducted a study of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system after 20 years, and concluded

that even heavy rail transit could only minimally change regional land use patterns without

strong public-policy initiatives. This realization has most likely lead to the application of transit

oriented developments as a complimentary program to nearly all new maj or rail lines within the

U.S. in the last decade.

The large-scale construction of TODs, however, may be influenced more heavily by

market forces than any plan or proposal. The state of the local economy, in particular the

housing market, will largely dictate whether TODs are built, even when a supportive regulatory

framework exists. 10 Furthermore, an extended period of time with a depressed economy and

little development/redevelopment around light rail stations may forever tarnish the rail line and

their associated TODs as failures, and discourage redevelopment later down the line when the

economy finally corrects itself. With the relative strength of the national housing market over

the last several decades, this hypothesis may be difficult to prove, but the results in Buffalo, New

York may support this theory. Buffalo completed a light rail system during the 1980s but due to



9 The 2004 National Survey on Communities, conducted for Smart Growth America (a nonprofit advocacy group)
and the National Association of Realtors, gave respondents a choice between communities labeled "A" and "B."
Community A was described as having single-family houses on large lots, no sidewalks, shopping and schools
located a few miles away, work commutes of 45 minutes or more, and no public transportation. In contrast,
community B (the ilnunl growth" community) was characterized as having a mix of single-family and other
housing, sidewalks, shopping and schools within walking distance, commutes of less than 45 minutes, and nearby
public transportation.

'O In Richmond California, local factors such as increased crime, a depressed local economy, and urban blight
contributed to the failure of any major economic development efforts around the station (Cervero and Landis, 1997)









the depressed state of the economy, among other factors," little development occurred around

the rail line and ridership numbers have steadily decreased over the last decade.

Criticisms

Criticisms of passenger rail transportation and the larger transit-oriented development

strategy are numerous. The most frequent criticisms involve cost, by claiming that automobiles

and their infrastructure are more cost effective than public transportation and that buses are more

cost effective than rail at moving large numbers of people. This cost logic is typically based on

studies reflecting reductionistt analysis, which only considers a single obj ective" (Litman, 2007).

In terms of passenger costs per mile, the three types of rail transportation (heavy, commuter, and

light) are all significantly less than both automobile and bus transportation when vehicle costs,

roadway costs, and parking costs are considered (APTA, 2002; Litman, 2003). Another criticism

is that rail fails to attract new riders, and only shifts captive riders (riders with no other option)

from buses to light rail. A study of Portland, OR over the last 10 years indicates to the contrary.

As rail service has expanded, bus ridership has increased along with increased rail ridership

(APTA, 2002). A final frequent criticism of rail is that its running speeds are considerably

slower than automobiles making them unattractive to choice riders. On the whole, rail is

significantly slower than automobiles when aggregating all trips; however, rail is not meant to

function or compete with the automobile along all transportation corridors. During peak hours

on maj or transportation corridors, rail speeds are very similar, if not faster, than automobile

speeds due to congestion (Litman, 2007).

During the previously mentioned October 11Ith Gainesville MTPO meeting, Commissioner

Braddy noted that he forwarded a study to the other members of the planning board conducted by


'' Buffalo's light rail line also suffered from a lack of regional or citywide coordination of policies (Banister and
Bereclunan, 2000).









the Brookings Institute and the Department of Economics at the University of California,

Berkeley titled On the Social Desirability of Urban Rail Transit Systems. Commissioner Braddy

explained that this study did "an analysis of light rail based on the social welfare", and that social

welfare should be considered as one of the main factors when determining which transportation

alternative to pursue for the future of Gainesville. Winston and Maheshri (2006) explain in the

introduction of their report that the goal of the paper is to "estimate the contribution of each U. S.

urban rail operation to social welfare based on the demand for and cost of its service" (pg. 363).

While this thesis is not intended to be a referendum on their report, a disclaimer should be made

before using this work as a reference. Using specific criteria such as the demand for, and cost of,

service to measure such an infinitely broad category as social welfare is extremely misleading,

analogous to judging an entire university or public policy institute on one misguided piece of

literature. This document also makes no comparison of the social welfare of light rail with its

alternative, the highway. A thorough research of highway construction over the last several

decades would likely reveal that these forms of transportation are also heavily subsidized when

considering the roadways themselves, their parking areas, and the indirect costs associated with

their externalities such as accident risk and pollution (Litman, 2007). With these two significant

flaws, the use of this document as a policy-making tool is weak at best.

Two criticisms specifically of TODs include that TODs are constructed largely on

greenfield sites, creating the sprawl that they propose to reduce, and that they raise residential

rents leading to gentrification. TODs are undoubtedly more effective and more suited as an infill

strategy, but the difficulty of land acquisition and redevelopment poses a significant problem to

both developers and local governments. With the concept of TODs unproven near the end of the

twentieth century, the suburbs became a testing ground for these proj ects. While critics are










correct that this form of development is less sustainable than urban infill, TOD suburbs are far

more sustainable than the conventional auto-dependent suburbs post 1950. Gentrification will

be a continuing issue for the implementation of TODs as communities must balance the needs of

current residents with the needs of the community as a whole. Most low-income and minority

groups are not angered as much with being moved out of the substandard housing in which they

reside, as they are with being forced out of their neighborhoods and left without a place to live.

The construction of TODs doesn't have to be a repeat of urban renewal. Government policies

that encourage or require affordable housing in and around TODs can provide new housing units

without displacement.

Future

Academics such as Professor Eduardo Penalver of Cornell University have begun to

hypothesize that sprawl is ending, and that transit and pedestrian-friendly communities will again

emerge as the primary urban form (Penalver, 2007). While current evidence of this change is

still in its infancy, a perfect storm of factors is beginning to take shape that could lead to drastic

changes in the way we live our lives. Starting with the continuing suburban boom, which began

after World War II, history has taught us that a multitude of factors must exist for a maj or change

to occur within the metropolises of America. 12 Steadily rising energy prices and commute times,

the threat of global warming, an emerging environmental conscience, a housing market slump, a

country on the brink of a recession, income disparities at an all-time high, globalization

removing many middle income j obs, an influx of Hispanic immigrants to urban areas, a growing




12 Hall notes that the rapid construction of new roads, the zoning of land uses that encouraged uniformity in
residential tracts, government-guaranteed mortgages, and the baby boom all contributed to the rapid suburbanization
(Hall, 316). O'Sullivan adds several complimentary factors such as rising income, higher inner-city crime, poor
inner-city education, and the reinforcing effects of jobs and workers both leaving the city (O'Sullivan, 145).










disenchantment with formula retail,13 and a growing number of surveyed Americans expressing

interest in attached and small lot detached housing could possibly be the makings of one such

storm. These factors, along with the exponential increase in the last several years of proposals

for rail proj ects around the US, indicate that TODs have the opportunity to be a large part of such

a transformation.

Light Rail in Gainesville?

Several maj or studies have predicted maj or population increases in the Gainesville

Metropolitan Area over the next several decades. The Bureau of Economic and Business

Research at UF predicts an average annual growth rate of 1.62% for Alachua County through

2025, leading to an expected population of 301,710 in less than twenty years (Bureau of

Economic, 2006). Florida 2060: A Population Distribution Scenario for the State of Florida

prepared for the 1000 Friends of Florida takes this analysis one step further by continuing these

trends for the next fifty years. This analysis predicts that the population of Alachua County will

nearly double within the next fifty years to 423,057 by 2060. If this predicted trend were to

occur, nearly a quarter million new residents would need to be accommodated within the

Gainesville metropolitan area. Even if the results of this study are exaggerated, the possibility of

a half million residents within the Gainesville area at some point, whether it be in the next fifty

years or later, will require a maj or change in transportation and land use patterns in order to

accommodate this growth while maintaining the current high quality of life in the community.

Pushkarev and Zupan, (1977) generally consider three main factors that affect transit

usage: automobile ownership, the density of the non-retail destination, and the quality of transit



13 Formula retail consists of chain restaurants and big box retailers that, according to the City of San Francisco, rely
on a standard trademark, merchandise, uniforms, facade, signage, decor and color at more than 11 stores nationwide.
The alternative is locally owned retail that exists independently from a larger corporate strategy.










service. Automobile ownership is most greatly affected by residential density, with a nearby

rapid transit station seeing as much as a "tenfold increase in residential density" (Pushkarev and

Zupan, 1977). Given the self-reinforcing effects of an effective light rail line, one could likely

assume that minimum density associated with a significant increase in the number of non-auto

based home trips of 7 units/acre would be easily achieved upon the completion of a passenger

rail line (Tri-State Regional, 1970). 14 The important role with which the density of the non-

residential destination plays is likely due to the availability of parking. Measured in terms of

floor area, Pushkarev and Zupan (1977) contend that a downtown should contain a minimum of

20 million square feet of retail in order to support a single light rail line. The final service

measure, quality of service, is generally measured by running time, service frequency, speed, and

fares. Vehicle headways (service frequencies) are generally considered to be the most important

of these factors, with fifteen minutes or less being the optimal criteria for attracting choice

riders. 1

Given these criteria, the question remains whether a light rail system would be feasible

within the City of Gainesville in the next fifty years. The University of Florida contains nearly

20 million square feet of floor area currently (Walker, 2007), with more likely to be built in the

next fifty years. Counting the surrounding retail and residential development, this threshold is

likely exceeded. Even without light rail, dozens of newly completed or under constr-uction


14 Pushkarev and Zupan, (1977) recommend an average gross residential density of between 9 and 12 dwelling
units/acre for light rail.

'5 Attracting riders through the lowering of fares or providing more frequent service will eventually lose the system
money as these factors are inelastic (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1977). Increasing operating speed is elastic and will
lead to both greater ridership and a lower cost per rider, but this often requires a large capital investment (Pushkarev
and Zupan, 1977). Typically, the only profitable means of gaining ridership from a transit perspective is to either
restrain automobile use or increase the residential density of urban development. This higher density performs both
functions as it both restrains auto use and encourages the use of public transit (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1977).









residential developments along the corridors of University Avenue and Archer Road easily

exceed 12 dwelling units per acre and likely approach the 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre range.

Assuming that the quality of transit service would be either matched or exceeded with light rail

over the existing bus system, it appears that a climate exists for the provision of light rail within

the city in the next fifty years.

Summary

When defining housing affordability as 30% of total income, housing is unaffordable for

nearly 40% of all renters within the US. Since transportation costs are directly dependent upon

the location of housing, affordability should be based upon the combination of the two costs.

Using this measure, most US families spend approximately 50% of their annual income on

housing and transportation. While many solutions have attempted to tackle this problem from

the housing side, with varying success, few solutions have been offered that take a dual housing

and transportation approach.

As passenger rail has seen a re-emergence within the last several decades, mainly as a

means to curb sprawl, government officials have realized that their success in this fashion

depends on their ability to change land use patterns. With the knowledge that the free market is

not likely to fulfill this requirement on its own, a government-regulated approach encouraging

transit-oriented development (TOD) has seen increasing use as an accompanying policy to any

new fixed guideway infrastructure investment. When constructed properly, TODs have the

ability to reduce automobile ownership due to increased access to central business district

commuting and create a more centralized local and regional development pattern. While reduced

automobile ownership reduces costs for TOD residents, rent premiums around transit increase

rents for these same residents. To determine the ultimate effectiveness of TOD as a dual strategy










to promote affordability for low and middle income renters within TODs, the total combined

housing and transportation costs must be lower within TODs than outside them.

Based upon current research, light rail does appear to be feasible for Gainesville within the

next fifty years. The unique environment, including a large university with restricted parking

and a local government which believes in planning, appears to be conducive for light rail, even

given Gainesville's relatively small population.









CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Case Studies

Over the last several decades, planners within academia have established the importance of

examining transportation and housing in conjunction with one another. Recently, governmental

planning agencies have come to the same conclusion, and at many levels the two are looked at in

as one. Given this consensus, it is odd that until recently, affordable housing had been discussed

with little regard to transportation. A new emphasis on the creation of mixed use, high density,

transit-oriented developments (TODs) around transit stations was not initially intended to be a

mechanism for the creation of affordable housing, but these developments may in fact do just

that. The case study section of this thesis will attempt to quantify on a purely monetary basis,

whether TODs can be justified as a mechanism to produce affordability for residents on the basis

of combined housing and transportation costs.

Mockingbird Station along the DART light rail line in Dallas, Texas and Pleasant Hill

Station along the BART heavy rail line in Pleasant Hill, California were chosen as the two case

studies to test for affordability. Several reasons exist for the decision to select these two stations.

The first is the availability of station specific data. Few studies exist that quantify the assessed

rent premiums around specific transit stations, an essential factor within the housing and

transportation cost model. In order to eliminate the chance for location specific factors affecting

the conclusion, an effort was made to include case studies that were distinctly different. The

differences between Mockingbird Station and Pleasant Hill Station include: the classification of

the rail lines (light vs. heavy), the political ideologies of the areas (liberal vs. conservative), the

land use policies and governmental structure within the respective states and regions, and the

intensities of land use (urban vs. suburban).










To determine the effectiveness of the TODs at providing affordable housing through

reducing the combined transportation and housing costs, a transportation and housing monetary

cost model was created for commuters, assuming travel between the area around the TOD and

the central business district. 16 While intra-suburban commuting represents a significant portion

of all commute trips (40.9%), trips either between the suburbs and the central city or within the

central city (those which could possibly be served by a local rail system) represent a larger

portion (48.6%) of commute trips (Pisarski, 2006). Regional rail systems may also encourage

redevelopment and reinvestment within the central business district, as experienced with the

BART in San Francisco, further increasing central city commuting in these locations (Bernick

and Cervero, 1997).

To quantify the savings, four different commuters were taken into account: Commuter A

lives outside of the station area and drives to work; Commuter B lives outside the station area,

drives and parks at the station, and rides the rail line to work; Commuter C lives inside the

station area, takes the rail line to work, but still owns a car; and Commuter D lives inside the

station area, walks to the station, and takes the rail line to work, but doesn't own a car.

Commuter C is assumed to walk, bike, or combine with his commute one-quarter of his non-

work trips. The model also assumes that non car owners living within the TOD area (Commuter

D) will replace these non-work trips with either walking, bicycling, combining them with their

work trips (or at Mockingbird Station by taking transit since they offer monthly passes allowing

unlimited rides). 1 In this model, Commuter A, who lives outside the station area and drives,



16 The cost of leisure time lost during commute was not used in this study, because the ability to afford housing and
transportation was deemed of significantly greater importance for low-income and middle-income families than
leisure time.

"7 The assumption for Pleasant Hill Station that residents use other forms of transportation besides the BART may
not be so unrealistic. In a survey of transit-oriented neighborhoods, few respondents take transit to non-commute










could be equated to the average commuter under a no transit scenario, though this estimate may

in fact be conservative due to decreased congestion and decreased rents, Iswhich have been

shown, in some instances, to occur upon the installation of rail lines. (Boyce, 1972). A diagram

of this model is shown in Figure 3-1.

To develop these models, several assumptions were made based on regional and national

averages using 2004 as the study year. 19 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commuter

Expenditure Guide, the cost of owning a car in the United States (purchase costs, Einance

charges, insurance, maintenance, licenses, tickets, and fees) in 2004 was $5,762 (U.S.

Department of Labor, 2006). This cost has increased substantially from ten years ago when the

estimated Eixed costs of the automobile were $4,712 a year in 2004 dollars (American

Automobile Association, 1993; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). The amount of $5,762 was

used in the model for both the Mockingbird Station and the Pleasant Hill station areas because

Eixed automobile ownership costs are fairly consistent throughout the country.

Fuel efficiency of vehicles, as measured by the Environmental Protection Agency, has

remained constant at around 21 miles per gallon for the last 10 years (U. S. Department of

Energy, 2006; Gore, 2006). Data for fuel economies of vehicles in California and Texas were

not available, thus the national average of 20.8 miles per gallon in 2006 will be used for the

model (U. S. Department of Energy, 2006). The model uses a 5:1 ratio of non-work to work trips

based on the findings of the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey and the 2006

Comminuting in America Report (Niles and Nelson, 1999; Pisarski, 2006). Assuming that most


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 (Victoria Transport, 2007).
1s For residents outside of the TOD

19 When determining the base year for the study, 2004 was chosen because it was the most recent year for which all
data was available at the time that the preliminary research began.









Americans take one trip, each way, to and from work every work day (5 days a week), eight non-

work trips are generated for each work day. Using the NPTS data, the average non-work trip

length can be calculated as 6.7 miles in length (Hanson and Giuliano, 2004). Using 230 work

days per year, Americans who use their automobiles as their only form of transportation will

drive an average of 12,328 miles per year for non-work related trips.

The final overall assumption to make is the size of the dwelling unit, and a two-bedroom,

1,000 square foot residence was used as the base model. The price of gasoline, the commute

distance, the parking expenses, and the annual rent differed for the two case studies and were

calculated individually. These costs were combined to calculate the total combined housing and

transportation costs for each commuter. The U. S. Department of Labor' s Bureau of Labor

Statistics Consumer Price Index Calculator was used to convert all monetary amounts from

various studies and years to the 2004 base year used in the model (Bureau of Labor Statistics,

2007).

The final goal of the model is to calculate overall affordability. Affordability is typically

measured on a per household basis, but the combination of transportation costs and the

commuter system employed in this model makes it necessary to differentiate between households

with one and two earners, i.e. commuters. The variation in transportation costs between earners,

homemakers, and children makes it difficult to formulate a straight forward proportion of

combined housing and transportation costs to median income, and therefore an index for housing

affordability. Since the combined costs themselves demonstrate the degree to which

affordability varies by commute choice and housing location, the main purpose of the

affordability measures should be to compare the two case studies. For comparison, the simplest

configuration of a one-person, single-earner household is used in order to reduce additional










assumptions for the number of family members, earners, and commuters in each household and

their trip pattemns.20

The widely considered measure of combined housing and transportation affordability is

50% of total income. Thus, for this analysis, affordability is determined based on whether the

average median income for single earners living alone within the census tracts surrounding each

station is more than double the combined housing and transportation costs, for each commuter A

through D. Since the report focuses on low and middle income residents, affordability is only

calculated for renters, given that the financially disadvantaged are disproportionately renters

rather than homeowners (Alachua County, 2003).

Gainesville Application

Background

At an October 11Ith, 2007 meeting of the Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Organization, Director Marlie Sanderson, in a discussion of long range transportation scenarios

named the third of four as a light rail alternative. Sanderson (2007) named four questions that

would be answered through the study of alternative three:

Number one, will the City of Gainesville have enough people and enough jobs to support a
light rail system in the year 2060? Number two, will these people and jobs be located in
close proximity to the light rail system... Number three, will the light rail alternative reduce
overall traffic congestion as compared to the other alternatives.... Finally, what is the
impact on Alachua County's air quality?

Commenting specifically on the third alternative, Gainesville City Commissioner and

member of the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization, Ed Braddy (2007) stated that



20 The station-wide savings for multiple member and multiple earner households will likely be fairly similar,
however, the total savings, and proportion affected may be entirely different. Two-member households with two
vehicles will be much more likely to relinquish a single automobile than a one-member household would be to do
without their one and only vehicle, so a larger proportion of two-member households may save money within TODs
than one member households. The savings, though, will be much greater for those one-member households which
live within the TODs and do not need to own an automobiles.









since we like to connect transportation and land use, that we must also determine whether "at the

end of the day does [this alternative] increase social welfare or decrease it?" Insinuating that the

light rail alternative would pose a cost burden on lower and middle income families, Braddy

(2007) went on to say that "we should look around and follow the models to see what this means

to our citizens in terms of cost."

Why Alternative Three?

Alternative three was selected for examination because rail is the only current mode of

transportation that effectively functions as the transit in transit-oriented development, because it

is the only mode of transportation that causes a market response. Given the time-frame of a 50

year long range transportation plan, the possibility exists that a new form of transportation will

emerge that will change the way we approach transportation planning; however, as the

manufactures of the Segway learned, it may be more difficult than expected. Currently no

alternative form of transportation has been developed that will deliver an entirely different

method for moving between two points in the next fifty years than exists today. Some

companies such as Taxi2000 and Unimodal claim that personal rapid transit, an adaptation of the

"people mover" which functions much like a horizontal elevator, will be the urban transportation

mode of the next fifty years, but the massive infrastructure costs and the aesthetic issues with

such a transportation mode will likely limit it to only selective uses. Given these uncertainties,

the Gainesville 2060 transportation scenario will model its light rail system and vehicles after the

currently successful systems found in Portland, Oregon and Dallas, TX.

Expected Results and Limitations

Given the fifty year time horizon of a long range transportation plan, an accurate economic

model is difficult to construct. The transportation cost calculations will be based on the models

of the two case studies and on previous research and will place cost in 2004 dollars. The









location of the light rail lines will be based on the preliminary draft of alternative three presented

at the October 11Ith MPTO meeting. Proj ected population increases will be based on both BEBR

proj sections and the 1000 Friends of Florida 2060 study, and the location and intensities of the

increases in population will be based on those densities needed to sustain a light rail line. The

end result of this section of the report will be to determine the monetary effect on overall housing

and transportation affordability in the areas within proximity of the light rail lines in Gainesville,

Florida and the proportion of the population that would be affected.

Gainesville Methodology

Most people will walk a distance of a quarter mile or five minutes from their residence to a

destination before opting to drive or ride a bike rather than walk (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and

Speck, 2000). When speaking in terms of urban mass transit, both one-quarter mile and one-half

mile distances have been used as values that have been most strongly associated with

accessibility, ridership, and rent premiums around TODs, though one-quarter mile is most

typically used (Cervero et. al., 2004). Using the quarter mile walking service area for transit

stations, Holtzclaw (1994) claims a net residential density of 30 units/acre is required to support

light rail transit, 21 while Pushkarev and Zupan (1977) believe that a density between 9 and 12

units per acre is necessary. For Alternative Three, three densities will be used: Holtzclaw' s 30

units/acre for Urban TODs, Pushkarev and Zupan's 10 units/acre for Suburban TODs, and a

middle value of 20 units/acre for Transition TODs.

Two maj or alignment choices for light rail were presented at the October 11Ith meeting of

the MTPO which proposed the light rail alternative. The two possible alignments were (1) from


21 This density may be somewhat unrealistic, as the same study lists a required residential density of 24.8 units/acre
to support two buses per hour. Given that Gainesville's densest census tracts have a net residential density of
around 3.5 units/acre, and no sizeable areas with densities approaching this value, and since RTS still operates buses
at a rate of two buses per hour or higher on over a dozen routes, such a high density may not be needed in this case.









Interstate 75 east along Archer Road and then traveling along a former rail corridor through the

south part of Gainesville and then turning northeast along Waldo Road before terminating at the

Gainesville Regional Airport and (2) beginning at Newberry Road near Interstate 75 and

continuing east along Newberry Road until it becomes University Ave, travels through the

downtown then turns southeast on Hawthorn Road, and finally terminating at the Gainesville

Regional Airport. For this study, an alignment along Newberry Road, University Avenue, and

Waldo Road was chosen. Several reasons exist for this choice. First, a large amount of student

housing currently exists on the northern part of the University of Florida, and this housing should

be reinforced. Second, an Archer Road alignment would travel along the south side of campus,

while a University Avenue alignment would travel along the north side of campus. The

advantage to traveling along the north side would include the access to the O'Connell Center and

Ben Hill Griffin Stadium during sporting events and the commercial corridor which exists near

campus on University Avenue and the larger concentration of classrooms found near the

northeast end of campus. Third, the alignment along University Avenue would travel though the

downtown area and reinforce the commercial office, retail, and residential development already

existing there.

The Newberry Road University Avenue Waldo Road alignment also connects several

important Gainesville institutions which will likely occupy the same location in fifty years,

including: the Gainesville Regional Airport, the North Florida Regional Medical Center, the

University of Florida, and the historic downtown. Under this proposed light rail scenario, Archer

Road will function as a "B" street that collects the land uses that would be incompatible with

new urbanist-style transit-oriented developments, such as car dealerships, gas stations, and big

box stores.









In order to determine the area around each station that would be available to be

redeveloped under a light rail scenario, several criteria must be considered. Given that

redevelopment is recognized to likely occur within one-quarter mile, but at no greater than one-

half mile, all parcels within one-quarter mile of the light rail station are to be initially included as

possible areas of redevelopment, but portions of these parcels at distances greater than a half

mile are to be excluded. The assumption here is that parcels with portions of their land outside

of the quarter mile distance will use this land for non-habitable uses such as parking and drainage

structures, and that the maj ority of the residential dwellings will be constructed either within the

quarter mile distance of the station or near it. Upon selecting these initial parcels for each TOD,

uses that would be presumed to remain the same in 50 years, and therefore not be subj ect to

redevelopment, will be excluded. These uses include: cemeteries, hospitals, parks, recreation

trails, The University of Florida, the Gainesville Regional Airport, natural water features (lakes,

ponds, rivers, and wetlands), and right of way.

Based on the research of Pushkarev and Zupan (1977), a minimum of 20 million square

feet of building area are needed within the downtown to support a line-haul light rail system.

The University of Florida currently contains nearly 20 million square feet of building space, and

when combined with the nearby retail along University Avenue, the combined building area

likely surpasses this threshold currently. Based on existing trends, this building area will

continue to grow over the next fifty years, and when combined with Gainesville's downtown,

two principal commute destinations will exist. The commitment from RTS to provide high

quality service combined with the ease with which the City grants permits for and encourages

high density development when appropriate makes it likely that the MTPO would have a case for

a ten mile first phase of a single light rail line by 2060.









Gainesville TOD Locations

Given the alignment of the line, the locations of the stations and the TODs must be

determined. While no station spacing has been definitively associated with higher ridership

(Kuby, Barranda, and Upchurch, 2004), suburban to urban systems built within the last several

decades such as the Portland's MAX and the Dallas's DART have station spacings of slightly

under one mile. Using this spacing, the following criteria are to be used to locate stations and

TODs along the line: near permanent destinations (i.e. the university or the airport), near maj or

intersections, near major retail centers, near major office centers. More specifically for locating

TODs, positive site characteristics include blighted areas in need of redevelopment, current

activity centers, and larger parcels with fewer owners, while negatives characteristics include

areas that are undesirable to be redeveloped such as historic neighborhoods, the University of

Florida, and restricted development areas surrounding the airport.

The maj or difference between stations classified as TODs and those that are not involves

the amount of government intervention. The classification of stations as TODs indicates

increased planning and regulation around stations in order to encourage the types of land uses

which the rail system will require to be effective. Spreading these funds and resources around

stops which are already developed to a suitable level or are at the far outskirts of town will

decrease the amount of resources available at the more critical stations. Stations with decreased

intervention will also provide an opportunity for the private sector to demonstrate their ability to

provide the types of housing and uses compatible with a light rail line, providing a means of

comparison. The Gainesville light rail line, including stops and TODs, is shown in Figure 3-2.

TOD Classifications

No two TODs are created equal, nor should they be. Different geographic, demographic,

and environmental factors effect and shape the design of each TOD in each individual location.










Though differences do exist, some uses should be excluded from all Gainesville TODs:

automobile sales and service, heavy industry, storage, equipment sales and repair, drive-through

service, and scrap, salvage, or recycling centers (City of Austin, 2006). All TODs should also be

designed with the transit station as the focal point of both the TOD and the entire neighborhood.

Automobiles, pedestrians, and bicyclists should all be accommodated on a well connected street

pattern. Large setbacks should be avoided for all structures, and commercial and multi-family

residential buildings should be built adj acent to the street. For the purposes of this study, the

proposed TODs within Gainesville were divided into three general categories: suburban,

transitional, and urban.

Suburban

Suburban TODs are to be located towards the ends of the light rail line far removed from

the central business district. Suburban TODs should consist principally of residential

development, while allowing for some neighborhood retail and restaurants clustered around the

center of the development near the station. The residential density should average 10 units/acre

and contain small-lot single family detached and attached housing, granny flats, and duplexes.

Parking should be provided both for the commercial businesses and for use as a park-and-ride;

however, parking should not be concentrated around the station, but rather hidden in enclosed

garages or placed behind the buildings, away from the street.

Transitional

Transitional TODs are to be located in areas around the edge of the suburban/urban

boundary. Transitional TODs should consist of a mixture of housing, retail, restaurants,

nightlife, and office development. A gross residential density of 20 units/acre should be

maintained through a mixture of duplexes, townhouses, row houses, apartments, and mixed-use

multi-family buildings with ground floor commercial. Transitional TODs should not be










designed to function as a park-and-ride, as parking should only be allowed for local residents and

businesses.

Urban

Urban TODs are to be located in and around the central business district or central

commute location (in this case the University of Florida). Unlike the other TODs, office

development is given priority over residential development within urban TODs. Other

commercial uses such as retail, restaurants, and nightlife should also be located along the ground

floor of these buildings, as a secondary function, to form an overall employment density of at

least 50 employees/acre (Ewing, 1999). While not the focal point of urban TODs, residential

development should also be provided, and at a high density. Gross residential densities should

average 30 units/acre through a mix of row houses, multi-family apartments, and condos. No

parking should be provided for transit, with limited parking (either on-street or in hidden

garages) for residents and commercial service businesses. The principal means of transportation

within the downtown should be through walking, bicycling, and transit.











Commuter Own Car Location Path
A Yes Outside --

B Yes Outside -- -

C Yes Inside ,

r, No Inadce -


Transit Oriented


Figure 3-1: Four Types of Commuters Used in the Case Studies


Central Business
District



Pa 4 g~











Legend
P.Park and Ride Lots
O Rail Stops
mm Lighft Rail Line
Major Highways
SNorth Florida Regional Mnedical Center
i' University of Florida

0 0.5 1 2 3 4 B


Reg ronal
Airport


122 1


39th Ave


NFRMC Fi
m


University
of Florida


Figure 3-2: Proposed Gainesville Light Rail Line









CHAPTER 4
CASE STUDIES

Introduction

While Pleasant Hill Station and Mockingbird Station differ greatly, from their regional

location to their design, both are widely regarded as successful TODs. Initially, this section will

provide both qualitative and quantitative background information in order to help illustrate what

has made each TOD successful. The primary intention of this section though, will be to test the

combined housing and transportation costs for single-member, single earner households within

the two station areas. A comparison of the costs will be made for a series of commuters that will

take into account both location, modal choice, and automobile ownership. The final result of this

section will be the development of a series of conclusions based on the results of the two case

studies which can be applied to cities throughout the United States, including Gainesville.

Pleasant Hill Station

Background and Overview

Pleasant Hill Station is located on the edge of the Northern California, East Bay suburbs of

Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek. The two suburbs combine for a population of around 100,000,

with nearest major employment center, Oakland, located about 15 miles southwest. Pleasant Hill

Station, which first opened in 1972 along Interstate 680, is part of the yellow line of the Bay

Area Rapid Transit (BART) system that runs from Pittsburg/Bay Point through Oakland and San

Francisco and ends at Daly City. The BART system consists of hundreds of electric powered

trains that can reach speeds in excess of 80 mph, and the system is classified as heavy rail since it

operates with ten or more cars on a dedicated right-of-way (Bay Area, 2006). Trains typically

stop at Pleasant Hill Station every fifteen minutes, though this decreases to five minutes during

A.M. and P.M. peak periods, and a roundtrip ticket from Pleasant Hill Station to the financial










district of San Francisco costs $8.80 (Bay Area, 2006). As of 2002, the ridership at the station

was over 6,300, with 74% these riders using the station as a park-and-ride, and only 15%

walking (State of California, 2004). The station is surrounded on all directions by 3,500 surface

and garage parking spots that are typically filled to capacity on weekdays (State of California,

2004).

Cervero and Landis (1997) consider Pleasant Hill station the best example of suburban

transit oriented development in the U.S. Within a fiye year time period during the late 1980s and

early 1990s, 1.5 million square feet of onfce space and 1,800 housing units were constructed

within a quarter mile of the station (Cervero and Landis, 1997). This development occurred

despite being located in an unincorporated area with the largest parking lot along the BART line.

Cervero (1993) credits Pleasant Hill's success in attracting housing and onfce development to

three main factors:

One, the creation of a specific plan in the early 1980s that served as a blueprint for guiding
growth near the rail station over the ensuing 15 years; second, the existence of a proactive
redevelopment authority whose staff aggressively sought to implement the plan by
assembling irregular parcels into developable tracts, seeking out private co-ventures, and
investing in public infrastr-ucture;, and third, having a local elected official who became the
proj ect' s "political champion", working tirelessly and participating in numerous public
hearings to shepherd the project through to implementation.

A survey of station-area land uses and residents was conducted in 2002 that covered a half

mile radius around the station. The predominant zoning type surrounding the station was

residential; medium and high density residential accounted for 44%, and low-density residential

accounted for 36% of the zoning around the station by area (State of California, 2004).22 Of the


22 Definitions from State of California (gI rI14,: "Residential-Low Density corresponds to the local jurisdiction
definition of low-density residential for each TOD. Generally, low-density residential refers to single-family houses.
Residential-Medium/ High Density corresponds to the local jurisdiction's definition of medium/high density
residential for each TOD. Generally, medium-density residential refers to apartments, townhomes, condominiums,
and small-lot single family homes two stories or higher. High-density is generally three stories, depending on the
local jurisdiction's zoning designation."










5,129 station area residents, 65% were renters, and 30% took public transit to get to work (State

of California, 2004). Between 1990 and 2000, an influx of families making over $75,000 a year

moved into new duplexes and apartments in the area and the station area population increased by

27% (State of California, 2004). While the station area median income increased from $37,271

to $52,868 over this time period, 1 1% of the population still earned less than $15,000 per year,

which corresponded to the percentage of station area residents not owning a vehicle (State of

California, 2004). A 1994 study of housing prices in the Pleasant Hill station area and the

surrounding region for units of similar size, age, and amenities found that one-bedroom units

near the BART station were $1.20 per square foot, per month, compared with $1.09 per square

foot, per month, outside the station area (Cervero et. al., 2004). Rents for two bedroom units

also increased from $0.94 per square foot, per month, outside the station area to $1.20 per square

foot, per month, inside the station area (Cervero et. al., 2004). A recent proposal has been

accepted that would re-develop the BART station from a suburban mall style design to a

walkable urban village. Plans call for 300,000 square feet of office space, 42,000 square feet of

restaurant and retail, at least 300 townhouses, and a child care facility, but as of yet, no

requirement has been made for the provision of affordable housing, even though the proj ect will

be partially publicly funded (State of California, 2004).

Model

When calculating the gasoline costs in the model, the costs for Commuters A-D will differ,

since their work commuting patterns directly affect their annual expenditure on fuel. Gas prices

are not directly linked with inflation, nor have they been proven to significantly affect the prices

of parking, public transit, vehicles, or housing rents in the short term; therefore, to be consistent

with the rest of the model, the United States Energy Information Administration' s average 2004

gas price for the San Francisco Bay Area of $2. 16 per gallon was used (Metropolitan









Transportation Commission, 2007). According to Google Maps, the driving distance between

the Pleasant Hill Station area and the central business district of San Francisco is 27 miles, or 54

miles roundtrip (Google Maps, 2006). The trip also includes a one-way toll of $4 for crossing

the Bay Bridge. Assuming that the commuters work 230 days a year, the total gasoline and toll

costs for an automobile commute are $2,020. Based on the station spacing and the 1998 Pleasant

Hill Station trip origin survey, a 2 mile trip distance was used for commuters making the driving

portion of their work trip to the park-and-ride. This trip length, twice for 230 days, equals 920

miles of work miles driven for park and ride commuters for an annual cost of $95. Using 12,328

as the average number of miles for non-work trips,23 the average automobile commuter living

outside the TOD spends $1,298 a year on non-work trips, while commuters inside the TOD area

spend three-quarters of that amount ($974).24

The costs of riding the BART to work and parking downtown were determined explicitly

through prices listed currently on their respective agency websites. The price of a roundtrip

ticket from Pleasant Hill Station to Montgomery Street Station in the central business district was

listed at $8.80 on the BART website in 2006. When buying in bulk, BART offers a 6.25%

discount on the final ticket cost, bringing the total annual investment for 230 days of commute to

$1,900 (Bay Area, 2006). Since BART fare increases are tied to inflation, the 2004 costs can be

calculated as $1,780. While the cost of parking at Pleasant Hill Station is free, the annual cost of

parking in downtown San Francisco is nearly equal to the amount spent each year for the

ownership of an automobile. The current average monthly cost of the eight parking garages in

the downtown/financial district is $346, for a yearly cost of $4, 155 (City of San Francisco,


23 12,328 miles per year for non-work trips was established in the methodology.

24 Based on the previously stated assumption that TOD residents will either combine/reduce trips, or use other forms
of transportation than the automobile for one-quarter of all non-work trips.










2007). When adjusted for inflation to the base 2004 year, the total falls to $3,734 (Bureau of

Labor Statistics, 2007).

The final component of the model to determine concerns housing costs. The base

residence used for the model is a two-bedroom, 1,000 square-foot dwelling unit. The Bureau of

Labor Statistics (2007) reported an increase in the value of the dollar between 1994 and 2004 of

27%; hence, the rate of $1.09 per square foot, per month inside the Pleasant Hill Station area was

adjusted to $1.38 per square foot, and the rate of $0.94 per square foot, per month outside the

transit station area was adjusted to $1.19 per square foot. These inflationary adjustments led to

annual housing costs of $16,560 for residents inside the station area and $14,280 for residents

outside the station area.

Using these individual totals, the cumulative housing and transportation costs were

determined for each Commuter, A-D. The highest total commute cost was experienced by

Commuter A, who lived outside the station area and chose to drive to work. Commuter A, which

represented 58% of the station area population in 2000, spent a combined $26,704 on

transportation and housing (State of California, 2004). Commuter C represents the majority of

Pleasant Hill Station users, and though they don't use a car at all during work trips, they paid the

second highest total transportation and housing costs at $25,076. Commuter B paid over $3,400

less annually than Commuter A by simply choosing to park and ride the BART downtown rather

than drive the entire distance to work. Commuter B represents the maj ority of the users of

Pleasant Hill Station and paid $23,215 a year in combined housing and transportation costs.

While Commuter D (those not owning a car) represents only 11% of station area residents, they

paid the lowest combined housing and transportation costs at $18,340 a year. A detailed chart of

the calculations for each commuter is found in Table 4-1.









The model used produced some important insights into the savings provided by transit-

oriented developments in suburban locations far removed from a dominant central business

district. Irrespective of location and car ownership status, the most financially responsible

decision appears to be using Pleasant Hill Station and the BART yellow line for a commute to

downtown San Francisco. While the BART fares are fairly high, inflated parking prices

downtown more than overshadow the cost of transit ridership. The cost of driving to the station

to use it as a park and ride is not offset by rent premiums experienced around the transit stop, and

therefore living in the station area in order to walk to Pleasant Hill Station and ride the BART to

work is only cost-effective if enough amenities are located along the transit line and within

walking distance of one' s residence that owning an automobile is optional.

The next analysis to perform on the model is the degree of affordability of the four

commuters. Given the previous assumption that the commuters are single earners living alone,

the average median income for this classification of residents within the census tracts

surrounding Pleasant Hill Station in 1999 was $41,577 (U.S. Census, 2001b), which translates to

$47,142 in 2004 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Combined housing and transportation costs

constitute the following percentages of median income within the station area for the four

commuters: Commuter A 56.6%, Commuter B 49.2%, Commuter C 53.2%, and Commuter

D 38.9%. Based on the commonly held threshold of 50%, commuters B and D are considered

to be affordable living options. Living within the station area makes trading in your car a

necessity for affordability, while living outside the station area and using the BART as a park

and ride is another affordable option. Commuter A, which most accurately represents the default

scenario had public transportation not been available, remains the least affordable.









Mockingbird Station


Background and Overview

Mockingbird Station is located along the U.S. 75 Expressway in Dallas, Texas,

approximately 3.5 miles north of the northern perimeter of the central business district. The

station is in an urban location across the interstate from Southern Methodist University, a private

university with an enrollment of 11,000. The area immediately around the station was designed

and constructed entirely through private investment with the intent to create an urban village.

This station development contains 211 loft-style apartments, 150,000 square feet of office space,

ten clothing stores, nine restaurants, an eight screen independent movie theatre, and a grocery

store (Ditmar & Ohland, 2004). The station also has the capability of serving as a park-and-ride

facility as it contains 1,440 parking spots, mainly located in garages and underground, though it

is equally accessible for pedestrians (Ditmar & Ohland, 2004). Ken Hughes, the chief developer

of the proj ect, claimed the freeway adj acency was what sold investors on the proj ect, while the

transit adjacency was an afterthought (Ditmar & Ohland, 2004). New phases under

consideration include an eighteen story hotel with ground floor retail, cooperation with local and

federal governments to provide better accessibility to pedestrians on the opposite side of the

expressway, a connection with a hiking and biking trail, and providing insulation from the noise

of the highway.

Mockingbird Station is currently served by both the red and blue lines of the Dallas Area

Rapid Transit System (DART), a light rail system that opened in 1996. An annual pass for the

DART was very reasonable for commuters at only $400 in 2004, and an average trip from

Mockingbird Station to City Hall takes approximately 8 minutes, with trains arriving every 15

minutes (City of Dallas, 2006a). On-site residential rents were 30% over market rate as the loft

apartments rented for $1,500 per month, while the penthouses rented for $5,000 per month










(Ditmar & Ohland, 2004). In 2003, residential rents inside the station area were $1.60 per square

foot, per month compared with $1.30 per square foot, per month for similar areas not served by

DART (Cervero et. al., 2004: 164). Over a one year time period, the rents calculate to $19,200

for dwellings inside the station area, and $15,600 outside the station area. Adjusting for inflation

to the 2004 study year, the annual rents rise to $19,711 and $16,015 respectively.

Model

The price of gas, along with the commute distance traveled, were significantly different in

Dallas than in the San Francisco Bay Area. The United States Energy Information

Administration's average 2004 gas price for the State of Texas was $1.84 per gallon (Energy

Information Administration, 2005). According to Google Maps (2006), the driving distance

between the Mockingbird Station area and the central business district of Dallas is 6 miles, or 12

miles roundtrip. Using the 230 days a year work schedule, the annual gasoline cost were $242

for an automobile work commute, $1,298 and $974 for non-work trips for non-station area and

station area residents respectively, and $142 for drivers outside the station area traveling to

Mockingbird Station to use it as a park-and-ride. While the cost of parking at Mockingbird

Station is free, the cost of parking in downtown Dallas in 2006 ranged from $600 to $3,000

annually (City of Dallas, 2006b). The average yearly expense of all downtown parking was

$1,200, and when adjusted for inflation, $1,124 was used for this model (Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 2007). Based on the station spacing and urban layout, a 3-mile trip distance was used

for commuters making the driving portion of their work trip to the park-and-ride. This trip

length twice for 230 days equals 1,3 80 miles of work miles driven for park and ride commuters

for an annual cost of $142.

Using these costs, the total housing and transportation costs for residents in and around

Mockingbird Station was determined for Commuters A-D. The total annual expenses in order









from highest to lowest were Commuter C $26,847, Commuter A $24,441, Commuter B -

$23,617, and Commuter D $20,011. A detailed chart of the calculations for each commuter is

found in Table 4-2 at the end of the chapter.

The Mockingbird Station model, with a mid-density urban transit station located within

close proximity of downtown, produced significantly different results than the study of Pleasant

Hill Station. Not owning a car and living near a transit station was still the least expensive way

to live, but living near a transit station, taking the DART to work, and still owning a car was by

far the most expensive. For those living outside the station area, the difference in commute costs

between taking the DART to work and driving to work were fairly insignificant. These

differences are due to the 20% rent premiums around the transit stop, the decreased parking

rates, and shorter commute distances relative to San Francisco and Pleasant Hill Station.

Similarly to the study of Pleasant Hill Station, the average median income for single

earners living alone in the census tracts surrounding the station was used as the base measure

used for determining affordability. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median income for

these residents in 1999 was $37,697 (U.S. Census, 2001b; U.S. Census, 2001c), or $42,743 in

2004 dollars (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Combined housing and transportation costs then

comprise the following percentages of median income within the station area for the four

commuters: Commuter A 57.7%, Commuter B 55.3%, Commuter C 62.8%, and Commuter

D 47. 1%. Based on the 50% threshold of affordability, Commuter D is the only affordable

option of all commuters, requiring living within the station area, not owning a car, and either

taking transit, walking, or biking for all trips. The most expensive option for commuters is living

within the station area while also owning a car. Unlike Pleasant Hill, car owners living within










the station area receive a reduction in affordability over the no transit, base model of Commuter

A, though neither option appear affordable.

Case Study Conclusions

The Mockingbird Station and Pleasant Hill Station transit-oriented developments provide

two different perspectives on TODs from design, to implementation, to location. Using the

maj or benefits of TODs outlined in previous sections of this report as the goals, the results from

these two locations were similar in many respects. It is unclear from either development whether

the proj ects were a catalyst for economic growth. In the last fifteen years, apartments and

condos have replaced lower density development around Pleasant Hill Station, while

Mockingbird Station provided for a myriad of restaurants, retail stores, and loft apartments on-

site. Neither proj ect made an attempt to provide for housing diversity or affordability, and both

proj ects noticed significant rent premiums for properties near the transit stations.

Though development occurred in and around these developments, it cannot be determined

from the studies conducted whether these economic impacts were redistributive or generative,

though in the case of Pleasant Hill Station, Cervero and Landis's (1997) previous research

indicates a redistribution meaning the successful reduction of sprawl. The main purposes of

both Pleasant Hill Station and Mockingbird Station were to serve areas that were the product of

sprawl, but the clustering affects around the stations may serve to reduce sprawl as high density

development around these stations replaced low-density development farther away from the

station.

The one goal of transit oriented developments which likely had different outcomes at each

station was the encouragement of physical fitness. Pleasant Hill Station, which is surrounded by

garage and surface parking on all sides, similar to a suburban mall, does not encourage use by

pedestrians, and thus the vast maj ority of station users drive to the station. Mockingbird Station









encouraged pedestrian access by making it equally accessible for pedestrians and drivers alike.

Financially however, the least expensive option in the Mockingbird Station housing and

transportation cost model, assuming car ownership, was to live outside of the station area and

drive to the station and use it as a park and ride.

Based on the results of these two case studies, the ultimate effectiveness of transit-oriented

developments at providing a relief to the combined housing and transportation cost burden

experienced by low and middle income families appears to be whether TODs can make living

without an automobile a realistic option. Though the costs are not to be taken scrupulously,

some general trends can be taken from the theoretical model. When work commute requires a

long travel to a dense downtown with extreme parking rates, taking transit is the least expensive

means of traveling to work, even if you have to drive to get to the transit stop. This situation is

an extreme case though, most likely only found in the San Francisco, New York, Chicago,

Boston, and Washington D.C. metro areas.

In most maj or metropolitan areas, the main value for TODs in lowering the total cost of

housing and transportation exists when other services such as supermarkets, doctors' offices,

restaurants, and retail stores are either provided onsite, or access to these services is made

available through the transit system, and one does not need to own a car to function on a day to

day basis. Mockingbird Station in Dallas came close to this model, but the services provided on-

site most likely out-price the majority of middle and lower income residents, and the principle

destinations of the blue and red lines is downtown, rather than to commercial service corridors

where low income employees in Dallas typically work. Successful TODs that serve all income

levels will likely have to be large, dense, mixed-use, at least partially publicly funded, and

connect with an extensive transportation network that links to not only commercial offices, but









commercial service businesses. This all or nothing approach to transit-oriented developments

will be a tough sell for communities, as it requires developers to make a very significant initial

investment, and local government officials to operate on a long-range horizon.

Based on these two case studies and similar proj ects around the country, developers are

unlikely to develop affordable housing unless public funding is provided and affordable housing

is a requirement. While living near a highway or maj or thoroughfare typically decreases

residential rents due to noise and air pollution, electric powered rail systems have proven to have

a positive effect on local rents. The most attractive factor of TODs from a developer' s

perspective is the inflated prices that they can charge tenants due to the accessibility to public

transit. This inflated price, or rent premium, is the main factor that prevents low and middle

income households from living in TODs, while at the same time being a developer' s chief reason

for building here rather than in the suburbs (barring a substantial shift in market demand). For

developers to charge decreased rents, they expect some form of monetary compensation from the

government, making a public-private partnership a must.

The main question of these case studies boiled down to whether the rent increases around

transit compensate for the decreased transportation costs. The answer to this question depends

on whether the family owns an automobile. If a family living in or near a TOD owns an

automobile, then the transportation and housing costs will likely slightly increase, while if the

family does not own a vehicle, the total transportation and housing costs will significantly

decrease. Assuming that low-income families own cars for survival purposes rather than leisure

purposes, this indicates that the main obstacle to the effectiveness of transit-oriented

developments at lowering combined housing and transportation costs is not rent premiums, but

connectivity to jobs and services. If a long range regional plan is in place that requires that the









land uses and activities necessary to subsist are located at or near rail stations, not just arterials,

then transit oriented developments around fixed guideway transit systems appear to be effective

at increasing affordability.


Table 4-1: Pleasant Hill Commuter Costs
Commuter A


Commuter B


Commuter C


Commuter D


Transportation Costs
Automobile Ownership
Gasoline
Transit Fare
Parking

Housing Costs
Base Price
Rent Premium


$5,762
$3,288
$0
$3,374



$14,280
$0
$26,704


$5,762
$1,393
$1,780
$0



$14,280
$0
$23,215


$5,762
$974
$1,780
$0



$14,280
$2,280
$25,076


$0
$0
$1,780
$0



$14,280
$2,280
$18,340


Table 4-2: Mockingbird Station Commuter Costs
Commuter A Commuter B


Commuter C


Commuter D


Transportation Costs
Automobile Ownership
Gasoline
Transit Fare
Parking

Housing Costs
Base Price
Rent Premium


$5,762
$1,540
$0
$1,124


$16,015
$0
$24,441


$5,762
$1,440
$400
$0



$16,015
$0
$23,617


$5,762
$974
$400
$0



$16,015
$3,696
$26,847


$0
$0
$400
$0



$16,015
$3,696
$20,111









CHAPTER 5
APPLICATION FOR GAINESVILLE INT THE NEXT 50 YEARS

Lessons Learned from Case Studies

So what do the results of these case studies combined with the current body of research on

the topic tell us about plans for light rail in Gainesville in 2060? Barring the invention of new

technology that drastically changes the way people move and communicate, the key to providing

affordable housing and transportation to more families will likely involve the ability of light rail

to reduce the need of Gainesville residents to own a personal vehicle. The current land use

pattern will likely not provide this type of environment, but the provision of rail in many cases

has had a significant impact on the surrounding land use patterns through a combination of

market forces and the focused planning which occurs around stations. Given the unique

conditions that exist in a University town such as Gainesville, the opportunity exists for a

discussion of light rail within the next 50 years. Given the political nature of such a proposal, the

determination must be made regarding how such a proj ect will affect the combined housing and

transportation affordability of Gainesville residents, and what segment and proportion of the

population will be affected.

The basis for determining the affordability of housing and transportation for the two case

studies relied on a series of four commuters. Based on the number of TODs and the number of

assumptions needed for such a long-range study, constructing this type of model for Gainesville

in 2060 is impractical. Based on the case study results, the two principal factors affecting

housing and transportation affordability were car ownership and rent premiums. Reconnecting

America' s (2004) nationwide study indicated a 44% decrease in automobiles per household in

areas within a half-mile of fixed-guideway transit stations (p. 21). Based on Canby's (2003)

study, using transit instead of owning a car can save an average of $4,900 per worker per year.









Therefore, households within TODs in Gainesville could expect a $2, 156 reduction in cost per

household per year (in 2004 dollars) due to the decrease in automobile ownership. Taking the

average rent premiums experienced in the two case studies as 20% and the yearly median gross

rent in Gainesville as $7,884, an average rent premium of $1,577 (in 2004 dollars) per household

would be experienced by residents living in TODs (Alachua County, 2003). Subtracting the rent

premium from the reduction in transportation costs would lead to an average savings of $579 per

household.

Currently within the City of Gainesville, 52 percent of the population are renters. The

product of this percentage, the average costs savings per household, and the total number of

households located within each TOD will be used to determine the total housing and

transportation cost savings for residents over the entire proposed light rail line in 2060. The

proportion of the population affected will determined by dividing the total number of households

living within TODs by the total number of proj ected households within Gainesville in 2060.

Gainesville TOD Descriptions

Oaks Mall/North Florida Regional Medical Center

The westernmost stop on the line currently serves as a suburban-style regional activity

center with the Oaks Mall and North Florida Regional Medical Center (NFRMC) as the primary

uses (shown in Figure 5-2). Due to the distance from the University of Florida and the

downtown, the area should be developed as a suburban TOD with some on-site parking provided

for commuters West of I-75. Given the cost of relocation, the NFRMC will likely remain in its

current location and serve as a primary destination for residents from the east side of town to

receive medical care. Given the competitiveness of the commercial retail sector, malls are

typically forced to renew themselves every several decades to remain competitive. This will

likely be no exception for Oaks Mall within the next fifty years, as the large tract of land within









proximity of a rail line will likely redevelop into a walkable, mixed-use community to take

advantage of the full development potential of the light rail line. Several other strip commercial

centers surround the Oaks Mall and will likely also redevelop to a more suitable use. Upon

exclusion of the NFRMC, a total of 160 acres remain for redevelopment. Using the residential

density of 10 units/acre for suburban TODs, approximately 1,250 new units could be built on this

site. Figure 5-9 shows the parcels to be redeveloped around the Oaks Mall and NFRMC station.

Forty-Third Street and Newberry Road

The area around the 43rd Street and Newberry Road intersection is currently home to

suburban-style offices surrounded by middle-income single family residential development,

shown in Figure 5-3. This station is classified as a transitional TOD due the location within two

miles of the University of Florida campus, while still located in a suburban neighborhood. No

lands were excluded for development within this TOD except for a section of right-of-way that

currently holds the Millennium Center office park. Several large parcels surround the proposed

station location that should allow for the development of a master planned, mixed-use

transitional TOD. A total of 184.9 acres are available for redevelopment within the station area,

allowing for a total of 3,698 units to be constructed at 20 units/acre. Figure 5-10 shows the

parcels to be redeveloped around the 43rd Street and Newberry Road station.

Thirty-Fourth Street and University Avenue

The 34th Street and University Avenue area currently exists as suburban activity center

within an urban area. The area is home to strip malls, automobile related businesses, and vast

parking areas adjacent to the street, shown in Figure 5-4. This station should be developed as a

suburban TOD due to its location on the northwestern edge of the University of Florida campus.

Two tracts of land were excluded from this analysis, the University of Florida golf course, and a

portion of the Hogtown Creek watershed. Many of the strip malls and commercial areas are









consolidated onto single tracts, making redevelopment into mid-rise buildings, mixed-use

buildings an easier proposition. A total of 158.6 acres are available for redevelopment within the

station area, allowing for a total of 4,758 units to be constructed at 30 units/acre. Figure 5-1 1

shows the parcels to be redeveloped around the 34th Street and University Avenue station.

Thirteenth Street and University Avenue

The corner of 13th Street and University Avenue should be one of the principal

intersections of Gainesville that serves as a lasting image of the city. As it stands now however,

the corner containing the University remains the only quadrant holding up its end of the bargain,

as a gas station, a bulldozed empty lot, and an outdated hotel occupy the other three portions of

land surrounding the intersection. Several hundred feet north of the intersection however,

several medium density, mixed-use structures (shown in Figure 5-5) have been constructed that

may serve as a model for future redevelopment. Due to the balkanization of parcels in this

section of town, redevelopment efforts will be increasingly difficult, though the prime location

will likely keep developers interested. The location at one of the principle intersection between

the University and downtown, the 13th Street and University Avenue area provides an

opportunity for an urban TOD. Upon excluding the University of Florida, a total of 77.65 acres

remain available for redevelopment within the station area, allowing for a total of 2,330 units to

be constructed at 30 units/acre. Figure 5-12 shows the parcels to be redeveloped around the 13th

Street and Newberry Road station.

Waldo Road and University Avenue

The Waldo Road and University Avenue intersection marks the principle intersection of

East Gainesville, and one of the maj or intersections in the city as a whole. Despite this however,

the area surrounding the intersection is home to liquor stores, fast food restaurants, run-down

convenience stores, and abandoned buildings. An effort has taken place in the past few years to









revitalize East Gainesville, but this will likely be impossible without restoring this intersection to

respectability and prominence. Given its proximity to the downtown, this intersection should

develop as an urban TOD. The two maj or areas that were excluded from later development were

a small cemetery and a section of former railroad right-of-way currently used as a trail. After

these subtractions, a total of 100.2 acres remain available for redevelopment within the station

area, allowing for a total of 3,006 units to be constructed at 30 units/acre. Figure 5-13 shows the

parcels to be redeveloped around the Waldo Road and University Avenue station.

Twelfth Avenue and Waldo Road

Within the past several years the intersection of 12th Avenue and Waldo Road has become

an area of controversy as civic leaders and community groups have battled over whether to

encourage or block the construction of a Wal-Mart and its accompanying commercial strip

development. In the end the development was approved (shown in Figure 5-7), and currently the

development is in its later stages of development, likely making this area a focal point of activity

for East Gainesville for the coming years. Though separated from the downtown and the

University of Florida and lacking workers who commute to locations within this area, its urban

location in an economically depressed area in need of redevelopment dictates that it be

developed as a transitional TOD. The trailer parks and the Tacachale community for the

developmentally disabled will present challenges to redevelopment, but the opportunity for the

city to both encourage the supply of affordable housing and redevelop East Gainesville will

hopefully be enough incentive to overcome these obstacles. Upon excluding the Martin Luther

King Jr. Park and the rails-to-trails right-of-way, a total of 162.9 acres remain available for

redevelopment within the station area, allowing for a total of 2,500 units to be constructed at 20

units/acre. Figure 5-14 shows the parcels to be redeveloped around the 12th Street and Waldo

Road station.









Thirty-First Avenue and Waldo Road

The eastern most TOD on the Gainesville line, before the terminus at the Gainesville

Regional Airport, the 31s~t Avenue and Waldo Road area is currently largely undeveloped (shown

in Figure 5-8) with the exception of a discount store and a handful of storage facilities. Due to

its remote location, this area should be developed as a suburban TOD. Parking should be

provided at this location to facilitate a small amount of commuting from the communities of

western Alachua County. After excluding the wetlands and nature preserve to the west of the

proposed station, a total of 276.4 acres remain available for redevelopment within the station

area, allowing for a total of 1,250 units to be constructed at 10 units/acre. Figure 5-15 shows the

parcels to be redeveloped around the 31s~t Avenue and Waldo Road station.

Stations Not Designated as TODs

Three stations located along the proposed line are not designated as transit-oriented

developments; however, development around these stations will likely occur. Moving from

West to East, the first of these stations is located around the intersection of 18th Street and

University. This station provides access to a concentration of University of Florida buildings,

Ben Hill Griffith Stadium, the O'Connell Center, a variety of churches, and a strip of commercial

service businesses. The surrounding residential development is a combination of older single

family student housing and three to four story, limited parking apartments. Similarly, the second

station not classified as a TOD located downtown at 1st Street and University Avenue is

surrounded by a mix of historical residential and commercial structures, included a substantial

portion which are currently at suitable densities and intensities for a light rail line. Given the

limited redevelopment potential and the significant number of developments which would be

complimentary to a light rail line, these two stations were not designated as TODs to save

resources for other stations.









The final station not designated as a TOD is located near the terminal of the Gainesville

Regional Airport on Waldo Road. Many travelers visiting the University and local businesses

use the airport to enter the City, and the number of these passengers will continue to grow in the

next fifty years. Without an automobile, these travelers will require fast transportation to and

from their destination within the City, necessitating the linkage with the proposed light rail line.

Though a station is needed, the location on the outskirts of town on airport property and the

subsequent building restrictions associated with this are the principal reasons for not designating

this station as a TOD.

Transportation and Housing Calculations

Table 5-1 shows the total acreage, density, and number of total units to be located at each

of the seven TODs along the proposed Gainesville light rail line. Based on this scenario, a total

of 1 1,13 5 rental housing units would be developed if the prescribed densities around each TOD

are followed. Using the current average of 2.02 persons/household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006),

a possible 22,493 residents would be accommodated under such a plan. If Gainesville' s

population doubles by 2060, these developments would house 10.2% of Gainesville residents.

Given the annual savings per household of $579 due to the reduction in automobile ownership, a

total annual amount of $6,447, 165 per year (in 2004 dollars) could be saved for households

within the City of Gainesville under the 2060 light rail plan.

Factors That May Change the Conclusion

Given the long range time frame of this study and the variability of some of the measures

from location to location, the conclusions of the affordability analysis for the Gainesville 2060

light rail alternative may be inaccurate if a series of assumptions are incorrect or conditions

change dramatically in the next fifty years. As stated at the outset, this thesis set out to

determine the affordability of housing and transportation strictly on a monetary basis rather than










on utility, which includes time. In a poorly performing rail system with long headways and slow

travel speeds, the amount of time spent waiting may negate the monetary savings from not

owning a car and living in a TOD. Commuters typically value commute time at half their hourly

wage (Meyer and Miller, 2001).25 Using local averages,26 if the average household spent 14

minutes longer each day traveling in Gainesville under a light rail alternative than one of the

other alternatives, the $579 average annual transportation and housing cost savings would be

offset.

Home to one of the largest Universities in the country, Gainesville presents a unique

college town demographic profile, which remains relatively unstudied in terms of both

commuting and housing and transportation costs. Since many of these residents are dependent

on their parents for income, many students may not give up their cars at the same rate as other

cities that develop rail transit systems. Reconnecting America (2004) estimated a 44% drop in

automobile ownership rates for residents within fixed guide-way transit zones; however, Pleasant

Hill Station, while designed primarily as a park-and-ride, had a car ownership rate of 1.3

automobiles per household, only a 19% decrease below the national average. Given the

suburban location and the automobile oriented design, this would be an unlikely result for

Gainesville. If this did occur though, Gainesville residents living within TODs would experience

a combined housing and transportation increase of $1,225.

Most significantly, the absence of a strong regulatory framework and/or government

subsidization would result in only high income housing being constructed around light rail

stations, leaving the poor to live outside of the station areas with fewer transportation options,

25Kockelman (1997) found that commute times were valued at $10/hour in 1989 dollars, or approximately $15.23
an hour in 2004 dollars.

26 These averages include a median single-household, single-earner income of $28,371, 230 days of commute/work,
a 40 hour work week, and two commute trips/day.










more isolated, and paying higher costs. This occurred in development directly adjacent to

Mockingbird Station in Dallas, as only high-end loft style apartments were provided directly on-

site. These high-end developments do not extend too far past the station boundary, though,

allowing for a net decrease in housing and transportation costs for many residents. If a weak

regulatory framework existed during implementation of the light rail line and governments did

little to encourage rental units around TODs, the current trend of constructing only luxury

condos around high traffic intersections may continue around TODs. If 90% of the units within

the TODs are initially sold as condos and only 10% are initially rented, then a significant

decrease in the number of low and middle income residents affected would occur.27 Holding all

other factors in the model the same, this would result in only 2, 141 total units with increased

affordability, or only 2.0% of the future city population. 28

Several other occurrences threaten the conclusion of this study but are more difficult to

quantify. One possibility involves a scenario in which savings are only passed on to the rich, and

captive riders and low-income families end up receiving little or no savings because they already

live either without an automobile or with the maximum reduction in the number of automobiles

per households The different scenarios which may change the study's conclusion appear in

Table 5-2.








27Many new condos are eventually rented out after purchase, but usually at a significantly inflated price removing
them from the realm of affordability.

28Using a City of Gainesville 2060 population of 220,000 and the current average household size of 2.02
persons/household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006)

29 Captive riders are people who ride transit because they have no other choice. This is typically for economic
reasons, i.e. they cannot afford to own a car.










Factors That May Affect, but Not Change the Conclusion

Several other variables and factors may affect the degree of the combined transportation

and housing affordability in Gainesville but will not change the overall conclusion that transit-

oriented developments reduce costs. A fuel price change or the use of alternative fuels may have

some effect on the calculations, though the Eixed cost of owning a car will likely strongly

outweigh this change. With many analysts claiming that the world has reached its peak oil

production, prices for gasoline will likely continue to increase for automobiles over the next

several decades. Gasoline price increases affect personal automobile users disproportionately,

since nearly all light rail transportation systems are powered by electricity. Unless an alternative

to gasoline becomes widely available, automobile users may spend between Hyve and ten dollars

a gallon (in 2004 dollars) for gasoline by 2060. Without further transportation investments, this

cost of fuel would add an additional cost of between $1,594 and $4,250 per household per year

for Gainesville residents.30 This would increase the annual transportation and housing savings

for Gainesville TOD residents relative to non-TOD residents to between $2, 173 and $4,829 per

household per year.

A recession that delays the development around the light rail line may lower investor

confidence in future proj ects once the market turns around, leading to densities around TODs

that may never be fully realized. Even in the absence of a recession, these high densities

required to sustain a light rail system may never be realized, as they only exist in a handful of

large American cities. If densities were to only reach one half or one third of their prescribed

amount, the proportion of Gainesville residents benefiting from reduced housing and


30This calculation uses the average of 21,250 vehicle miles traveled per household from the 2001 National Personal
Travel Survey (Federal Highway Administration, 2004), the average December 2004 gasoline price in Florida of $2
per gallon (Energy Information Administration, 2008), and assumes an average gas mileage increase to 40
miles/gallon.










transportation costs would decrease proportionately. Using a worst case scenario where densities

only reached one third of their intended amount, suburban TODs would develop at 3.3

units/acre, transitional TODs at 6.7 units/acre, and urban TODs at 10 units/acre. Holding the

other factors in the model constant, only 3,710 households would experience increased

affordability of housing and transportation using a low density redevelopment pattern. If

Gainesville's population doubles by 2060 as predicted, only 3.4% of Gainesville residents would

fit into this category.31

Recently, many cities have used sales tax to fund either proposed transit systems or

bolster existing ones. Sales tax increases approved by referendum have occurred within the past

several years in Kansas City, Missouri (3/8 cent), Salt Lake City, Utah (1/4 cent), and Ft. Worth,

Texas (1/2 cent). Using the high value of a V/2 cent increase to fund a system in Gainesville, and

multiplying this by the percentage of median income used on sales-taxable goods,32 each

Gainesville household would pay an additional $56.40 per year to fund the system, reducing the

combined savings of TOD residents to $522 on average. Since all residents of the City would be

paying under this plan, the maj ority of Gainesville residents would be paying the tax without

seeing a monetary benefit; however, the total savings for TOD residents of $5,812,470 outweighs

the cost to non-TOD residents of $5,538,789.

Several other factors affect the degree of affordability but are not easily quantified.

Transit system operating costs may increase significantly over current levels, and this cost may

be passed on to the residents of Gainesville though fare increases or yearly fees paid by students


31 Using a City of Gainesville 2060 population of 220,000 and the current average household size of 2.02
persons/household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006)
32 The breakdown of household spending used by Canby (2003) was used. Housing, Groceries, Insurance, Pensions,
and Health Care were excluded since these are not taxed in Florida, leaving 36.6% of total median income from
transportation, entertainment, apparel and services, and other.









with tuition. Increased parking costs downtown and around campus may also place an increased

cost burden on non-transit users, leaving users of the transportation network who choose to drive

with higher costs, which are only indirectly accounted for within the affordability calculations.

One final area that may affect results deals with the economic affects on non-transit riders. Only

a small body of research within the last hundred years has focused on citywide rent and property

value changes in cities with new rail systems. A positive overall effect on rents due to economic

stimulus or a negative effect on rents outside the station area due to economic redistribution may

have a considerable effect on the results of this study. Under a scenario in which light rail

systems only serve to redistribute wealth rather than create it, a net savings of approximately $33

for residents outside of TODs would be absorbed, as the equal and opposite amount of rent

premiums experienced around TODs are redistributed to the rest of the community. The

different scenarios which may affect, but not change, the conclusion of this study are listed in

Table 5-2.

Gainesville Conclusion

At an October, 2007 meeting of the Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning

Organization discussing the 2060 long range transportation plan, Commissioner Ed Braddy

suggested that, among other things, a light rail system within Gainesville would create a

significant barrier to affordable housing. Commissioner Braddy used the comparison of the price

of a suburban three-bedroom home in Houston to a two-bedroom flat in Portland as an example

to prove his point. While Braddy's argument may be muddied by the fact that both locations

now contain successful light rail systems, it can be assumed that the point he was trying to make

was that cities that densify around transit are far more expensive than those that sprawl outward

around highways and arterials. While in previous statements at this same meeting, Mr. Braddy

acknowledged a connection between housing and transportation, his suggestions of ballooning










mortgages and residential rents failed to define affordability as a function of both transportation

and land use. The previous research, along with the case studies in this report, dispute any

definitive claim of rising costs when combining housing and transportation on a square footage

basis.

While there appears to be a significant portion of this thesis dedicated to chronicling

Commissioner Braddy's statements, a broader purpose exists than purely settling a personal

disagreement. Mr. Braddy represents not only a constituency within the City of Gainesville, but

a larger ideological position which must be persuaded by the conclusion of this study and others

to change their position on this topic in order to achieve the maximum possible support from the

public. Many conservative and libertarian public policy institutes have yet to be convinced of

the efficacy of the new age of passenger rail transportation and their criticisms must be addressed

in order to fully inform the citizens of communities across the country.

Within the City of Gainesville, a light rail system with an aggressive accompanying TOD

policy appears to contradict the assertion of drastically higher costs associated by some with light

rail systems. Using the assumptions detailed in this report, the proposed system generates a

significant cost savings for the renters living within walking distance of the station. Critics of

this study may disagree with the many assumptions used to construct this model and may use

these as reasons to dismiss the overall conclusions of this study. While changes in several of the

assumptions may produce a somewhat different result, the conclusion will most likely remain the

same barring circumstances which defy current norms. Developing a concrete conclusion from

such a long term study remains extremely difficult; however, the results of this study should

form a starting point from which a debate may occur as to whether a light rail system in

Gainesville in the next fifty years will decrease or increases combined housing and transportation










costs for low and middle income residents. As a result of this thesis, this starting point will

hopefully differ substantially from that proposed by Commissioner Braddy at the October 11,

2007 meeting of the Gainesville MTPO.


gure 3-L: ValKS IVianl ana.


gure 3-5: r orty- mr l S~treet ana luewoerry Koaa Lurrent Lonaltlons

























Figure 5-4: T'hirty-Fourth Street and University Ave Current Conditions


figure 5-5: T'hirteenth Street and University Avenue Current Conditions


Figure 5-6: Waldo Road and University Avenue Current Conditions



















figure 5-7: TIwelith Avenue and Waldo Road Current Conditions


gure 5-8: Thirty-First Avenue and Waldo Road Current Conditions


+L~ ~'

'~iiiiilfi"::"'













Legend

Parcels to Redevelop
O RailStations
-Light Rail Line
1/4 Mile W~alking Circle
I 1/2 Mile Walking Circle

0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3
I I IMiles


1/2 MEile


`D
rC
m~a
(U
c


a~l
u.
b;r
mo
OE


Figure 5-9: Parcel Analysis for the Oaks Mall and North Florida Regional Medical Center Suburban TOD























































pt
c,~


C
-cr
E~LI
r ,
i;ir
r3


llZ Mile


m`T
ycr
u.
ur
uZ
m
o
OE;
(II


Figure 5-10: Parcel Analysis for the Forty-Third Street and Newberry Road Transitional TOD


Legend

Parcels to Redevelop

O Rail Stations

mI Light Rail Line
1/4 Mile Walking Circle
SI 1/2 Mile Walking Circle


0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3













Legend

Parcels to Redevelop

O Bail stations
mm Light Rail Line
1/4 Mile Walking Circle
S1/2 Mile Walking Circle

0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3


~i'x"i~l


B


p~r~Z~


1/2 Mile


C
rr
gEl
mcu
me;
r~13


_O

per
LL.
V1
rZ
to
n
Oc
nr


Figure 5-11: Parcel Analysis for the Thirty-Fourth Street and University Avenue Urban TOD


















































~C1
c,~


1/2 Mile


m`T
ycr
u.
ur
uZ
m
o
OE;
(II


Figure 5-12: Parcel Analysis for the Thirteenth Street and University Avenue Urban TOD


Legend

Parcels to Redevelop

O Rail Stations
mI Light Rail Line
1/4 Mile Walking Circle
SI 1/2 Mile Walking Circle

0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3
I I Miles










Legend
Parcels to Redevelop
O Rail Stations
I Light Rail Line
1/4 Mile Walking Circle
S1/2 Mile Walking Circle

0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3
m I Mile


1/2 Mile


-O
CI$


Figure 5-13: Parcel Analysis for the Waldo Road and University Avenue Urban TOD













Legend

Parcels to Redevelop
O Rail stations
me Light Rail Line
S1/2 Mile W~alking Circle
1/4 Mile W~alking Circle

0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3


Itt


1/2 Mile


C


,C)
Irr
LL
VI
rZ
m
m


Figure 5-14: Parcel Analysis for the Twelfth Avenue and Waldo Road Transitional TOD






















































cE
nry

nrr:


1/2 Mile
rr
r
co
c
t~


~C>
mI
frr
u.
v,
xZ
mrr
Oc
m


Figure 5-15: Parcel Analysis for the Thirty-First Avenue and Waldo Road Suburban TOD


Legend

Parcels to Redevelop

O Rail stations
as Light Rail Line

1/4 Mile Walking Circle

O 1/12 Mile W~alking Circle

0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3
I I Miles










Table 5-1: TOD Developmental Totals
Transit Oriented Development Land for Redevelopment


Developmental Density
(Units/Acre)
10
20
30
30
30
20
10
Tot;


Total Units


Rental Units

832
1,923
2,474
1,212
1,563
1,694
1,437
11,135


(Acres)
160.0
184.9
158.6
77.7
100.2
162.9
276.4


Oaks Mall and N.F.R.M.C.
43rd St. and Newberry Rd.
34th St. and University Ave.
13th St. and Newberry Rd.
Waldo Rd. and University Ave.
12th St. and Waldo Rd.
31st Ave. and Waldo Rd.


1,600
3,698
4,758
2,330
3,006
3,258
2,764
als: 21,414


Table 5-2: Factors that May Change the Conclusion


Factor
STravel Time


Change
Increase of 14
minutes per
household per day

Decrease of only
19% with TODs
(compared with
44%)

Only 10% of new
TOD housing units
are rentals


Cause
Poorly managed or under-funded system



Poor TOD design or inelasticity of
automobile ownership in college towns



Weak regulatory framework leads to the
construction of mostly luxury condominiums
within TODs

Only higher income households have
decreases in auto ownership since poor
households already own as few vehicles as
possible (captive rider problem)


Result
No net housing and transportation
savings for TOD residents


Annual housing and transportation
costs increase for households within
TODs by $1,225 annually


Only 2.0% of the entire future
population is affected under such a
plan (a decrease of 8.2%)

Regressive system where relative
savings increases with income (exact
numbers not available)


Automobile Ownership




Percentage of Renters


Unequal distribution of (not available)
savings










Table 5-3: Factors that May Affect the Result, but Do Not Change the Conclusion
Factor Change Cause
Fuel Price Increase in the cost of gasoline to Resource limitation and slow
between five and ten dollars per development of new
gallon technologies


Result
Transportation and housing savings
for TOD households of between
$2, 173 and $4,829 annually

Only 3.4% of city residents would
receive increased housing and
transportation affordability (a
reduction of 6.8%)

Decreased combined housing and
transportation cost savings (exact
decrease not available)

Average annual savings of
approximately $29 for households
outside of TODs


A progressive fee which would
disproportionately affect the wealthy
and have a lesser effect on renters
(exact cost not available)

All households in Gainesville would
pay approximately $57 more per
month, while decreasing the annual
savings per household with TODs to
$522.
A rent premium for TOD households
of only $788 and a total annual
savings of $1,320 per household


Density


Densities at each type of TOD only
reach one third of their intended
value


Increase (exact increase not
available)


Overall, rent premiums are negated
since their increase in one area
leads to an equal and opposite
decrease elsewhere

Increase (exact increase not
available)


A recession or a lack of
market demand


Transit Operating Cost



Area-wide Rents




Parking Costs


Increased relative energy
costs


Light rail doesn't function as
economic stimulus, but rather
as economic redistribution


Increased demand and
regulation


Sales Tax


Increase in sales tax of half a cent
to pay for the costs of constructing
and operating the transit system


Lack of state and federal
subsidy for the transit system


Rent Premium


Rent Premium of only 10%


Landlords place less value on
rail transit access









CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusion

The conventional development pattern of the modern era has become increasingly less

accepted over the past several decades. Cost-burdened municipalities with escalating amounts of

infrastructure to maintain and their residents, who once moved to the suburbs for open space and

healthy living but are being crammed onto increasingly smaller lots and becoming increasingly

overweight, are looking for a change. While the personal transportation vehicle is here to stay, a

reinvestment in public transit is one solution which appears to be growing increasing favor

among all levels of government as rail systems have been proposed all across the county in the

last several decades. A comprehensive planning approach encouraging a dense, town-centered

development pattern has become a complimentary policy to many of these new rail proj ects.

These developments, known as TODs, have the possible benefit of returning the focus of cities

across the country to downtown and mixed-use activity centers and limiting the unsustainable,

and increasingly unwanted, sprawling land use pattern which has arisen in the United States over

the last sixty years.

Besides reducing sprawl, TODs have the ability to provide more affordable living for

station area residents when considering combined housing and transportation costs. Successful

TODs have been proven to significantly reduce automobile ownership, which currently accounts

for nearly $6,000 of the annual budget for the average American. While transportation costs are

lowered with TODs, housing costs have been shown to significantly increase due to rent

premiums around transit stations, which typically account for around a 20% increase in rent.

The balance between these two factors appears to form the barometer of affordability for TOD

residents .









Within Gainesville and around the country, the ultimate test of TODs at providing more

affordable housing and transportation will be whether these developments and the rail lines that

connect them, combined with comprehensive planning policies, will be enough to encourage a

variety of housing stock and businesses to relocate at a medium to high density around the

stations. If, through government policies and market forces, complementary land use changes

occur around light rail lines, residents of TODs in Gainesville and other metropolitan areas that

employ an effective strategy may view the automobile as an amenity rather than a necessity. If

this occurs, many low and middle income residents will be relieved of the significant cost burden

associated with compulsory automobile ownership, and the community as a whole will receive a

net benefit and a significant savings in terms of combined housing and transportation costs.

A variety of techniques such as public/private partnerships, land use regulations, developer

incentives, and government subsidization must be used to ensure that a proportionate share of the

housing stock within TODs is affordable to those employed in lower paying jobs. For

transportation systems to be affordable, from both the government and the citizens' perspective,

a shift of focus must occur from a series of widely spaced, arterials to a more tightly spaced

interconnected grid system around light rail lines and stations. Refocusing the transportation

infrastructure this way in Gainesville and throughout the country will be a difficult task that will

require cooperation and a common vision among local, state, and federal transportation agencies.

During the October 11Ith meeting of the Gainesville MTPO, Commissioner Braddy noted

that any long term transportation alternative should be judged on its ability to promote social

welfare, using the definition of Winston and Maheshri (2006) as the "demand for and cost of

[light rail] service" (pg. 363). This report proposes a much different definition of social welfare

that includes the net housing and transportation costs low and middle income residents. Under









this definition, and using the factors and assumptions outlined in this report, a light rail

alternative for Gainesville measurably increases social welfare, as combined housing and

transportation costs decrease for renting households of TODs in Gainesville by over $500 per

year, with over 10,000 households affected. While this document is not meant to end the debate

on the social welfare or affordability of light rail systems, it will hopefully be added to the list of

resources for making an informed decision on light rail systems when considering affordability

as a function of both housing and transportation.

Further Research Recommendations

Currently, a lack of research exists on how housing prices are affected, not just along rail

lines, but regionally by the location of new rail lines in urban areas. Does the location of light

rail have a regenerative or a redistributive effect on housing prices? If the effect is merely

redistributive, then the cumulative effect on affordability of housing and transportation within

the region must always be positive presuming that the rail line is reasonably priced and adds

additional public transit accessibility. If the effect is regenerative, this may provide an added

incentive to business and city leaders attempting to spur economic development. If the effect is

redistributive, then the whole community may benefit in terms of housing and transportation

affordability upon the investment in a rail system.

Relating specifically to Gainesville in 2060, further research is needed to determine both

the forecasted ridership using transportation modeling software and the estimated cost of

constructing such a system. More study and more experience are also needed with the various

forms of inclusionary zoning policy adopted at TODs around the country to determine which

structure and system would work best within Gainesville. The inclusion and effectiveness of

these policies will likely dictate whether affordable and market rate units are built within TODs.









These housing units will be reserved for households that may already not own a car, yet still not

be able to afford housing within proximity to a light rail station.









LIST OF REFERENCES


APTA (2002), Transit Statistics: Statistics By Transit Agency, American Public Transit
Association (www.apta.com/research/stats/agency/index~f)

Alachua County Affordable Housing Plan Team (2003), Alachua County Affordable Housing
Study. Gainesville, FL: Alachua County.

American Automobile Association (1993), Your Driving Costs. Heathrow, FL: American
Automobile Association.

Bailey, Linda (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); available at
www. apta. com/research/info/online/documents/apta_pulc~transportati on~fuel_savings_
final_0108 07.pdf

Bannister, David and Berechman, Joseph (2000), Transport Investment and Economic
Development. London: Routledge.

Bay Area Rapid Transit District (2006), "BART Information and Tickets." Retrieved December
1, 2006, from http ://bart.gov/tickets/types/types.asp

Bureau of Economic and Business Research (2006). Florida Population Studies (Detailed
Bulletin 147). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007), "CPI Inflation Calculator." U.S. Department of Labor.
Available at http ://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

Bernick, Michael, and Cervero, Robert (1997), Transit Villages. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Boarnet, Marlon G., and Crane, Randall (2001), Travel by Design. New York: Oxford UP.

Borchert, James (2007). The Encyclopedia ofClevelan2dHistory. Cleveland, OH: Cleveland State
University. Retrieved December 25, 2007, from
http://ech. case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id= S25

Braddy, Ed (2007, October, 1 1), Alachua County: the Next Fify Years. Metropolitan
Transportation Planning Organization Meeting, Retrieved December 19, 2007, from
http://helix.alachua.fl.us: 8080/ramgen/CommissionAudio/2007 1011/metropolitan-
tran sp ortati on-pl anni ng-organi zati on. rm? useho stname

Canby, Anne (2003), "Affordable Housing and Transportation: Creating New Linkages
Benefiting Low-Income Families." Housing Facts & Findings 5.2: 1-5. Retrieved
October 22, 2006, from www.fanniemaefoundation. org/programs/hff/pdf/HFF~v~i2.pdf










Calthorpe, Peter (1993). The Next American Metropolis. New Jersey: Princeton Architectural
Press.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (1993), Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.

Central Florida Regional Transit Authority (2007), "LYNX Fast Facts." GoLYNX. Retrieved on
January 8, 2008, from http://www.golynx.com/?id=1 156155

Cervero, Robert (1993), Ridership impacts of transt-focused~t~r~r~rtrt~t~ development in Cahifornia.
Monograph 45. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Development.

Cervero, Robert and Landis, J (1997), Twenty Years of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System: Land
Use andDevelopment Impacts. Transportation Research Record.-A, Vol. 3 1. No. 4, pp.
309-333. Great Britain: Elsevier Science.

Cervero, Robert, Murphy, S., Ferrell, C, Gogatus, N., et. al. (2004), Transit Oriented
Development in the United States,. Federal Transit Administration. Washington D.C.:
Transportation Cooperative Research Program. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from
http://www. map c.org/tran sp ortati on/tran s_alternative s/tran sitPDF s/3 b_TOD_Tran sCoop
ResearchProg.pdf

City of Austin (2006), Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Department. Transit-Oriented
Development Guidebook. Austin, TX: City of Austin.

City of Dallas (2006a), "DART Annual Passes." Dallas Area Rapid Transit. Retrieved December
25, 2006, from http://www. dart.org/annualpassinformation.asp

City of Dallas (2006b), "Downtown Dallas Parking Facilities." Downtown Dallas. Retrieved
December 10, 2006 from
http ://www.downtowndallas. org/ParkingFacilities-Brochure-5a2.pdf

City of Oakland (2003), "Special Transit-Oriented Development Summit Issue." OaklandNow
(Vol. 2.1). Retrieved January 5, 2008, from
http:.//www.busines s20akland. com/main/documents/oakl andNOW. Spring03 .pdf

City of San Francisco (2007), "San Francisco Parking Rates." Retrieved January 5, 2008, from
http://www. sfmta. com/cm s/pgar/documents/FY2007ApprovedRateAdj ustmentGaragesW
EB.pdf

Dawkins, Casey J., Haas, P. M., and Sanchez, T.W. (2006), Housing & Transportation Cost
Trade-Offs and Burdens of Working Households in 28 M~etros. Virginia Tech.
Blacksburg: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 1-197. Retrieved November 3, 2006,
from
http ://www.reconnectingamerica. org/pdfs/H-T-Tradeoffs-for-Working-Familie--8
Metros-FULL1l.pdf











Ditmar, Hank, and Ohland, Glorida (2004), The New Transit Town. Washington: Island Press.

Duany, Andres, Plater-Zyberk, Elizabeth, and Speck, Jeff (2000), Suburban Nation. 1st ed. New
York: North Point Press.

Eisenberg, Albert C. (2004), The Housing and' Transportation Connection. Housing/
Transportation Task Force (pp. 1-19). Retrieved October 26, 2006, from
http:.//govinfo.1ibrary .unt. edu/mhc/papers/ei senberg.pdf

Energy Information Administration (2005), "Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices."
Retrieved December 10, 2006, from
http://tonto. ei a.doe. gov/dnav/p et/p et_pri_gnd_dcu snu sJ whtm

Energy Information Administration (2008), "Florida Weekly Retail." Retrieved March 3, 2008,
from http://tonto.eia. doe. gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xl s/p swrgvwsfl.xl s

Ewing, Reid (1999), Ped'estrian- and' Transit-Friend'ly Design: A Primer for Smart G; 1,n thr,
Smart Growth Network (www.smartgrowth. org).

Ewing, Reid (2007, December). "Research you can use." Planning (Vol. 72. 11; pp. 52-53).
Chicago, 1L: American Planning Association.

Federal Highway Administration (2004), 2001 Nationwid'e Personal Transportation Survey.
Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation.

Frumpkin, Howard (2002). "Urban Sprawl and Public Health." Public Health Reports Vol. 117
(pp. 201-217). Retrieved November 19, 2006, from
http://www. cdc.gov/healthyplaces/articles/Urban%20 Sprawl%20and%20Public%20Healt
h%20-%20PHR~pdf

Gainesville Regional Transit System (2007), "RTS Fiscal Year 2007 Ridership by Route."
Retrieved on January 29, 2008, from
http:.//www.go-rts. com/pdf/2007/FYO7 Ridership .pdf

Galley, Catherine C., and Burchell, Robert W. (2000), Inclusionary Zoning: Pros and' Cons.
Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.ginsler. com/documents/NHC-2 .html

Google Maps (2006), "Driving Directions." Retrieved December 10, 2006; available at
www. google. com.

Gore, Al (2006), An Inconvenient Truth. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books.

Hall, P. (2002). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in
the TMI Ientileth Century. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.










Hanson, Susan and Giuliano, Geneveive (2004), The Geography of Grban Transportation. New
York: Guilford Press.

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (2007), "HART Surprises 11 Millionth Bus Rider."
Retrieved January 15, 2007, from
http:.//www.hartline. org/departments/marketing/press/press releae0-720.t

Holtzclaw, J. (1994), Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Automobile
Dependence and Cost. San Francisco, CA: Natural Resources Defense Council;
California Home Energy Efficiency Ration Systems.

Kockelman, Kara (1997), "Effects of Location Elements on Home Purchase Prices and Rents in
San Francisco Bay Area." Transportation Research Record 1606, (pp. 40-50).
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.

Kuby, M., Barranda, A., and Upchurch, C. (2004), "Factors Influencing Light-Rail Station
Boardings in the United States." Transportation Research Part A 38.3, (pp. 223-247).

Link, Matthew (2005), "Best & Worst Cities for Men." M~en's Health 2005. Retrieved on
December 4, 2007, from
http://www. menshealth. com/cda/article. do? site=MensHealth&channel=health& category
metrogrades&conitem=84a748 103 1e4801 0VgnVCM200000cee793ced

Litman, Todd (2003), Evaheating Criticism ofSnzart G; 1,n thr, Victoria, B.C.: Victoria
Transportation Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org).

Litman, Todd (2007), Evaheating Rail Transit Criticism. Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transport
Policy Institute. Retrieved on December 21, 2007, from http://www.vtpi. org/railcrit.pdf

McCann, Barbara (2000), Driven to Spend: The Impact of Spraw/l on Household Transportation
Expenses, STPP (www.transact.org).

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (2007, March 19), "San Francisco Bay Area Gas
Prices 1986-Present." M~etropolitan Transportation Conanission. Retrieved January 6,
200 8, from http://www.mtc.ca. gov/map s_and_data/datamart/stats/gaspri ce.htm

Meyer, Michael D., and Miller, Eric J. (2001), th ban Transportation Plan2ning. 2nd ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Niles, John, and Nelson, Dick (1999), M~easuring the Success of Transit-Oriented Developnzent.
Integrated Transport Research, Inc. Seattle: Global Telematics. Retrieved on November
14, 2006, from http ://www.globaltelematics .com/apa99.htm

O'Sullivan, Arthur (2006), th ban Economics. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.










Penalver, Eduardo (2007, December, 30). "The End of Sprawl?" Washington, D.C.: Washington
Post. Retrieved on January 13, 2008, from http ://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007 122802449.html

Pisarski, Alan E. (2006), Commuting Patterns in America III. Washington D.C.: Transportation
Research Board.

Pushkarev, Boris S., and Zupan, Jeffrey M. (1977), Public Transportation and Land Use Policy.
Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana UP.

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

Sanderson, Marlie (2007, October 11), "Alachua County: the Next Fifty Years." Metropolitan
Transportation Planning Organization Meeting. Gainesville, FL: Alachua County
Commission. Retrieved on October 29, 2007, from
http://helix.alachua.fl.us: 8080/ramgen/CommissionAudio/2007 1011/metropolitan-
tran sp ortati on-pl anni ng-organi zati on. rm? useho stname

Schlosser, Eric (2002), Fast Food Nation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Sperling, Bert (2007), "California Shines, Ohio Aches in Battle for Healthiest Cities. "Sperling's
Best Places. Retrieved December 4, 2007, from
http ://www.bestplaces.net/docs/studies/healthyap

State of California (2004), "Pleasant Hill BART Station." California Transit Oriented
Development Database. Retrieved November 22, 2006, from
http:.//tran sitori ente ddevel opm ent.dot. ca.gov/stati on/stateri ew Stati onD ata.j sp ?stati onId=


Sturm, R., and Cohen, D.A. (2004) "Suburban Sprawl and Physical and Mental Health." Public
Health. Vol. 118 7(pp. 488-496).

Thousand Friends of Oregon ( 1997), Making the Connections: A Summary of the L U7RAQ
Project, 1000 Friends of Oregon (www.friends.org).

Tri-State Regional Planning Commission (1970, July), Transit Supporting Densities. ITR 4195-
4451.

U.S. Census Bureau, (2001a), "Census Tract 3, Dallas County, Texas", Census 2000 Summary
File 3, Matrices P58, P62, P63, P64, P65, P67, P71, P72, P73, P74, P82, PCT39, PCT40,
PCT42, PCT44, and PCT45. Retrieved on November 8, 2007; available at
http:.//factfinder. census. gov.










U.S. Census Bureau, (2001b), "Census Tract 3240, Contra Costa County, California" Summary
File 3, Matrices P58, P62, P63, P64, P65, P67, P71, P72, P73, P74, P82, PCT39, PCT40,
PCT42, PCT44, and PCT45. Retrieved on November 8, 2007; available at
http:.//factfinder. census. gov.

U. S. Census Bureau (2001Ic), Profile of General Demographic Profiles, 2000 Census of
Population and Housing, Texas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Congress (pp. 1-
183 5). Retrieved on December 1 1, 2006, from
http ://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/demgahcpoil/ea/k4.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau (2006), 2006American Community Survey. Retrieved February 17, 2008,
from
http://factfi nder. cen su s.gov/s eryl et/AC SSAFFF acts ?_event= S earch& geo~id= &_ge oC ont
ext= &_street= &_county= Gainesville& _ciyTw=ansille& _sae40U12&_zi
p=&l _ang=en&_s se=on& pctxt=fph& pg sl=0 10

U. S. Department of Energy (2006), Fuel Economy Guide. Washington: Environmental
Protection Agency (pp. 1-24). Retrieved December 10, 2006, from
http:.//www.fueleconomy .gov/feg/FEG2006.pdf

U. S. Department of Labor (2006), Expenditures in 2004. Washington: U. S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (pp. 1-20). Retrieved December 3, 2006, from
http ://www.bls.gov/cex/csxannO4.pdf

Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2007, August 27), "Transit Oriented Development." Online
TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 23, 2007, from
http:.//www.vtpi .org/tdm/tdm4 5.htm

Walker, Carol J. (2007, March), "Building Book." Facilities Planning and Construction.
University of Florida. Retrieved on January 25, 2008, from
http://www.facilities.ufl .edu/pdflBIB2007.pdf

Warner, Sam B. (1962) Streetcar Suburbs. The Progress of Growth in Boston 1870 -1900.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

White, S. M. (1994). Affordable Housing: Proactive and Reactive Planning Strategies. PAS
Report No. 441. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.

Winston, Clifford and Maheshri, Vikram (2006), "On The Social Desirability Of Urban Rail
Transit Systems." Journal of Urban Economics (Issue 62, pp. 3 62-3 82).

Zwick, Paul D., and Carr, Peggy A. (2006), "Florida 2060: A Population Distribution Scenario
for the State of Florida". Gainesville, FL: Geoplan Center at the University of Florida.
Prepared for the 1000 Friends of Florida.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Jeff Davis is currently pursuing a Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning at the

University of Florida in Gainesville, FL. He previously received a Bachelor of Civil Engineering

from Auburn University. Jeff worked for five summers with Garver Engineers as a design

engineer/CAD technician, and currently works under Gene Boles in the Center for Building

Better Communities. Recent work with the Center has included writing the Data and Analysis

for both the Future Land Use Element and the Transportation Element of the High Springs

Comprehensive Plan. Upon graduating Jeff plans to move to San Francisco to work for the

transportation consulting firm Fehr and Peers to be on the front lines of the transportation

engineering and planning profession in the best city in the US.





PAGE 1

1 IMPACT OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION AFFORDABILITY: AP PLYING CASE STUDY RESULTS AND PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE TO GAINESVILLE IN 2060 By JEFF DAVIS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORI DA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URB AN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008

PAGE 2

2 2008 Jeff Davis

PAGE 3

3 To all who hold out hope that hard work can triu mph over talent, and to a ll who have inspired me and encouraged me to continue, despite a lack of abundance of the latter.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first off like to thank my supervis ory committee chair, Dr. Ruth Steiner; my cochair Dr. Kristin Larsen; and Dr. Zhong-Ren Pe ng for taking time out of their busy schedules to review my thesis and ask the tough que stions to further facilitate my learning. More specifically I would lik e to thank Dr. Steiner for taki ng a break from her sabbatical to talk with my Housing cla ss about the housing and transporta tion connection, which gave me the inspiration for my topic. I would also li ke to thank Youngseok Jang for teaching me ArcGIS in three hours and Gainesville City Commissioner and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Board member Ed Braddy for empowering me to in clude a future analysis of Gainesville in 2060. Last but not least, I would like to thank all of my friends family, coaches, bosses, and teachers who have encouraged me, inspired me, and made me laugh, including John Davis for leading by example; Margie Davis for showing me everything that life had to offer (though she could have left out gymnastics and the piano); Amy Barrett for cl eaning my dishes and doing my laundry during the preparation of this document, and in genera l making me happy; Gene Boles for employing me and allowing me free reign ov er the dry erase board; the Troupe (Fingaz, Thief, Bullet, Rainbow, and the Biz) for the heis ts, the laughs, and the stingers; Brooke Pate for pushing me to the limits; Caleb Stewart for ta king me to the hospital and giving me the opportunity to live my life with a straight left ring finger; th e City of San Francisco for keeping me excited about the future, and the Auburn and Florida water polo teams for providing me with a healthy release for my frustr ation for all of these years.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................................................... 9 ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................10 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................15 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........15 Affordable Housing............................................................................................................. ...15 Definition.........................................................................................................................15 Why is This a Problem?.................................................................................................. 16 Local Affordability..........................................................................................................18 Housing and Transportation Connection................................................................................19 Evidence..........................................................................................................................19 History.............................................................................................................................20 Public Transportation......................................................................................................23 Transit-Oriented Developments.............................................................................................. 26 Definition.........................................................................................................................26 Design..............................................................................................................................28 Benefits............................................................................................................................29 Challenges.......................................................................................................................33 Criticisms..................................................................................................................... ....35 Future...............................................................................................................................37 Light Rail in Gainesville?..................................................................................................... ..38 Summary.................................................................................................................................40 3 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................................. 42 Case Studies............................................................................................................................42 Gainesville Application........................................................................................................ ..46 Background......................................................................................................................46 Why Alternative Three?..................................................................................................47 Expected Results and Limitations................................................................................... 47 Gainesville Methodology................................................................................................ 48 Gainesville TOD Locations.................................................................................................... 51

PAGE 6

6 TOD Classifications................................................................................................................51 Suburban..........................................................................................................................52 Transitional......................................................................................................................52 Urban...............................................................................................................................53 4 CASE STUDIES.....................................................................................................................56 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........56 Pleasant Hill Station...............................................................................................................56 Background and Overview..............................................................................................56 Model...............................................................................................................................58 Mockingbird Station...............................................................................................................62 Background and Overview..............................................................................................62 Model...............................................................................................................................63 Case Study Conclusions......................................................................................................... 65 5 APPLICATION FOR GAINESVIL LE IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS .................................... 69 Lessons Learned from Case Studies....................................................................................... 69 Gainesville TOD Descriptions................................................................................................ 70 Oaks Mall/North Florida Regional Medical Center ........................................................ 70 Forty-Third Street and Newberry Road........................................................................... 71 Thirty-Fourth Street and University Avenue................................................................... 71 Thirteenth Street and University Avenue........................................................................72 Waldo Road and University Avenue...............................................................................72 Twelfth Avenue and Waldo Road...................................................................................73 Thirty-First Avenue and Waldo Road............................................................................. 74 Stations Not Designated as TODs...................................................................................74 Transportation and Housing Calculations..............................................................................75 Factors That May Change the Conclusion...................................................................... 75 Factors That May Affect, but Not Change the Conclusion............................................. 78 Gainesville Conclusion......................................................................................................... ..80 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS........................ 94 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................94 Further Research Recommendations......................................................................................96 LIST OF REFERENCES...............................................................................................................98 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................104

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Pleasant Hill Commuter Costs........................................................................................... 68 4-2 Mockingbird Station Commuter Costs..............................................................................68 5-1 TOD Developmental Totals............................................................................................... 92 5-2 Factors that May Change the Conclusion ..........................................................................92 5-3 Factors that May Affect the Resu lt, but Do Not Change the C onclusion.......................... 93

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Four Types of Commuters Used in the Case Studies........................................................ 54 3-2 Proposed Gainesville Light Rail Line................................................................................55 5-2 Oaks Mall and NFRMC Current Conditions..................................................................... 82 5-3 Forty-Third Street and Ne wberry Road Current Conditions ............................................. 82 5-4 Thirty-Fourth Street and University Ave Current Conditions ...........................................83 5-5 Thirteenth Street and Univ ersity Avenue Current Conditions ........................................... 83 5-6 Waldo Road and University Avenue Current Conditions.................................................. 83 5-7 Twelfth Avenue and Waldo Road Current Conditions......................................................84 5-8 Thirty-First Avenue and Waldo Road Current Conditions ................................................84 5-9 Parcel Analysis for the Oaks Mall a nd North Florida Region al Med ical Center Suburban TOD...................................................................................................................85 5-10 Parcel Analysis for the Forty-Third St reet and Newberry Road Transitional TOD .......... 86 5-11 Parcel Analysis for the Thirty-Fourth Street and University Avenue Urban TOD ........... 87 5-12 Parcel Analysis for the Thirteenth S treet and University Avenue Urban TOD................. 88 5-13 Parcel Analysis for the Waldo Ro ad and University Avenue Urban TOD ........................ 89 5-14 Parcel Analysis for the Twelfth Avenue and Waldo Road Transitional TOD.................. 90 5-15 Parcel Analysis for the Thirty-Fir st Avenue and Waldo Road Suburban TOD ................ 91

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research CEDA Community and Economic Development Agency DART Dallas Area Rapid Transit DOT Department of Transportation MTPO Metropolitan Transporta tion Planning Organization NFRMC North Florida Regional Medical Center OHA Oakland Housing Authority TOD Transit-Oriented Development UF University of Florida US United States

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning IMPACT OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENTS ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION AFFORDABILITY: AP PLYING CASE STUDY RESULTS AND PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE TO GAINESVILLE IN 2060 By Jeff Davis May 2008 Chair: Ruth Steiner Cochair: Kristin Larsen Major: Urban and Regional Planning Using a new definition of affordability as a function of both housing and transportation costs, this thesis uses an ec onomic model to determine how tran sit-oriented developments around rail systems impact the combined affordability fo r residents. Pleasant Hill Station, along the Bay Area Rapid Transit line in the Ba y Area of California, and Mocki ngbird Station, along the Dallas Area Rapid Transit line in Dallas, are used as the two case studies for this report. Monetary cost models for each case study take into account drivi ng distances to central business districts, rent premiums around TODs, parking and gasoline costs, automobile ownership costs, and transit costs for a series of commuters in different lo cations to determine the most equitable result. The outcome of these case studies, combined with previous research, then became the basis for testing the affordability of the Gain esville 2060 Long Range Tr ansportation light rail alternative proposed by Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Pl anning Organization Director Marlie Sanderson. Affordability within Gainesville was measured by balancing rent premiums with the reduction in automobile ownership and re sulted in a significant ne t savings for residents within TODs. A hypothetical rail line traversi ng along Newberry Road, University Avenue, and Waldo Road containing ten stops and seven pl anned TODs was created to determine the percentage of the population affected. Though many of the variables within the model may

PAGE 11

11 change over time, the results of this thesis challenge the assertion that costs increase for citizens upon the construction of a rail transportation system when affordability is defined as a measure of combined housing and transportation costs. Generally, research is lacking regarding the ar ea-wide affect that re cent light rail systems have had on rents and property values, and furthe r research in this area would help strengthen some of the assumptions within this model. Specifically re lating to the Gainesville in 2060 scenario, transportation modeling software should be used to an alyze the potential ridership along the proposed light rail line, and cost es timates should be conduc ted to determine the amount of funding required to complete such a project.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION If a city h as rapid transportati on, it will hold together and rene w itself. If it does not have a means of rapid travel, it will decentralize and th e obsolete will be forsaken and left to fester and blight (Sidney Waldron, Detroit Rapid Tr ansit Commission: March 23, 1944). Much irony exists in the previous statement, from the ci ty to the year, and unfortunately Mr. Waldrons statement was all too prophetic. Si nce the end of World War II, a massive shift has occurred in the way cities develop. The United States economy has transitioned from a blue collar industrial economy to a service economy, diversity in the workplace has increased as both men and women began working full-time jobs, and the automobile has become the preferre d, if not only, means of transportation. In the process, many wealthy citizens have moved to the suburbs, leaving the poor behind in the inner-cities. The suburban fo rm that has emerged differs greatly from the traditional form by favoring large lot sizes and controlled access neighborhoods that distribute traffic onto high capacity roads or arterials ov er town-centered developments. Accommodation of this traffic has become one of the main f unctions of community policy and planning, and in the process a lack of affordable housing has become an increasing problem (Eisenberg, 2004). With cities sprawling and commute times lengthening, the search for affordable housing cannot be discussed without taking into account the transportation costs associated with getting from this housing to and from work, commercial districts, and other activities. Currently, transportation is the second highe st household expenditure behi nd housing in the United States, and it combines to account for over 50% of th e budget for the average American family (Canby, 2003). To counteract this trend, planning depart ments around the country have begun to explore the use of transit oriented developments (TODs). These developments attempt to concentrate a mix of residential and commercia l uses around a transit station, and offer an opportunity for the

PAGE 13

13 provision of medium to high density affordable housing and a reduction in transportation costs through improved accessibility and mobility. The Gainesville Metropolitan Transportati on Planning Organization (MTPO) recently announced plans for testing various alternative di rections for long range transportation planning in the area in the next 50 years using the future population projecti ons developed by the 1000 Friends of Florida. The four alternatives named by MTPO director Marlie Sanderson at the meeting of that commission on October, 11, 2007 we re (1) a western grid network, (2) a circular beltway around the city, (3) a light rail system al ong major arterials, or (4) a bus rapid transit system along major arterials. A light rail system should not be considered out of the realm of possibilities for a City the size of Gainesville in the next fi fty years, as cities such as No rfolk, Virginia and others with populations under 250,000 have light rail systems either in the cons truction or planning stages. Though the current size of Gainesville is rela tively small (estimated population of 110,000 in 2006), the City has nearly six times more riders per capita on its RTS bus system than central Florida companion Orlando, (Central Florida, 20 07; Gainesville Regional, 2007) while nearly matching the ridership of Hillsborough Counties HART system,1 which serves an urban area of over 2 million and recently opened a downtown streetcar line (Hillsborough Area, 2007). Gainesville presents a unique opportunity for a city of its size due to the large number of students and faculty commuting to a single location with re stricted parking. Students are typically more willing to take transit than the population as a whole, and many make several trips to and from class during the day due to gaps between classes. 1 Comparing annual ridership for the 2006-2007 year, Gainesvilles RTS system had 8.9 million riders while Hillsborough Counties HART system had 10.6 million ri ders (Gainesville Regional, 2007; Hillsborough Area, 2007).

PAGE 14

14 The first part of this thesis will attempt to quantify the effectiveness of current transitoriented developments at reducing the combin ed housing and transportation costs for low and middle income families through case studies of two TODs: Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas and Pleasant Hill Station in the Bay Area of Northern California. The second part of this thesis will combine previous research on TODs with th e findings of the two case studies, and apply it to Alternative Three of the 2060 long range transportation plan for the Gainesville Area presented at the October 11th Meeting of the Gainesville Me tropolitan Transportation Planning Board. The final verdict of this thesis will an swer whether an argument can be made for or against the light rail a lternative in Gainesville on the grounds that it will increase combined housing and transportation affordability for low and middle income households. The result will include the percentage of the popul ation affected and the extent, al ong with a critical analysis of the results. A key to the success of the American democracy is an informed citizenry. In the absence of empirical studies with definitive conclusions special interest groups and ideologues, more interested in a specific agenda than the public good, have free re ign over the debate and much greater leeway in affecting public opinion. In cities from Californ ia to Florida the merits of TOD have been thoroughly debated, but l ittle research has been undert aken specifically intended to determine the affordability, in terms of both hous ing and transportation, of living within these developments. The final result of this thesis will hopefully provide empirical data to better inform the public regarding the combined housing and transportation costs experienced by residents of TODs, and serve to dispel many of the myths and rumors regarding TODs and their effect on affordability.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction While little literature exists specifically connecting transi t-oriented developm ents (TODs) with their effect on combined housing and transpor tation costs, a large b ody of research exists regarding each part of the research question. This literature review will take a comprehensive approach by summing the individual parts of resear ch to provide an extensive background for the subsequent analysis on the topic. The conventional way to view locational afford ability is principally through housing costs, so this area will be examined initially. The co nnection between housing and transportation costs will then be established to develop an overall m easure of affordability as a combination of the two. Upon establishing combined housing and trans portation affordability as the problem, TODs will be examined as a possible solution. Th is examination will include a background on the definition, design, benefits, challenges, and criticisms of TODs. Finally, the feasibility of a light rail system in a city the size of Gainesville will be investigated. Affordable Housing Definition The threshold for afforda ble housing is comm only defined as 30% of family income. Housing stock within a given area is typically defined as affordable when the annual rent total is less than 30% of the median income. Likewise, families spending over 30% of their pre-tax family income are deemed to have an excessive housing cost burden. Us ing the later criterion, nearly 25% of all homeowners and 40% of all re nters surveyed nationwide have an excessive housing cost burden, with these burdens concen trated among low income families (Schwartz, 2006). In the City of Gainesville possibly due to the large percentage of college students, the

PAGE 16

16 numbers are more polarizing as only 20.2% of homeowners, but 50.4% of renters surveyed pay more than 30% of their annual inco me on housing (Alachua County, 2003). Why is This a Problem? As regulation has increased the overall quality of the housing stock, affordability has becom e an increasing problem throughout the United States. Over the past several decades, rents have increased faster than the incomes of renter s, leading to an increasing percentage of the population without access to housing, not because of a lack of units, but rather a lack of appropriately priced units (Schwartz, 2006). Government regulation of the housing market initially sought to improve the conditions in the inner city slums of the early 20th century. Overcrowding, unsanitary waste disposal, fire-p rone and structurally deficient buildings, immoral behavior, and political unrest were the chief deficiencies of the tenement housing and the environments they created (Hall, 2002). Studies confirming that the living conditions expedited the spread of disease combined with both journalistic works and the newly invented photographs convinced city commissions to take action. Regulations were adopted by local, and later the federal government, increasing the size and quality, while decreasing the density of housing that could be provided (Schwartz, 2006). In the second half of the 20th century, in order to protect property values, suburban land use re gulations began to se gregate housing types, further limit density, and increase lot sizes thr ough setback requirements, severely hampering the ability of the private market to provide affo rdable housing. Given the positive stigma and profitability of this type of housing and neighborhood development, it remains unclear whether the removal of these regulations would increas e the amount of affordable housing (Schwartz, 2006). From a units perspective, the lack of a ffordable housing likely results from both the reduction in federally subsidized housing stock and the in ability of the private market to profit

PAGE 17

17 from creating affordable housing. Visible failur es of public housing projects during the 1950s and 1960s combined with a growing public sent iment for lower taxes and smaller government have decreased the percentage of units provided by the government over the last several decades (Schwartz, 2006). Many of the housing projects built during the era of urban renewal have been torn down for smaller-unit developments, while th e displaced units have not been re-created elsewhere. With vouchers increasing to over 54% of HUDs budget in 2004 (Schwartz, 2004: 176), the private market has become the chief mechanism for providing both subsidized and unsubsidized housing to low and middle income fa milies. As rents increase, governments must pay more and more for each voucher, placing in creased importance on the private market to provide affordable units. If funding doesnt incr ease proportionately with rents, fewer families can be provided with vouchers, and thus affordable housing. For low income families who dont qualify for vouchers, the private market is th e only alternative and an ever worsening alternative at that. During the 1990s the num ber of units renting for under $400 fell by 13%, and the number of units considered affordable to renters making below 30% of area median income fell by 19% (Schwartz, 2006: 34). Schwartz (2006) describes the difficulty of the private market in supplying affordable housing: The rents collected from affordable housing a ffordable to the lowest income households are often simply too low to cover the cost of maintenance, upkeep, debt service, and taxes, to say nothing of profit for the investors. As a result, almost all new unsubsidized rental housing is built for upscale markets. Owners of the affordable low-income housing that does exist are all too frequently left with tw o choices: gradually disinvest until the property becomes uninhabitable or reposition the pr operty for higher income tenants (pg. 36). In recent years local, state, and the federa l government have search ed for new methods of providing and promoting affordable housing to lo w and middle income families, but no solution has proven effective in all circumstances or with out drawbacks and serious political opposition.

PAGE 18

18 Besides vouchers and housing units, which directly address the problem, one new tool which has become increasing used by local governments is inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning is defined by Wilson (1994) as zoning ordinances or policies that either tie development approval to, or create regulatory incentives for, the provision of low to mode rate income housing as part of a proposed development (p. 17). While inclusionary zoning may provide affordable housing at little or no cost to local governments, create income-integrated communities, and reduce sprawl, some critics argue that it unfairly taxes developers, removes the best of the poor from their communities, and encourages unsustainable development (Galley and Burchell, 2000). Local Affordability Upon investigating the housing elements of the com prehensive plans of both Alachua County and the City of Gainesville the two jurisdictions do not a ppear to recognize a significant affordable housing problem in either case, and only a portion of each element is dedicated to this topic, with neither employing aggressive strategies to address the problem. This complacency may be due to the large amount of generally we althy, co-dependent colle ge students who make up a substantial portion of the popul ation. The statistics however, point to an existing problem for low income families, as 12,184 of the 39,206 households surveyed in Alachua County in 1999, earned less than $10,000 per y ear and over 75% of these households paid over 30% of their income on housing (Alachua County, 2003). The abundance of available land in western Gainesville and Alachua County will likely mean that the problem of affordable housing may not become pronounced for several decades. Histor y has proven though, that pl anning for this issue must begin ahead of time, because upon buildout, creating affordable housing as infill housing become much more difficult, bo th politically and economically.

PAGE 19

19 Housing and Transportation Connection Evidence Over the years, num erous models have been created that have attempted to quantify which factors have the greatest e ffect on housing prices. A model of the San Francisco Bay area found that commonly believed locati on factors such as proximity to a land-use mix, sales and service jobs, and parks and open space were found to have little correlation with housing prices. The one factor that had the grea test effect was the proximity to the central business district, illustrating the significant role th at transportation plays in determining the cost of housing (Kockelman, 1997). This proximity to the central bus iness district is such a significant indicator due to the value that residents place on time, which was estimated by the same model as approximately $5/hr across all adult traveler trip types (in 1989 dolla rs) (Kockelman, 1997). An earlier study of the San Francisco Bay Area concluded that the transportation cost savings for residents of Nob Hill, a neighborhood adjacent to the central businesses district, over those of San Ramon, an East Bay suburb lacking regiona l transit access, were around $6,000 a year due to an efficient location (Holtzclaw, 1994). Due to the direct relationship between tr ansportation and housing, one cannot begin to discuss affordable housing without mentioning th e combined housing and transportation costs. Unlike housing costs, which tend to fluctuate rela tive to the state of th e market, the cost of transportation has continued to st eadily rise over the last several decades before leveling off just shy of 20% of pre-tax income for the average American family. As of 2001, the two largest expenditures for the average American family were housing at 32.9% a nd transportation at 18.6% (Canby, 2003: 4). For a family living under the poverty line though, the percentage spent on transportation increases dras tically to 39.1% (Canby, 2003: 4).

PAGE 20

20 Before discussing methods to reduce transpor tation costs, one must attempt to understand the relationship between transpor tation costs and housing costs. It seems intuit ive that if you reduce the cost of transportation, you will reduce the combined transportation and housing costs. Urban economic theory, however, challenges the transitive property of mathematics by claiming that rents will rise to offset the savings in tr ansportation costs. This theory presumes that, assuming all other factors are equal, the combin ed housing and transportation costs should be the same for all families, irrespectiv e of location; therefore, someone living in the suburbs should be paying the same combined costs as someone living in the central business district. In reality though, this is not often the case due to market mis calculations and the self reinforcing effects of urban and suburban development (OSullivan, 2006). History Present day housing costs are best explaine d by examining the history of the modern American City. When cities began to swell fo llowing the industrial revol ution, people chose to locate their homes close to work and their busin esses close to their pr oducts and their labor market, because shorter distances meant lower tran sportation costs. This transportation cost for workers was mainly in the form of time, as near ly all residents walked to work, and the longer distance walked meant less time that they c ould be doing other tasks. As the mid-1800s approached, downtown cores of these walking ci ties began overflowing as development was unable to expand beyond 2 miles of City Hall du e the slow speed of a pedestrian commute (Warner, 1962). Between 1870 and 1900, the whole scale and pl an of many industria lized metropolitan areas, such as Boston, was entirely made over with the advent of the electric streetcar (Warner, 1960: 22). The electric st reetcar facilitated the development of suburbs extending as far as ten miles (Borchert, 2007) from the center of the city as upper and middle class citizens

PAGE 21

21 sympathizing with the rural ideal (Warner, 1960: 14) escaped the tenement slums of the inner city. At the time it was a common belief among street railway managers, real estate men, politicians, philanthropists, health officers, school teachers, and th e middle class in general that open country surroundings and th e small community were the idea l locations to raise a family (Warner, 1960: 64). As lines extended and se rvice frequency increased, development followed, rapidly filling the spaces along co rridors parallel and within walk ing distance of the lines in a continuous strip from the center city. Even with the suburban boom, cities of the late 1800s and early 1900s revolved around a dense urban core that housed most of th e population and commercial businesses, while manufacturing plants located li nearly along railroad lines and in proximity to ports within downtown areas (OSullivan, 2006). For the manufacturing industry, transportation was accomplished through the horse-drawn wagon for intr acity transport and waterways or railroad lines for intercity transport. Offices chose to locat e in a central location to be close to their labor market, and for the benefits of agglomeration economies, such as knowledge spillovers, sharing intermediate inputs, labor pooling, and labor matching (OSullivan, 2006).2 These patterns changed in the last half of the twentieth century though, mainly due to the advent of the automobile as the primary, and in some cases only, form of transportation for both people and goods. This change ha d the largest impact on the location of residents, as they were no longer restricted to either walking or public transportation. As post World War II incomes rose for many middle and upper class residents, th ey chose to move away from the small living spaces of the central business district and into the larger lot sizes of the suburbs. Urban 2 Agglomeration economies are the economic forces which ca use firms to locate close to one another. Within this realm, knowledge spillovers occur when businesses share ideas; sharing intermediate inputs occurs when clustering firms share suppliers decreasing productions and transportation costs; labor pooling occurs when the sharing of labor during the bust and boom cycle of local industries leads to a more stable labor market; and labor matching occurs when workers with more choices are better able to find the firm which better suits their skill set.

PAGE 22

22 economics justifies this move because land is a normal good, and thus, as income increases, the desire for land increases (OSullivan, 2006). In theo ry the cost of this land should increase to account for the trade-off between the increased transportation cost and the desire for space (Boarnet and Crane, 2001: 34). This didnt ho ld true in reality t hough, as suburban land was under priced, and a move away from the central business district becam e a more financially sound decision (OSullivan, 2006). Besides economics, there have been many ot her explanations for the suburban boom and the deterioration of the downtown that o ccurred in the mid to later half of the 20th century. Isenberg (2004) attributes it to four factor s. First, the Great Depression for causing the demolition of large downtown structures to enable the construction of parking lots and one-story buildings, which reduced property taxes. Second, Urban Renewal for subsidizing the demolition of historic structures with intrinsically lower property values to make room for larger, more modern buildings and infrastructure Third, racial riots, sit-ins, demonstrations and boycotts for causing many customers to fear shopping downt own. And finally, traffic congestion, for increasing the difficulty suburban shoppers faced in reaching downtown businesses (Isenberg, 2004). Peter Hall, a lifetime devot ee of cities, gives four different reasons for the suburban boom. New roadways allowed development to ta ke place in any direction. Zoning stabilized property values within monolithic residential de velopments. Government-guaranteed mortgages made it possible for those with lower incomes to buy housing, and the baby boom produced a surge in demand for family housing. Given that the roadways, zoning, and mortgages were in place in some form prior to the Second World Wa r, Hall (2002) concludes that these three were facilitators, and the baby boom was the trigger for the flight from downtown (pg. 316).

PAGE 23

23 The mass exodus from the central city has led to several reinforcing effects. With the majority of the population moving to the suburbs, the commercial service industry has followed in order to lower the transportation costs be tween themselves and their clients. As telecommunications technology has allowed the passa ge of information over large distances with ease, office firms began decoupling their operati ons into central and suburban locations to shorten the commute distance between their o ffices and the majority of their employees (OSullivan, 2006). These changes in the commercia l sector have further encouraged residents to locate outside of the central city due to lo wer housing costs and lower transportation costs. Some other major effects and causes of the d ecreased desirability of downtowns include: a deteriorating housing stock, central city fiscal problems, increased intercity crime, and a lower quality education system (OSullivan, 2006). The combination of these factors has led to a development pattern of cities that favors th e wealthy through reducing their housing costs by locating them far from the city, and reducing thei r transportation costs as businesses and services have located nearby in suburban locations. The poor however, have been left in the inner city, far from services and jobs located in the suburbs. Public Transportation Formerly the principal means of suburban commutation, public tran sit is currently an afterthought as only 9% of reside nts in the 28 largest metropolitan areas used this form of transportation to get to work (Dawkins, Haas, and Sanchez, 20 03: 64). From a time standpoint, public transportation is not as efficient a means of travel as the automobile. In the 28 largest metropolitan areas, the average commute time by automobile took 26.1 minutes and traveled 9.5 miles, while the average public transit commut e traveled 7.7 miles in 45.9 minutes (Dawkins, Haas, and Sanchez, 2003). Even in the city of Los Angeles, which is infamous for congestion, the commute times on transit were still over 15 minutes longer than for automobiles, as was the

PAGE 24

24 case in all 28 metros surveyed. This indicates that traffic congestion do es not play a significant role in commute choice except along specific ro utes in which automotive traffic flow is significantly restricted while transit is not.3 While driving is the least time consuming way to commute, public transportation has proven to be the least costly method of transporta tion to and from work. The two cities with the lowest percentage of annual household costs spent on transportation, San Francisco, CA and New York, NY, also have the highest percenta ges of transit commuters (Dawkins, Haas, and Sanchez, 2003). McCann (2000) found a 3% decrease in annual tran sportation costs for households within communities with more diverse transportation systems. Monetarily, Canby (2003) places the cost of commuting on public transportation nationwid e at between $800 and $1,500 per worker per year, whereas the average personal automobile commuter can spend this much on gas alone. The total cost of owning and operating a vehicle, which includes insurance, maintenance, fuel, and lease payments costs th e average American over $6,000 per year (Canby, 2003: 5). Given the lower costs, one would assume that most low-income families would choose not to own an automobile, and instead would take public transit to work, but most low-income families own vehicles. One reason for autom obile ownership among economically distressed families is a lack of transit access. Less than half of all Americans live within a quarter mile of a transit stop (Canby, 2003). Another reason is the lack of transit connectivity. Many regional transit networks revolve around connecting subu rban residential nei ghborhoods with office employment centers in the central business di strict, rather than connecting low-income 3 An example of this would be where major rivers funnel traffic onto a few bridges leading to significant congestion while rail transit systems are given a de dicated right of way which allow them to travel unobstru cted, such as the BART tunnel vs. the Bay Bridge between San Francisco and Oakland.

PAGE 25

25 residential urban areas with suburban commercial service activity centers. A final reason is the presence of rent premiums near transit. Within the current marketplace, realtors and appraisers value land near transit at a higher value because of the increased accessibility and the presumed reduction in transportation costs. Rent premiums are consistent with the urban economics model that states that rents will rise to offset the savings in transportation costs. In some extreme cases rents have seen increases as large as 30% 50% in areas near a transit station relative to those without transit conn ectivity (Cervero et. al., 2004: 166, 173). Many studies have been conducted in an attemp t to quantify the effect that proximity to public transit has on housing prices in different locations around th e country. Cities that have noticed significant rent premiu ms near transit include Philadelphia (6.4%), Boston (6.7%), Portland (10.6%), San Diego (17%), Chicago (2 0%), and Dallas (24%) (Cervero et. al., 2004: 162). With bus routes ability to change freely, combined with a societal preference for rail transit over buses, no significant re nt premiums are typically associated with traditional bus transportation (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1977). Thus, most studies have focused on three different types of fixed guide-way transportation: light ra il, heavy rail, and commuter rail. The San Diego Coaster Commuter Rail noticed a 46.1% rent premium for condos and a 17% increase for single family homes (Cervero et. al., 2004: 166). The Bay Area Rapid Tr ansit (BART) heavy rail line in Alameda County noticed sale prices rose by $2.39 for every meter closer to the BART (Cervero et. al., 2004: 173). A study of Orenco Station along the MAX light rail line in suburban Portland, Oregon found a 20% to 30% increase in rents in the area surrounding the station (Cervero et. al., 2004: 161). While the previous research forms a near consensus that fixed guideway transportation investment yields an increase in property values around the st ations and corridors, a limited body

PAGE 26

26 of research also suggests that this increase in property value is redistributive rather than generative. Stated more clearly, current findings indicate that the overall value of land within a metropolitan area adding a rail system will rema in the same because the rising price of land around transit will be offset by an equal and opp osite reduction in land value elsewhere. This effect is demonstrated more generally by th e Gauthier (1970) study that indicated that improvement in transportation may help some parts of the region while harming others. Particularly relating to trans portation and residential property values, Mohring (1961) found that an increase in land value near a highway was ba lanced by relative decreases in other areas not served by the highway. Relating specifically to transit, Spen gler (1930) concluded that new transit lines shift value, rather than create it. More recentl y, impact studies of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) found that wh ile concentrated development occurred around many stations, municipalities without BART access received a similar increase in housing units as those areas with BART stations, demons trating that the presence of BART merely concentrated inevitable local growth (Cervero and Landis, 1997). Using residential development as a surrogate measure of property values, this ex perience could be further used to indicate that residential rents are distributive rather than generative.4 Transit-Oriented Developments Definition In the last several d ecades, local governments and private investors have, for different reasons, begun to try to explo it the housing and transit connec tion through the use of transitoriented developments (TODs). A loose definition of a TOD is a mix of us es at various densities centered around a transit stop. Hank Dittmar and Gloria Ohland (2004) argue that this acronym 4 This statement also assumes a strong correlation between residential property values and rents.

PAGE 27

27 should be reserved only for projects that achie ve five goals: (1) homes are located within proximity to transit; (2) there is a rich mix of housing, shoppi ng, dining, cultural, and recreation choices within walking distance of the transit stop ; (3) there is a substantial increase in property values in and around the TOD; (4) the design of the development is attractive and pedestrian friendly; and finally (5) the sta tion is designed to be flexible enough to respond to changes in lifestyle and demographics, as well as being forw ard thinking in terms of energy efficiency and innovation. Bernick and Cervero (1 997) believe that successful transit oriented developments should accomplish six things: enhance mobility and environment, be pedestrian friendly, allow for suburban residents to live without an automobile, revita lize the surrounding neighborhood, increase public safety, and provide a space for public celebration. By more inclusive definitions, the origins of TO Ds can be traced back to the early hub and spoke transit systems of the nineteenth century, which used cable cars, electric trolleys, and streetcars to transport resident s from suburban areas along the spoke s to the hub in the city center (Bernick and Cervero, 1997). In the modern era, the planning for, and constructing of, the new wave of transit-oriented developments coin cided with the beginning of the New Urbanism movement in the late 1980s. The first TOD projects were implemented in the early 1990s in the metropolitan areas of the western cities of Portla nd, San Francisco, San Diego, and Los Angeles. Eastern cities such as Atlanta and Washi ngton D.C. followed suit, and as of 2003, local metropolitan areas have classified over 100 st ation area developments as TODs nationwide (Cervero et. al., 2004: 16). These TODs accommodate transit uses that vary from light rail, to buses, and even ferries, though by Dittmars definition, few, if any, of these new developments would be classified as TODs.5 For the purposes of this thesis, a TOD will be defined as a high 5 At the time of publishing, Dittmar believed that by his definition no TODs had been constructed in the modern era.

PAGE 28

28 density, planned development with a mix of uses lo cated within walking distance of a rail transit stop. Design The typical design elements of TODs are root ed in New Urbanist philosophy. The transit stop itself is the focal point of the developm ent with intensities decreasing relative to the distance from the stop (Bernick and Cervero, 1997). Th e area around a stop, typically one-quarter to onehalf a mile, is designed as a traditional neighbo rhood with a mixture of us es. From the transit stop outward, dense mixed-use commercial retail/a partment structures are followed by officeemployment, civic buildings, and parks, followed by a less dense area of residential apartments, duplexes, and townhouses at a minimum density of 10 units/acre (Calt horpe, 1993). Buildings should be oriented to the stre et with minimal setbacks and signs and entrances should be designed at the scale of the individual rather than the automobile. TODs in more urban locations should contain a higher percentage of commercial employment and retail space and less housing than less urban and more neighborho od-oriented TODs (Calthorpe, 1993). The transportation infrastructure for many TODs should be designed quite differently than the conventional automobile-oriented land use patter ns that have developed over the past several decades. The mass transit line provides a second a lternative to the arterial as the principal means of traveling to interurban employment and reta il centers. This multi-modal approach shifts parking to a secondary role, removing it from the fronts of buildings and either hiding it underground, in building interiors, or at the rear of buildi ngs, returning the street back to pedestrians. Unlike the conventional suburban st reet networks consisting of loops, cul-de-sacs and low connectivity, TODs should be designed with a modified, interconnected grid system that evenly distributes traffic out over a number of para llel streets, rather than onto a single principle

PAGE 29

29 arterial. The grid system is oriented towards th e transit stop and the centr al core of development to provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle access (Calthorpe, 1993). Benefits Transit-oriented develo pm ents have the possibility of pr oviding several benefits to their residents and the surrounding community. The firs t possible benefit is that these developments may become a catalyst for future development a nd economic growth. This theory involves three components: (1) high-density residential develo pments located near TODs are more profitable for developers than low-density developmen t; (2) proximity to transit produces lower transportation costs for residents and businesses, allowing developers to increase rents; and (3) commercial development will cluster around TODs, similarly to the agglomeration of retail which occurs within a suburban mall. While thes e three outcomes are typical in transit oriented developments, studies have yet to determine if development occurs as redistribution from other parts of the city, or if the TOD generate s new development. (Cervero et. al., 2004). A second benefit of TODs is that they ma y create an environment for a diversity of housing choices. While diversity may occasionally occur naturally through market forces, government intervention is typically needed due to the efficiency found in creating large, monolithic housing developments.6 The City of Austin, Texas has included in their TOD guidebook a requirement that a housing affordabili ty analysis and feasibility review that describes potential strategies for achieving specified affordable housing goals (pg. 27) be conducted for every T.O.D (City of Austin, 2006). In one of the nations leading cities for transit-oriented developments, Oakland, Califor nia, the Community and Economic Development 6 Large housing developments with similar interior designs, exterior designs, and build ing materials increase profits due to the economic principle of economies of scale. Developing lands in smaller portions with more diversity of housing options typically generates less profit. This prin cipal is illustrated in reality by the differing suburban development forms found in the older inner ring suburbs relative to the current trend in the outer ring.

PAGE 30

30 Agency (CEDA) and the Oakland Housing Au thority (OHA) recently began collaborating on several major projects to r ebuild large public housing deve lopments, reduce density, create mixed income neighborhoods, and provide a mix of public housing, privately-owned assisted rental housing, and affordable homeownership (C ity of Oakland, 2003: 2). A large number of these projects, the most ambitious of which bein g Coliseum Gardens, are TODs. A final tool for governments to provide affordable housing is conditional upon the provision of resources. Local governments and municipalities that have contributed public funds or lands for TODs may make future development contingent upon the developer making a percentage of the units affordable. One final overall advantage of transit oriented developments, and most likely the principal justification for their use, rests on their ability to reduce urban sp rawl. Over the last 50 years, commuting costs have risen sharply due to the prerequisite, in most US cities, of the automobile for commute. Inhabitants and surrounding re sidents of TODs who can live without an automobile can save between $4,000 and $5,000 a year on commuting costs (Canby, 2003). The cost burden also affects local governments as co sts for providing infrastructure and services increase significantly in areas with sprawling la nd use patterns. Many more miles of drainage systems, roads, and utilities must be installed to cover a lower dens ity population, and more schools, fire stations, and police stations must be built to cover a larger geographical area, forcing local governments to either raise taxes or face budget deficits. In addition to monetary benefits, a reduction in urban sprawl can have a positive benefit on the environment through the reduction of automob ile usage. Mobile sources (mainly cars and trucks) account for around 21% of the emissions of the 166 air toxins monitored by the EPA, and 40% of the 33 most dangerous toxins (Meyer & Miller, 2001). In general, mobile sources account for around 30% of emissions of both oxides of nitrogen and hydrocarbons two gases

PAGE 31

31 that in the presence of sunli ght produce ozone, a known airway ir ritant, which combines with carbon dioxide to form the leading causes of gl obal warming (Frumpkin, 2002: 203-205). In the auto-dependent sprawling metropol is of Atlanta, Georgia, the amount of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons derived from vehicl es is substantially higher at 58% and 47% respectively (Frumpkin, 2002: 202). Several studies comparing strategies emphasizing TOD implementation over increasing highway capacity predict reductions in auto mobile travel by 20-25% (1000 Friends of Oregon, 1997; Cambridge Systematics, 1993). These predictions are supported by a Bailey (2007) study that determined that households located within threequarters of a mile of high-quality transit service reduce their daily vehicle miles traveled by 26%. Besides reducing automobile usage, TODs have the added benefi t of reducing automobile ownership. Ohland and Poticha (2006) analyzed the land use and transit impacts on ve hicle ownership and found that good transit access reduced autom obile ownership by 16% while good transit access combined with a mixed use environment reduced owne rship by 87%. Reconnecting America (2004) further strengthens this conc lusion through a nationwide study that found households within a half mile of fixed-guideway tr ansit stations owned an averag e of 0.9 cars compared with an overall metropolitan average of 1.6 cars. Urban sprawl has also been proven to reduce water quality and quant ity. Sprawling land use patterns lead to an 11% increase in water runoff relative to undevelope d grassland leading to a depleted water table7 and a shortage of groundw ater in parts of the country, such as Florida, which derive their drinking water from this source (Frumpkin, 2002). Other studies have indicated that toxic chemicals and organic waste in surface water are present at higher levels in suburban development than in traditional deve lopments, likely due to increased automobile 7 Refers to subsurface water

PAGE 32

32 usage and runoff (Frumpkin, 2002: 206). The highw ays connecting sprawling land uses are also a concern, as byproducts of highways such as metals and sodium have been shown in high concentrations in topsoil near highways, poten tially leading to serious effects on ecosystem processes (Meyer & Miller, 2001). Finally, reducing sprawl and retu rning to a more traditional, less auto-dependent land use pattern likely encourages physical fitness and im proves the overall health of the community. A considerable body of research shows that low residential density, low employment density, and low connectivity are associated with less walk ing and bicycling (Frumpkin, 2002: 205). This sedentary lifestyle leads to hi gher rates of obesity and lower life expectancies (Frumpkin, 2002: 205). Using the 2001 National Household Travel Survey, Besser and Dannenberg (2005) concluded that Americans who use public trans portation daily spend a median of 19 minutes walking to and from transit lines, and that 29 % of these users achieve the recommended half hour of physical activity simply by walking between their origins and destinations and transit. A RAND Corporation study found that people who live in areas with a high degree of suburban sprawl are more likely to report chroni c health problems such as high blood pressure, arthritis, headaches and breathing difficulties th an people who live in less sprawling areas (Sturm and Cohen, 2004). Urban sprawl also lend s itself to auto-oriented strip development and their associated formula fast food restaurants serving foods high in calories, saturated fat and trans-fat, known causes of heart disease and ev en certain cancers (Sch losser, 2002). Listed perennially as one of the healthiest cities in the US,8 San Francisco has enacted ordinances limiting the use of formula restaura nts in order to promote economi c vitality and healthier eating habits, while New York City has banned trans-fats from all restaurants. The irony of the current 8 Listed as the 3rd Healthiest City by Sperlings Best Places (2007), and as the healthiest city for Men by Mens Health Magazine (2005).

PAGE 33

33 situation is that one of the initial factors that lead people to flee the inner city during the post Civil War and post World War II periods was he alth, but currently, these sprawling suburbs appear to be substantiall y less healthy than the ur ban centers they surround. Challenges Given the benefits of transit-oriented de velopm ents, one would assume that their application would be more widespread. The fact remains, though, that several significant challenges face TODs in the 21st century. A survey of transi t agencies, local governments, redevelopment agencies, metropolitan planni ng organizations, and state departments of transportation (DOT) found that the biggest obsta cle to these developments were automobileoriented land uses (Cervero et. al., 2004: 110). Problems with the built environment are difficult to tackle in this fashion because the problem is self-reinforcing; the problems with the built environment to which transit oriented devel opments respond, are the very problems preventing their use. The other main challenges listed in order of significance include: lack of lender interest, lack of local ex pertise, lack of market demand, and lo cal zoning restricti ons (Cervero et. al., 2004: 110). Of the other problems listed, many will solve themselves over time. Lack of lender interest and local expertise will increase over time as more projects are successfully completed, and local zoning restrictions will be altered more readily once more information is available to inform citizens and planners of the benefits of TODs. The lack of market demand may be due to poor advertisement or project design, because a 1998 survey of real estate homebuyers in Arizona, California, Colorado, Texas, and Florida found that 72% favored neighborhood development that clustered around a town center (Eisenberg, 2004). Market demand may also be increasing, as a recent study by the National Survey on Communities

PAGE 34

34 concluded that the weight of evidence from survey research combined with home-buying trends suggests a fundamental shift in favor of compact living (Ewing, 2007: 52).9 The success or failure of many new light rail projects can be traced back to one main factor, whether the system signi ficantly altered land use patter ns. Cervero and Landis (1997) conducted a study of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (B ART) system after 20 years, and concluded that even heavy rail transit could only minimally change regi onal land use patterns without strong public-policy initiatives. Th is realization has most likely lead to the application of transit oriented developments as a complimentary program to nearly all new major rail lines within the U.S. in the last decade. The large-scale construction of TODs, howev er, may be influenced more heavily by market forces than any plan or proposal. Th e state of the local economy, in particular the housing market, will largely dictate whether T ODs are built, even when a supportive regulatory framework exists.10 Furthermore, an extended period of time with a depressed economy and little development/redevelopment ar ound light rail stations may fore ver tarnish the rail line and their associated TODs as failures, and discour age redevelopment later down the line when the economy finally corrects itself. With the relative strength of the national housing market over the last several decades, this hypot hesis may be difficult to prove, but the results in Buffalo, New York may support this theory. Buffalo completed a light rail system during the 1980s but due to 9 The 2004 National Survey on Communities, conducted for Smart Growth America (a nonprofit advocacy group) and the National Association of Realtors, gave responde nts a choice between communities labeled "A" and "B." Community A was described as having single-family houses on large lots, no sidewalks, shopping and schools located a few miles away, work commutes of 45 minutes or more, and no public transportation. In contrast, community B (the smart growth community) was charact erized as having a mix of single-family and other housing, sidewalks, shopping and schools within walking distance, commutes of less than 45 minutes, and nearby public transportation. 10 In Richmond California, local fact ors such as increased crime, a depr essed local economy, and urban blight contributed to the failure of any major economic development efforts around the station (Cervero and Landis, 1997)

PAGE 35

35 the depressed state of th e economy, among other factors,11 little development occurred around the rail line and ridership nu mbers have steadily decrea sed over the last decade. Criticisms Criticism s of passenger rail transportation and the larger transit-oriented development strategy are numerous. The most frequent critic isms involve cost, by claiming that automobiles and their infrastructure are more cost effective than public transportation and that buses are more cost effective than rail at moving large numbers of people. This cost logic is typically based on studies reflecting reductionist analysis, which only consid ers a single object ive (Litman, 2007). In terms of passenger costs per mile, the three types of rail transportation (heavy, commuter, and light) are all significantly less than both automob ile and bus transportation when vehicle costs, roadway costs, and parking costs are considered (APTA, 2002; Litman, 2003). Another criticism is that rail fails to attract new riders, and only shifts captive riders (riders with no other option) from buses to light rail. A study of Portland, OR over the last 10 y ears indicates to the contrary. As rail service has expanded, bus ridership has increased along with in creased rail ridership (APTA, 2002). A final frequent criticism of rail is that its running speeds are considerably slower than automobiles making them unattractive to choice riders. On the whole, rail is significantly slower than automob iles when aggregating all trips; however, rail is not meant to function or compete with the automobile along all transportation corridors. During peak hours on major transportation corridors, ra il speeds are very similar, if not faster, than automobile speeds due to congestion (Litman, 2007). During the previously mentioned October 11th Gainesville MTPO meeting, Commissioner Braddy noted that he forwarded a study to the other members of the planning board conducted by 11 Buffalos light rail line also suffered from a lack of regional or citywide coordination of policies (Banister and Berechman, 2000).

PAGE 36

36 the Brookings Institute and the Department of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley titled On the Social Desirability of Urban Rail Transit Systems Commissioner Braddy explained that this study did an analysis of light rail based on the social welfare, and that social welfare should be considered as one of the main factors when determining which transportation alternative to pursue for the future of Gainesvi lle. Winston and Maheshri (2006) explain in the introduction of their report that the goal of the paper is to estimate the contribution of each U.S. urban rail operation to social welfare based on the demand for and cost of its service (pg. 363). While this thesis is not intended to be a referendum on their report, a disclaimer should be made before using this work as a reference. Using spec ific criteria such as the demand for, and cost of, service to measure such an infi nitely broad category as social welfare is extremely misleading, analogous to judging an entire university or public policy institute on one misguided piece of literature. This document also makes no comparis on of the social welfare of light rail with its alternative, the highway. A thorough research of highway construction over the last several decades would likely reveal that these forms of tr ansportation are also heavily subsidized when considering the roadways themselves, their parki ng areas, and the indirect costs associated with their externalities such as accident risk and pollution (Litm an, 2007). With these two significant flaws, the use of this document as a policy-making tool is weak at best. Two criticisms specifically of TODs include that TODs are constructed largely on greenfield sites, creating the sprawl that they propose to reduce, and that they raise residential rents leading to gentrifi cation. TODs are undoubtedly more effective and more suited as an infill strategy, but the difficulty of land acquisition and redevelopment poses a significant problem to both developers and local governments. With th e concept of TODs unproven near the end of the twentieth century, the suburbs became a testing ground for these projects. While critics are

PAGE 37

37 correct that this form of deve lopment is less sustainable than urban infill, TOD suburbs are far more sustainable than the conventional auto-dependent suburbs post 1950. Gentrification will be a continuing issue for the implementation of TODs as communities must balance the needs of current residents with the needs of the community as a whole. Most low-income and minority groups are not angered as much with being move d out of the substandard housing in which they reside, as they are with being forced out of th eir neighborhoods and left without a place to live. The construction of TODs doesnt have to be a repeat of urban renewal. Government policies that encourage or require affordable housing in and around TODs can provide new housing units without displacement. Future Academ ics such as Professor Eduardo Penalv er of Cornell University have begun to hypothesize that sprawl is ending, and that transi t and pedestrian-friendl y communities will again emerge as the primary urban form (Penalver, 200 7). While current evidence of this change is still in its infancy, a perfect stor m of factors is beginning to take shape that could lead to drastic changes in the way we live our lives. Starting with the continuing suburban boom, which began after World War II, history has taught us that a mu ltitude of factors must exist for a major change to occur within the metropolises of America.12 Steadily rising energy prices and commute times, the threat of global warming, an emerging enviro nmental conscience, a housing market slump, a country on the brink of a recession, income di sparities at an all-time high, globalization removing many middle income jobs, an influx of Hi spanic immigrants to urban areas, a growing 12 Hall notes that the rapid construction of new roads, the zoning of land uses that encouraged uniformity in residential tracts, government-guaranteed mortgages, and the baby boom all contributed to the rapid suburbanization (Hall, 316). OSullivan adds several complimentary factors such as rising income, higher inner-city crime, poor inner-city education, and the reinforcing effects of jobs and workers both leaving the city (OSullivan, 145).

PAGE 38

38 disenchantment with formula retail,13 and a growing number of surveyed Americans expressing interest in attached and small lot detached housing could possibl y be the makings of one such storm. These factors, along with the exponential increase in the last se veral years of proposals for rail projects around the US, indica te that TODs have the opportunity to be a large part of such a transformation. Light Rail in Gainesville? Several m ajor studies have predicted majo r population increases in the Gainesville Metropolitan Area over the next several decad es. The Bureau of Economic and Business Research at UF predicts an average annual gr owth rate of 1.62% for Alachua County through 2025, leading to an expected population of 301,710 in less than twenty years (Bureau of Economic, 2006). Florida 2060: A Population Distribution Scenario for the State of Florida prepared for the 1000 Friends of Florida takes this analysis one step further by continuing these trends for the next fifty years. This analysis predicts that the populat ion of Alachua County will nearly double within the next fifty years to 423,057 by 2060. If this predicted trend were to occur, nearly a quarter million new residents would need to be accommodated within the Gainesville metropolitan area. Even if the results of this study are exaggerated, the possibility of a half million residents within the Gainesville area at some point, whether it be in the next fifty years or later, will require a major change in transportation and land use patterns in order to accommodate this growth while maintaining the current high quality of life in the community. Pushkarev and Zupan, (1977) generally consider three main factors that affect transit usage: automobile owners hip, the density of the non-retail destination, and the quality of transit 13 Formula retail consists of chain restaurants and big box retailers that, according to the City of San Francisco, rely on a standard trademark, merchandise, uniforms, facade, signage, decor and color at more than 11 stores nationwide. The alternative is locally owned retail that exists independently from a larger corporate strategy.

PAGE 39

39 service. Automobile ownership is most greatly affected by residential density, with a nearby rapid transit station seeing as much as a tenfold increase in residentia l density (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1977). Given the self-reinforcing effects of an effective light ra il line, one could likely assume that minimum density associated with a significant increase in th e number of non-auto based home trips of 7 units/acr e would be easily achieved upon the completion of a passenger rail line (Tri-State Regional, 1970).14 The important role with which the density of the nonresidential destination plays is likely due to the availability of parking. Measured in terms of floor area, Pushkarev and Zupan (1977) contend that a downtown should contain a minimum of 20 million square feet of retail in order to suppo rt a single light rail line. The final service measure, quality of service, is generally measur ed by running time, service frequency, speed, and fares. Vehicle headways (service frequencies) ar e generally considered to be the most important of these factors, with fifteen minutes or less being the optimal criteria for attracting choice riders.15 Given these criteria, the question remains whet her a light rail system would be feasible within the City of Gainesville in the next fifty years. The Univer sity of Florida contains nearly 20 million square feet of floor area currently (Wal ker, 2007), with more likely to be built in the next fifty years. Counting the surrounding retail and residential development, this threshold is likely exceeded. Even without light rail, do zens of newly complete d or under construction 14 Pushkarev and Zupan, (1977) recommend an average gross residential density of between 9 and 12 dwelling units/acre for light rail. 15 Attracting riders through the lowering of fares or provid ing more frequent service will eventually lose the system money as these factors are inelastic (P ushkarev and Zupan, 1977). Increasi ng operating speed is elastic and will lead to both greater ridership and a lo wer cost per rider, but this often requires a large capital investment (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1977). Typically, the only profitable means of ga ining ridership from a transit perspective is to either restrain automobile use or increase the residential density of urban development. This higher density performs both functions as it both restrains auto use and encourages the use of public transit (Pushkarev and Zupan, 1977).

PAGE 40

40 residential developments along the corridors of University Avenue and Archer Road easily exceed 12 dwelling units per acre and likely approach the 20 to 30 dwelling units per acre range. Assuming that the quality of transit service woul d be either matched or exceeded with light rail over the existing bus system, it appears that a climat e exists for the provision of light rail within the city in the next fifty years. Summary When defining housing affordability as 30% of to tal income, housing is unaffordable for nearly 40% of all renters within the US. Since transportation costs are directly dependent upon the location of housing, affordability should be based upon the combination of the two costs. Using this measure, most US families spend approximately 50% of their annual income on housing and transportation. While many solutions have attempted to tackle this problem from the housing side, with varying success, few soluti ons have been offered that take a dual housing and transportation approach. As passenger rail has seen a re-emergence with in the last several decades, mainly as a means to curb sprawl, government officials have realized that their su ccess in this fashion depends on their ability to change land use patter ns. With the knowledge that the free market is not likely to fulfill this requirement on its ow n, a government-regulated approach encouraging transit-oriented development (TOD) has seen increasing use as an accompanying policy to any new fixed guideway infrastructure investment. When constructed properly, TODs have the ability to reduce automobile ownership due to increased access to central business district commuting and create a more centralized local and regional development pattern. While reduced automobile ownership reduces costs for TOD resi dents, rent premiums around transit increase rents for these same residents. To determine the ultimate effectiveness of TOD as a dual strategy

PAGE 41

41 to promote affordability for low and middle inco me renters within TODs, the total combined housing and transportation costs must be lower within TODs than outside them. Based upon current research, light rail does appear to be feasible for Gainesville within the next fifty years. The unique environment, incl uding a large university with restricted parking and a local government which believes in planni ng, appears to be conducive for light rail, even given Gainesvilles relatively small population.

PAGE 42

42 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Case Studies Over the last several decades, planners with in academ ia have estab lished the importance of examining transportation and housing in conjunction with one another. Recently, governmental planning agencies have come to the same conclu sion, and at many levels the two are looked at in as one. Given this consensus, it is odd that until recently, affordable housing had been discussed with little regard to transportation. A new emphasis on the cr eation of mixed use, high density, transit-oriented developments (T ODs) around transit stations was not initially intended to be a mechanism for the creation of affordable housing, but these developments may in fact do just that. The case study section of this thesis will attempt to quantify on a purely monetary basis, whether TODs can be justified as a mechanism to produce affordability for residents on the basis of combined housing and transportation costs. Mockingbird Station along the DART light rail line in Dall as, Texas and Pleasant Hill Station along the BART heavy rail line in Pleasant Hill, California were chosen as the two case studies to test for affordability. Several reasons exist for the decisi on to select these two stations. The first is the availability of station specific data. Few studies exist that quantify the assessed rent premiums around specific transit stations, an essential factor within the housing and transportation cost model. In order to eliminate the chance for location sp ecific factors affecting the conclusion, an effort was made to include case studies that were distinctly different. The differences between Mockingbird Station and Pleas ant Hill Station include: the classification of the rail lines (light vs. heavy), th e political ideologies of the areas (liberal vs. conservative), the land use policies and governmenta l structure within the respectiv e states and regions, and the intensities of land use (urban vs. suburban).

PAGE 43

43 To determine the effectiveness of the T ODs at providing affordable housing through reducing the combined transportation and housing costs, a transportation and housing monetary cost model was created for commuters, assuming travel between the area around the TOD and the central business district.16 While intra-suburban commuting represents a significant portion of all commute trips (40.9%), trip s either between the suburbs and the central city or within the central city (those which could possibly be serv ed by a local rail system ) represent a larger portion (48.6%) of commute trips (Pisarski, 2006). Regional ra il systems may also encourage redevelopment and reinvestment within the central business district, as experienced with the BART in San Francisco, further increasing cent ral city commuting in these locations (Bernick and Cervero, 1997). To quantify the savings, four different comm uters were taken into account: Commuter A lives outside of the station area and drives to work; Commuter B lives outside the station area, drives and parks at the station, and rides the ra il line to work; Commu ter C lives inside the station area, takes the ra il line to work, but still owns a car; and Commuter D lives inside the station area, walks to the stat ion, and takes the rail line to work, but doesn't own a car. Commuter C is assumed to walk, bike, or comb ine with his commute one-quarter of his nonwork trips. The model also assumes that non ca r owners living within the TOD area (Commuter D) will replace these non-work tr ips with either walking, bicycling, combining them with their work trips (or at Mockingbird Station by taking transit since they offer monthly passes allowing unlimited rides).17 In this model, Commuter A, who lives outside the station area and drives, 16 The cost of leisure time lost during commute was not used in this study, because the ability to afford housing and transportation was deemed of significantly greater importance for low-income and middle-income families than leisure time. 17 The assumption for Pleasant Hill Station that residents use other forms of transportation besides the BART may not be so unrealistic. In a survey of transit-oriented neighborhoods, few respondents take transit to non-commute

PAGE 44

44 could be equated to the average commuter under a no transit scenario, th ough this estimate may in fact be conservative due to de creased congestion and decreased rents, 18 which have been shown, in some instances, to occur upon the inst allation of rail lines. (Boyce, 1972). A diagram of this model is shown in Figure 3-1. To develop these models, several assumptions were made based on regional and national averages using 2004 as the study year.19 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Commuter Expenditure Guide, the cost of owning a car in the United States (purchase costs, finance charges, insurance, maintenance, license s, tickets, and fees) in 2004 was $5,762 (U.S. Department of Labor, 2006). This cost has increas ed substantially from ten years ago when the estimated fixed costs of the automobile were $4,712 a year in 2004 dollars (American Automobile Association, 1993; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). The amount of $5,762 was used in the model for both the Mo ckingbird Station and the Pleasa nt Hill station areas because fixed automobile ownership costs are fa irly consistent throughout the country. Fuel efficiency of vehicles, as measured by the Environmental Protection Agency, has remained constant at around 21 miles per gallon for the last 10 years (U.S. Department of Energy, 2006; Gore, 2006). Data for fuel economies of vehicles in California and Texas were not available, thus the national average of 20.8 miles per gallon in 2006 will be used for the model (U.S. Department of Energy, 2006). The mode l uses a 5:1 ratio of non-work to work trips based on the findings of the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportati on Survey and the 2006 Comminuting in America Report (Niles and Nels on, 1999; Pisarski, 2006). Assuming that most 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 (Victoria Transport, 2007). 18 For residents outside of the TOD 19 When determining the base year for the study, 2004 was chosen because it was the most recent year for which all data was available at the time that the preliminary research began.

PAGE 45

45 Americans take one trip, each way, to and from wo rk every work day (5 days a week), eight nonwork trips are generated for each work day. Us ing the NPTS data, the average non-work trip length can be calculated as 6.7 miles in length (Hanson and Giuliano, 2004). Using 230 work days per year, Americans who use their automobile s as their only form of transportation will drive an average of 12,328 miles per year for non-work related trips. The final overall assumption to make is the size of the dwelling unit, and a two-bedroom, 1,000 square foot residence was used as the base model. The price of gasoline, the commute distance, the parking expenses, and the annual re nt differed for the two case studies and were calculated individually. These costs were combined to calculate the tota l combined housing and transportation costs for each commuter. The U. S. Department of Labors Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index Calculator was used to convert all monetary amounts from various studies and years to the 2004 base year used in the model (Burea u of Labor Statistics, 2007). The final goal of the model is to calculate ov erall affordability. Affordability is typically measured on a per household basis, but the co mbination of transportation costs and the commuter system employed in this model makes it necessary to differentia te between households with one and two earners, i.e. commuters. The va riation in transportatio n costs between earners, homemakers, and children makes it difficult to formulate a straight forward proportion of combined housing and transportation costs to median income, and therefore an index for housing affordability. Since the combined costs th emselves demonstrate the degree to which affordability varies by commute choice and housing location, the main purpose of the affordability measures should be to compare the two case studies. For comparison, the simplest configuration of a one-person, si ngle-earner household is used in order to reduce additional

PAGE 46

46 assumptions for the number of family members, earners, and commuters in each household and their trip patterns.20 The widely considered measure of combined housing and transportation affordability is 50% of total income. Thus, for this analysis, a ffordability is determined based on whether the average median income for single earners living alone within the census tracts surrounding each station is more than double the combined housi ng and transportation costs, for each commuter A through D. Since the report focuses on low and middle income residents, affordability is only calculated for renters, given th at the financially di sadvantaged are dispro portionately renters rather than homeowners (Alachua County, 2003). Gainesville Application Background At an October 11th, 2007 meeting of the Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization, Director Marlie Sa nderson, in a discussion of long range transportation scenarios named the third of four as a light rail alterna tive. Sanderson (2007) named four questions that would be answered through the study of alternative three: Number one, will the City of Gainesville have enough people and enough jobs to support a light rail system in the year 2060? Number two, will these people and jobs be located in close proximity to the light rail system... Number three, will the light rail alternative reduce overall traffic congestion as compared to th e other alternatives. Finally, what is the impact on Alachua Countys air quality? Commenting specifically on the third alternat ive, Gainesville City Commissioner and member of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan ning Organization, Ed Braddy (2007) stated that 20 The station-wide savings for multiple member and mu ltiple earner households will likely be fairly similar, however, the total savings, and proportion affected may be entirely different. Two-member households with two vehicles will be much more likely to relinquish a single automobile than a one-member household would be to do without their one and only vehicle, so a larger proportion of two-member households may save money within TODs than one member households. The savings, though, will be much greater for those one-member households which live within the TODs and do not need to own an automobiles.

PAGE 47

47 since we like to connect transpor tation and land use, that we must also determine whether at the end of the day does [this alternative] increase soci al welfare or decrease it? Insinuating that the light rail alternative would pose a cost burden on lower and middle income families, Braddy (2007) went on to say that we should look around and follow the models to see what this means to our citizens in terms of cost. Why Alternative Three? Alternative three was selected for ex amination because rail is the only current mode of transportation that effectively functions as the transit in transit-oriented development, because it is the only mode of transporta tion that causes a market response. Given the time-frame of a 50 year long range transportation pla n, the possibility exists that a new form of transportation will emerge that will change the way we approach transportation planning; however, as the manufactures of the Segway learned, it may be more difficult than expected. Currently no alternative form of transportati on has been developed that will deliver an entirely different method for moving between two points in the ne xt fifty years than exists today. Some companies such as Taxi2000 and Unimodal claim that personal rapid transit, an adaptation of the people mover which functions much like a horizont al elevator, will be the urban transportation mode of the next fifty years, but the massive infrastructure cost s and the aesthetic issues with such a transportation mode will likely limit it to only selective us es. Given these uncertainties, the Gainesville 2060 transportation sc enario will model its light rail system and vehicles after the currently successful systems found in Portland, Oregon and Dallas, TX. Expected Results and Limitations Given the fifty year tim e horizon of a long range transportation plan, an accurate economic model is difficult to construct. The transportation cost calculati ons will be based on the models of the two case studies and on previous resear ch and will place cost in 2004 dollars. The

PAGE 48

48 location of the light rail lines wi ll be based on the preliminary draft of alternative three presented at the October 11th MPTO meeting. Projected population increases will be based on both BEBR projections and the 1000 Friends of Florida 206 0 study, and the location and intensities of the increases in population will be base d on those densities needed to sustain a light rail line. The end result of this section of the report will be to determine the monetary effect on overall housing and transportation affordability in the areas within proximity of the light rail lines in Gainesville, Florida and the proportion of the population that would be affected. Gainesville Methodology Most people will walk a distance of a quarter mile or five minutes from their residence to a destination before opting to driv e or ride a bike rather than walk (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, and Speck, 2000). When speaking in terms of urban ma ss transit, both one-quarter mile and one-half mile distances have been used as values th at have been most strongly associated with accessibility, ridership, and rent premiums around TODs, though one-quarter mile is most typically used (Cervero et. al., 2004). Using the quarter mile walking service area for transit stations, Holtzclaw (1994) claims a net residential density of 30 units/acre is requ ired to support light rail transit, 21 while Pushkarev and Zupan (1977) beli eve that a density between 9 and 12 units per acre is necessary. For Alternative Th ree, three densities will be used: Holtzclaws 30 units/acre for Urban TODs, Pushkarev and Zupans 10 units/acre for Suburban TODs, and a middle value of 20 units/acre for Transition TODs. Two major alignment choices for light rail were presented at the October 11th meeting of the MTPO which proposed the light rail alternativ e. The two possible alignments were (1) from 21 This density may be somewhat unrealistic, as the same stud y lists a required residential density of 24.8 units/acre to support two buses per hour. Given that Gainesvilles densest census tracts have a net residential density of around 3.5 units/acre, an d no sizeable areas with densities approaching this value, and since RTS still operates buses at a rate of two buses per hour or higher on over a dozen routes, such a high density may not be needed in this case.

PAGE 49

49 Interstate 75 east along Archer Road and then tr aveling along a former rail corridor through the south part of Gainesville and then turning north east along Waldo Road before terminating at the Gainesville Regional Airport and (2) beginning at Newberry Ro ad near Interstate 75 and continuing east along Newberry Road until it b ecomes University Ave, travels through the downtown then turns southeast on Hawthorn Road, and finally terminating at the Gainesville Regional Airport. For this study, an alignmen t along Newberry Road, University Avenue, and Waldo Road was chosen. Several reasons exist for this choice. First, a large amount of student housing currently exists on the northern part of the University of Florida, and this housing should be reinforced. Second, an Archer Road alignmen t would travel along the south side of campus, while a University Avenue alignment would tr avel along the north side of campus. The advantage to traveling along the north side woul d include the access to the OConnell Center and Ben Hill Griffin Stadium during sporting events a nd the commercial corridor which exists near campus on University Avenue and the larger concentration of cla ssrooms found near the northeast end of campus. Third, the alignment along University Avenue would travel though the downtown area and reinforce the commercial office, retail, and residential development already existing there. The Newberry Road University Avenue Waldo Road alignment also connects several important Gainesville institutions which will lik ely occupy the same location in fifty years, including: the Gainesville Regi onal Airport, the North Florid a Regional Medical Center, the University of Florida, and the historic downtown. Under this proposed light rail scenario, Archer Road will function as a B street that collects the land uses that would be incompatible with new urbanist-style transit-orient ed developments, such as car d ealerships, gas stations, and big box stores.

PAGE 50

50 In order to determine the area around each station that would be available to be redeveloped under a light rail sc enario, several criteria must be considered. Given that redevelopment is recognized to likely occur within one-quarter m ile, but at no greater than onehalf mile, all parcels within one-qua rter mile of the light rail station are to be initially included as possible areas of redevelopment, but portions of these parcels at distance s greater than a half mile are to be excluded. The assumption here is that parcels with portion s of their land outside of the quarter mile distance will use this land for non-habitable uses such as parking and drainage structures, and that the majority of the residentia l dwellings will be constructed either within the quarter mile distance of the station or near it. Upon selecting these initia l parcels for each TOD, uses that would be presumed to remain the same in 50 years, and therefore not be subject to redevelopment, will be excluded. These uses include: cemeteries, hosp itals, parks, recreation trails, The University of Florida, the Gainesville Regional Airport, natural water features (lakes, ponds, rivers, and wetlands), and right of way. Based on the research of Pushkarev and Z upan (1977), a minimum of 20 million square feet of building area are needed within the downtown to support a line-haul light rail system. The University of Florida currently contains n early 20 million square feet of building space, and when combined with the nearby retail along Un iversity Avenue, the combined building area likely surpasses this threshold currently. Based on existing trends, this building area will continue to grow over the next fifty years, and when combined with Gainesvilles downtown, two principal commute destinations will exist. The commitment from RTS to provide high quality service combined with the ease with wh ich the City grants permits for and encourages high density development when appropriate makes it likely that the MTPO would have a case for a ten mile first phase of a single light rail line by 2060.

PAGE 51

51 Gainesville TOD Locations Given the a lignment of the line, the locations of the stations and the TODs must be determined. While no station spacing has been definitively associated with higher ridership (Kuby, Barranda, and Upchurch, 2004), suburban to urban systems built within the last several decades such as the Portlands MAX and the Dallass DART have station spacings of slightly under one mile. Using this spacing, the following cr iteria are to be used to locate stations and TODs along the line: near permanent destinations (i .e. the university or th e airport), near major intersections, near major retail centers, near major office centers. More specifically for locating TODs, positive site characteristics include blighted areas in need of redevelopment, current activity centers, and larger par cels with fewer owners, while ne gatives characteristics include areas that are undesirable to be redeveloped such as historic neighborhoods, the University of Florida, and restricted developmen t areas surrounding the airport. The major difference between stations classified as TODs and those that are not involves the amount of government intervention. The clas sification of stations as TODs indicates increased planning and regulation around stations in order to encourage the types of land uses which the rail system will requir e to be effective. Spreadi ng these funds and resources around stops which are already developed to a suitable level or are at the far outskirts of town will decrease the amount of resources av ailable at the more critical stat ions. Stations with decreased intervention will also provide an opportunity for th e private sector to demonstrate their ability to provide the types of housing and uses compatible with a light rail line, providing a means of comparison. The Gainesville light rail line, incl uding stops and TODs, is shown in Figure 3-2. TOD Classifications No two TODs are created equal, nor should th ey be. Different geographic, dem ographic, and environmental factors effect and shape the design of each TOD in each individual location.

PAGE 52

52 Though differences do exist, some uses should be excluded from all Gainesville TODs: automobile sales and service, heavy industry, st orage, equipment sales and repair, drive-through service, and scrap, salvage, or recycling centers (City of Austin, 2006). All TODs should also be designed with the transit stati on as the focal point of both th e TOD and the entire neighborhood. Automobiles, pedestrians, and bi cyclists should all be accomm odated on a well connected street pattern. Large setbacks should be avoided for all structures, and commercial and multi-family residential buildings should be built adjacent to the street. For the purposes of this study, the proposed TODs within Gainesville were divide d into three general categories: suburban, transitional, and urban. Suburban Suburban TODs are to be located towards the ends of the light rail line far rem oved from the central business district. Suburban TODs should consist principally of residential development, while allowing for some neighbor hood retail and restaurant s clustered around the center of the development near the station. The residential density should average 10 units/acre and contain small-lot single family detached a nd attached housing, granny flats, and duplexes. Parking should be provided both for the commercial businesses and for use as a park-and-ride; however, parking should not be concentrated aro und the station, but rather hidden in enclosed garages or placed behind the buildings, away from the street. Transitional Transitional TODs are to be located in ar eas around the edge of the suburban/urban boundary. Transitional TODs should consist of a m ixture of housing, retail, restaurants, nightlife, and office development. A gross re sidential density of 20 units/acre should be maintained through a mixture of duplexes, tow nhouses, row houses, apartments, and mixed-use multi-family buildings with ground floor commercial. Transitional TODs should not be

PAGE 53

53 designed to function as a park-and-ride, as parking should only be allowed for local residents and businesses. Urban Urban TODs are to be located in and around the central business district or central commute location (in this case th e University of Florida). Unlike the other TODs, office development is given priority over resident ial development within urban TODs. Other commercial uses such as retail, restaurants, and nightlife should also be located along the ground floor of these buildings, as a secondary function, to form an over all employment density of at least 50 employees/acre (Ewing, 1999). While not the focal point of urban TODs, residential development should also be provided, and at a high density. Gross resi dential densities should average 30 units/acre through a mix of row houses multi-family apartments, and condos. No parking should be provided for transit, with limited parking (either onstreet or in hidden garages) for residents and commercial service busi nesses. The principal means of transportation within the downtown should be thro ugh walking, bicycling, and transit.

PAGE 54

54 Figure 3-1: Four Type s of Commuters Used in the Case Studies

PAGE 55

55 Figure 3-2: Proposed Gain esville Light Rail Line

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 4 CASE STUDIES Introduction While Pleasant Hill Station and Mockingbird S tation differ greatly, from their regional location to their design, both are widely regarded as successful TODs. Initi ally, this section will provide both qualitative and quantitative backgro und information in order to help illustrate what has made each TOD successful. The primary intenti on of this section though, will be to test the combined housing and transportation costs for single-member, single earner households within the two station areas. A comparison of the costs w ill be made for a series of commuters that will take into account both location, modal choice, and automobile ownershi p. The final result of this section will be the development of a series of conclusions based on the results of the two case studies which can be applied to cities thr oughout the United States, including Gainesville. Pleasant Hill Station Background and Overview Pleasan t Hill Station is located on the edge of the Northern California, East Bay suburbs of Pleasant Hill and Walnut Creek. The two suburbs combine for a population of around 100,000, with nearest major employment center, Oakland, lo cated about 15 miles sout hwest. Pleasant Hill Station, which first opened in 1972 along Interstate 680, is part of the yellow line of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system that runs from Pittsburg/Bay Point through Oakland and San Francisco and ends at Daly City. The BART system consists of hundreds of electric powered trains that can reach speeds in excess of 80 mph, and the system is classified as heavy rail since it operates with ten or more cars on a dedicated ri ght-of-way (Bay Area, 2006). Trains typically stop at Pleasant Hill Station every fifteen minut es, though this decreases to five minutes during A.M. and P.M. peak periods, and a roundtrip ticke t from Pleasant Hill Station to the financial

PAGE 57

57 district of San Francisco cost s $8.80 (Bay Area, 2006). As of 2002, the ridership at the station was over 6,300, with 74% these ri ders using the station as a park-and-ride, and only 15% walking (State of California, 2004). The station is surrounded on all directions by 3,500 surface and garage parking spots that are typically filled to capacity on weekdays (State of California, 2004). Cervero and Landis (1997) cons ider Pleasant Hill station th e best example of suburban transit oriented development in the U.S. Within a five year time peri od during the late 1980s and early 1990s, 1.5 million square feet of office space and 1,800 housing units were constructed within a quarter mile of the station (Cervero and Landis, 1997). This development occurred despite being located in an uninc orporated area with the largest pa rking lot along the BART line. Cervero (1993) credits Pleasant Hills success in attracting housing and office development to three main factors: One, the creation of a specific plan in the early 1980s that served as a blueprint for guiding growth near the rail station over the ensuing 15 years; second, the exis tence of a proactive redevelopment authority whose staff aggres sively sought to implement the plan by assembling irregular parcels into developable tracts, seeking out private co-ventures, and investing in public infrastructu re; and third, having a local el ected official who became the projects political champion working tirelessly and participating in numerous public hearings to shepherd the pr oject through to implementation. A survey of station-area land uses and reside nts was conducted in 2002 that covered a half mile radius around the station. The predomin ant zoning type surrounding the station was residential; medium and high density residentia l accounted for 44%, and low-density residential accounted for 36% of the zoning around the st ation by area (State of California, 2004).22 Of the 22 Definitions from State of California (2004): Residen tial-Low Density corresponds to the local jurisdiction definition of low-density residential for each TOD. Generally low-density residential refers to single-family houses. Residential-Medium/ High Density corresponds to the local jurisdiction's definition of medium/high density residential for each TOD. Generally, medium-density residential refers to apartments, townhomes, condominiums, and small-lot single family homes two stories or higher. Hi gh-density is generally three stories, depending on the local jurisdiction's zoning designation.

PAGE 58

58 5,129 station area residents, 65% were renters, and 30% took public transit to get to work (State of California, 2004). Between 1990 and 2000, an influx of families making over $75,000 a year moved into new duplexes and apartments in the area and the station area population increased by 27% (State of California, 2004). While the st ation area median income increased from $37,271 to $52,868 over this time period, 11% of the popul ation still earned less than $15,000 per year, which corresponded to the percentage of station area residents not owning a vehicle (State of California, 2004). A 1994 study of housing prices in the Pleasant Hill station area and the surrounding region for units of similar size, ag e, and amenities found that one-bedroom units near the BART station were $1.20 per square f oot, per month, compared with $1.09 per square foot, per month, outside the station area (Cervero et. al., 2004). Rents for two bedroom units also increased from $0.94 per square foot, per m onth, outside the station area to $1.20 per square foot, per month, inside the station area (Cervero et. al., 2004). A rece nt proposal has been accepted that would re-develop the BART station from a suburban mall style design to a walkable urban village. Plans call for 300,000 squa re feet of office space, 42,000 square feet of restaurant and retail, at leas t 300 townhouses, and a child care f acility, but as of yet, no requirement has been made for the provision of affordable housing, even though the project will be partially publicly funded (State of California, 2004). Model W hen calculating the gasoline costs in the mode l, the costs for Commuters A-D will differ, since their work commuting patterns directly aff ect their annual expenditu re on fuel. Gas prices are not directly linked with inflat ion, nor have they been proven to significantly affect the prices of parking, public transit, vehicles or housing rents in the short term ; therefore, to be consistent with the rest of the model, the United States Energy Inform ation Administrations average 2004 gas price for the San Francisco Bay Area of $2.16 per gallon was used (Metropolitan

PAGE 59

59 Transportation Commission, 2007). According to Google Maps, the driving distance between the Pleasant Hill Station area and the central busine ss district of San Francisco is 27 miles, or 54 miles roundtrip (Google Maps, 2006). The trip also includes a one-way toll of $4 for crossing the Bay Bridge. Assuming that the commuters work 230 days a year, the total gasoline and toll costs for an automobile commute are $2,020. Based on the station spacing and the 1998 Pleasant Hill Station trip origin survey, a 2 mile trip distance was used for commuters making the driving portion of their work trip to the park-and-ride. This trip length, twice for 230 days, equals 920 miles of work miles driven fo r park and ride commuters for an annual cost of $95. Using 12,328 as the average number of miles for non-work trips,23 the average automobile commuter living outside the TOD spends $1,298 a year on non-work trips, while commuters inside the TOD area spend three-quarters of that amount ($974).24 The costs of riding the BART to work and pa rking downtown were determined explicitly through prices listed curr ently on their respective agency we bsites. The price of a roundtrip ticket from Pleasant Hill Station to Montgomery Street Station in the central busines s district was listed at $8.80 on the BART website in 2006. When buying in bulk, BART offers a 6.25% discount on the final ticket cost, bringing the tota l annual investment for 230 days of commute to $1,900 (Bay Area, 2006). Since BART fare increases are tied to inflation, the 2004 costs can be calculated as $1,780. While the cost of parking at Pleasant Hill Stati on is free, the annual cost of parking in downtown San Francisco is nearly equal to the amount spent each year for the ownership of an automobile. The current averag e monthly cost of the ei ght parking garages in the downtown/financial district is $346, for a yearly cost of $4,155 (City of San Francisco, 23 12,328 miles per year for non-work trips was established in the methodology. 24 Based on the previously stated assumption that TOD resi dents will either combine/reduce trips, or use other forms of transportation than the automobile fo r one-quarter of all non-work trips.

PAGE 60

60 2007). When adjusted for inflation to the base 2004 year, the total fa lls to $3,734 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). The final component of the model to dete rmine concerns housing costs. The base residence used for the model is a two-bedroom, 1,000 square-foot dwelling unit. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) reported an increase in the value of the dollar between 1994 and 2004 of 27%; hence, the rate of $1.09 per square foot, per month inside the Pleasant Hill Station area was adjusted to $1.38 per square foot, and the rate of $0.94 per square foot, per month outside the transit station area was adjusted to $1.19 per square foot. These inflationary adjustments led to annual housing costs of $16,560 for residents insi de the station area and $14,280 for residents outside the station area. Using these individual totals, the cumula tive housing and transportation costs were determined for each Commuter, A-D. The highest total commute cost was experienced by Commuter A, who lived outside the station area and chose to drive to work. Commuter A, which represented 58% of the station area population in 2000, spent a combined $26,704 on transportation and housing (State of California, 2004). Commuter C represents the majority of Pleasant Hill Station users, and though they dont us e a car at all during work trips, they paid the second highest total tr ansportation and housing costs at $25,076. Commuter B paid over $3,400 less annually than Commuter A by simply choosing to park and ride the BART downtown rather than drive the entire distance to work. Commute r B represents the majo rity of the users of Pleasant Hill Station and paid $23,215 a year in combined housing and transportation costs. While Commuter D (those not owning a car) represen ts only 11% of station area residents, they paid the lowest combined housing and transporta tion costs at $18,340 a year. A detailed chart of the calculations for each commuter is found in Table 4-1.

PAGE 61

61 The model used produced some important insights into the savings provided by transitoriented developments in suburban locations far removed from a dominant central business district. Irrespective of loca tion and car ownership status, th e most financially responsible decision appears to be using Pleasant Hill Stati on and the BART yellow line for a commute to downtown San Francisco. While the BART fare s are fairly high, inflated parking prices downtown more than overshadow the cost of trans it ridership. The cost of driving to the station to use it as a park and ride is not offset by re nt premiums experienced around the transit stop, and therefore living in the station area in order to wa lk to Pleasant Hill Station and ride the BART to work is only cost-effective if enough amenities ar e located along the transit line and within walking distance of ones residence that owning an automobile is optional. The next analysis to perform on the model is the degree of affordability of the four commuters. Given the previous assumption that the commuters are single earners living alone, the average median income for this classifi cation of residents with in the census tracts surrounding Pleasant Hill Station in 1999 was $41,577 (U.S. Census, 2001b), which translates to $47,142 in 2004 (Bureau of La bor Statistics, 2007). Combined housing and transportation costs constitute the following percenta ges of median income within the station area for the four commuters: Commuter A 56.6%, Commuter B 49.2%, Commute r C 53.2%, and Commuter D 38.9%. Based on the commonly held threshol d of 50%, commuters B and D are considered to be affordable living options. Living with in the station area make s trading in your car a necessity for affordability, while living outside the station area and using the BART as a park and ride is another affordable option. Commuter A, which most accurately represents the default scenario had public transportation not been available, remains the least affordable.

PAGE 62

62 Mockingbird Station Background and Overview Mockingbird Station is located along the U.S. 75 Expressway in Dallas, Texas, approxim ately 3.5 miles north of the northern peri meter of the central business district. The station is in an urban location across the intersta te from Southern Methodist University, a private university with an enrollment of 11,000. The ar ea immediately around th e station was designed and constructed entirely through private investment with the intent to create an urban village. This station development contains 211 loft-style apartments, 150,000 square feet of office space, ten clothing stores, nine restaurants, an eight screen independent movie theatre, and a grocery store (Ditmar & Ohland, 2004). The st ation also has the capability of serving as a park-and-ride facility as it contains 1,440 parking spots, mainly located in garages and underground, though it is equally accessible for pedestrians (Ditmar & Ohland, 2004). Ken Hughes, the chief developer of the project, claimed the freeway adjacency wa s what sold investors on the project, while the transit adjacency was an afterthought (Ditmar & Ohland, 2004). New phases under consideration include an eighteen story hotel with ground floor reta il, cooperation with local and federal governments to provide better accessibility to pedestrians on the opposite side of the expressway, a connection with a hiking and biking trail, and providing in sulation from the noise of the highway. Mockingbird Station is currently served by bot h the red and blue line s of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit System (DART), a light rail system that opened in 1996. An annual pass for the DART was very reasonable for commuters at on ly $400 in 2004, and an average trip from Mockingbird Station to City Ha ll takes approximately 8 minutes, with trains arriving every 15 minutes (City of Dallas, 2006a). On-site residentia l rents were 30% over market rate as the loft apartments rented for $1,500 per month, while the penthouses rented for $5,000 per month

PAGE 63

63 (Ditmar & Ohland, 2004). In 2003, residential rents inside the station area were $1.60 per square foot, per month compared with $1.30 per square foot, per month for similar areas not served by DART (Cervero et. al., 2004: 164). Over a one year time peri od, the rents calculate to $19,200 for dwellings inside the station area, and $15,600 outside the station area. Adjusting for inflation to the 2004 study year, the annual rent s rise to $19,711 and $16,015 respectively. Model The price of gas, along with the commute distan ce traveled, were significantly different in Dallas than in the San Francisco Bay Area. The United States Energy Information Administrations average 2004 gas price for th e State of Texas was $1.84 per gallon (Energy Information Administration, 2005). According to Google Maps (2006), the driving distance between the Mockingbird Station ar ea and the central business distri ct of Dallas is 6 miles, or 12 miles roundtrip. Using the 230 days a year work schedule, the annual gasoline cost were $242 for an automobile work commute, $1,298 and $974 for non-work trips for non-station area and station area residents respectiv ely, and $142 for drivers outside the station area traveling to Mockingbird Station to use it as a park-and-ride While the cost of parking at Mockingbird Station is free, the cost of parking in downtown Dallas in 2006 ranged from $600 to $3,000 annually (City of Dallas, 2006b). The average yearly expense of all downtown parking was $1,200, and when adjusted for inflation, $1,124 was used for this model (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Based on the st ation spacing and urban layout, a 3mile trip distance was used for commuters making the driving portion of their work trip to the park-and-ride. This trip length twice for 230 days equals 1,380 miles of wo rk miles driven for park and ride commuters for an annual cost of $142. Using these costs, the total housing and transportation costs for residents in and around Mockingbird Station was determined for Commuter s A-D. The total annual expenses in order

PAGE 64

64 from highest to lowest were Commuter C $26,847, Commuter A $24,441, Commuter B $23,617, and Commuter D $20,011. A detailed chart of the calculations for each commuter is found in Table 4-2 at th e end of the chapter. The Mockingbird Station model, with a mid-de nsity urban transit station located within close proximity of downtown, pr oduced significantly different re sults than the study of Pleasant Hill Station. Not owning a car and living near a transit station was still the least expensive way to live, but living near a transit station, taking the DART to wo rk, and still owning a car was by far the most expensive. For those living outside the station area, the difference in commute costs between taking the DART to work and driving to work were fairly insignificant. These differences are due to the 20% rent premiums around the tran sit stop, the decreased parking rates, and shorter commute dist ances relative to San Francisco and Pleasant Hill Station. Similarly to the study of Pleas ant Hill Station, the average median income for single earners living alone in the census tracts surr ounding the station was used as the base measure used for determining affordability. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median income for these residents in 1999 was $37,697 (U.S. Census 2001b; U.S. Census, 2001c), or $42,743 in 2004 dollars (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Combined housing and transportation costs then comprise the following percentage s of median income within the station area for the four commuters: Commuter A 57.7%, Commuter B 55.3%, Commute r C 62.8%, and Commuter D 47.1%. Based on the 50% threshold of affordability, Commuter D is the only affordable option of all commuters, requiring living within the station area, not owning a car, and either taking transit, walking, or biking for all trips. The most expens ive option for commuters is living within the station area while also owning a car. Unlike Pleasant Hill, car owners living within

PAGE 65

65 the station area receive a reduction in affordabilit y over the no transit, base model of Commuter A, though neither option appear affordable. Case Study Conclusions The Mockin gbird Station and Pleasant Hill Station transit-oriented developments provide two different perspectives on TODs from desi gn, to implementation, to location. Using the major benefits of TODs outlined in previous secti ons of this report as the goals, the results from these two locations were similar in many respects. It is unclear from either development whether the projects were a catalyst for economic growth. In the last fifteen years, apartments and condos have replaced lower density deve lopment around Pleasant Hill Station, while Mockingbird Station provided for a myriad of rest aurants, retail stores, and loft apartments onsite. Neither project made an attempt to prov ide for housing diversity or affordability, and both projects noticed significant rent premiums for properties near the transit stations. Though development occurred in and around these developments, it cannot be determined from the studies conducted whether these economi c impacts were redistributive or generative, though in the case of Pleasant Hill Station, Ce rvero and Landiss (1997) previous research indicates a redistribution meaning the successful reduction of sprawl. The main purposes of both Pleasant Hill Station and Mockingbird Station were to serve areas that were the product of sprawl, but the clustering affect s around the stations may serve to reduce sprawl as high density development around these stations replaced lowdensity development farther away from the station. The one goal of transit oriented developments which likely had different outcomes at each station was the encouragement of physical fitnes s. Pleasant Hill Station, which is surrounded by garage and surface parking on all sides, similar to a suburban mall, does not encourage use by pedestrians, and thus the vast ma jority of station users drive to the station. Mockingbird Station

PAGE 66

66 encouraged pedestrian access by making it equally accessible for pedestrians and drivers alike. Financially however, the leas t expensive option in the Mo ckingbird Station housing and transportation cost model, assuming car ownershi p, was to live outside of the station area and drive to the station and us e it as a park and ride. Based on the results of these two case studies, th e ultimate effectiveness of transit-oriented developments at providing a relief to the co mbined housing and transportation cost burden experienced by low and middle income families appears to be whether TODs can make living without an automobile a realistic option. T hough the costs are not to be taken scrupulously, some general trends can be taken from the theo retical model. When work commute requires a long travel to a dense downtown with extreme park ing rates, taking transit is the least expensive means of traveling to work, even if you have to dr ive to get to the transit stop. This situation is an extreme case though, most likely only found in the San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Boston, and Washington D.C. metro areas. In most major metropolitan areas, the main va lue for TODs in lowering the total cost of housing and transportation exists when other serv ices such as supermar kets, doctors offices, restaurants, and retail stores are either provide d onsite, or access to these services is made available through the transit system, and one does not need to own a car to function on a day to day basis. Mockingbird Station in Dallas came close to this mode l, but the services provided onsite most likely out-price the majority of middle and lower income residents, and the principle destinations of the blue and re d lines is downtown, rather than to commercial service corridors where low income employees in Dallas typically work. Successful TODs that serve all income levels will likely have to be large, dense, mixed-use, at least partially publicly funded, and connect with an extensive transportation network that links to not only commercial offices, but

PAGE 67

67 commercial service businesses. This all or nothi ng approach to transit-oriented developments will be a tough sell for communities, as it requires developers to make a very significant initial investment, and local government offici als to operate on a long-range horizon. Based on these two case studies and similar projects around the country, developers are unlikely to develop affordable housing unless pub lic funding is provided and affordable housing is a requirement. While liv ing near a highway or major thoroughfare typically decreases residential rents due to noise and air pollution, electric powered rail systems have proven to have a positive effect on local rents. The most at tractive factor of TODs from a developers perspective is the inflated prices that they can charge tenants due to th e accessibility to public transit. This inflated price, or rent premium, is the main f actor that prevents low and middle income households from living in TODs, while at the same time being a developers chief reason for building here rather than in the suburbs (ba rring a substantial shift in market demand). For developers to charge decreased rents, they expe ct some form of moneta ry compensation from the government, making a public-private partnership a must. The main question of these case studies boiled down to whether the rent increases around transit compensate for the decreased transportatio n costs. The answer to this question depends on whether the family owns an automobile. If a family living in or near a TOD owns an automobile, then the transportati on and housing costs will likely s lightly increase, while if the family does not own a vehicle, the total tran sportation and housing costs will significantly decrease. Assuming that low-income families own cars for survival purposes rather than leisure purposes, this indicates that the main obstacle to the effectiveness of transit-oriented developments at lowering combined housing and transportation costs is not rent premiums, but connectivity to jobs and services. If a long range regional plan is in place that requires that the

PAGE 68

68 land uses and activities necessary to subsist are locat ed at or near rail stati ons, not just arterials, then transit oriented developments around fixed guideway transit systems appear to be effective at increasing affordability. Table 4-1: Pleasant Hill Commuter Costs Commuter A Commuter B Commuter C Commuter D Transportation Costs Automobile Ownership $5,762$5,762$5,762 $0 Gasoline $3,288$1,393$974 $0 Transit Fare $0$1,780$1,780 $1,780 Parking $3,374 $0 $0 $0 Housing Costs Base Price $14,280$14,280$14,280 $14,280 Rent Premium $0 $0$2,280 $2,280 $26,704$23,215$25,076 $18,340 Table 4-2: Mockingbird Station Commuter Costs Commuter A Commuter B Commuter C Commuter D Transportation Costs Automobile Ownership $5,762$5,762$5,762 $0 Gasoline $1,540$1,440$974 $0 Transit Fare $0$400$400 $400 Parking $1,124 $0 $0 $0 Housing Costs Base Price $16,015$16,015$16,015 $16,015 Rent Premium $0 $0$3,696 $3,696 $24,441$23,617$26,847 $20,111

PAGE 69

69 CHAPTER 5 APPLICATION FOR GAINESVILLE IN THE NEXT 50 YEARS Lessons Learned from Case Studies So what do the results of these case studies com bined with the curr ent body of research on the topic tell us about plans for light rail in Ga inesville in 2060? Barri ng the invention of new technology that drastically changes the way peopl e move and communicate, the key to providing affordable housing and transportation to more fa milies will likely involve the ability of light rail to reduce the need of Gainesvi lle residents to own a personal vehicle. The current land use pattern will likely not provide this type of e nvironment, but the provision of rail in many cases has had a significant impact on the surrounding land use patterns through a combination of market forces and the focused planning wh ich occurs around stations. Given the unique conditions that exist in a University town su ch as Gainesville, the opportunity exists for a discussion of light rail within the next 50 years. Given the political nature of such a proposal, the determination must be made rega rding how such a project will affect the combined housing and transportation affordability of Gainesville resi dents, and what segmen t and proportion of the population will be affected. The basis for determining the affordability of housing and transportation for the two case studies relied on a series of four commuters. Based on the number of TODs and the number of assumptions needed for such a long-range study, c onstructing this type of model for Gainesville in 2060 is impractical. Based on the case study results, the tw o principal factors affecting housing and transportation affordability were ca r ownership and rent pr emiums. Reconnecting Americas (2004) nationwide study indicated a 44% decrease in automobiles per household in areas within a half-mile of fixed-guideway tr ansit stations (p. 21). Based on Canbys (2003) study, using transit instead of ow ning a car can save an average of $4,900 per worker per year.

PAGE 70

70 Therefore, households within TODs in Gaines ville could expect a $2,156 reduction in cost per household per year (in 2004 dollars) due to the d ecrease in automobile ownership. Taking the average rent premiums experienced in the two ca se studies as 20% and the yearly median gross rent in Gainesville as $7,884, an average rent premium of $1,577 (in 2004 dollars) per household would be experienced by residents living in TODs (Alachua County, 2003) Subtracting the rent premium from the reduction in tr ansportation costs would lead to an average savings of $579 per household. Currently within the City of Gainesville, 52 percent of the population are renters. The product of this percentage, the average costs savings per household, and the total number of households located within each TOD will be used to determine the total housing and transportation cost savings for residents over th e entire proposed light rail line in 2060. The proportion of the population affected will determined by dividing the total nu mber of households living within TODs by the total number of projected households with in Gainesville in 2060. Gainesville TOD Descriptions Oaks Mall/North Florida Regional Medical Center The westernmost stop on the line currently se rves as a suburban-style regional activity center with the Oaks Mall and North Florida Re gional Medical Center (NFRMC) as the prim ary uses (shown in Figure 5-2). Due to the dist ance from the University of Florida and the downtown, the area should be deve loped as a suburban TOD with some on-site parking provided for commuters West of I-75. Given the cost of relocation, the NFRMC will likely remain in its current location and serve as a primary destination for residents from the east side of town to receive medical care. Given the competitivene ss of the commercial retail sector, malls are typically forced to renew themselves every several decades to remain competitive. This will likely be no exception for Oaks Mall within the next fifty years, as the large tract of land within

PAGE 71

71 proximity of a rail line will likely redevelop into a walkable, mixed-use community to take advantage of the full development potential of the light rail line. Several other strip commercial centers surround the Oaks Mall and will likely also redevelop to a more suitable use. Upon exclusion of the NFRMC, a total of 160 acres remain for redevel opment. Using the residential density of 10 units/acre for suburban TODs, a pproximately 1,250 new units could be built on this site. Figure 5-9 shows the pa rcels to be redeveloped around th e Oaks Mall and NFRMC station. Forty-Third Street and Newberry Road The area around the 43rd Street and Newberry Road intersection is currently home to suburban-style offices surrounded by middle-income single family residential development, shown in Figure 5-3. This station is classified as a transitional TOD due the location within two miles of the University of Florida campus, while still located in a suburban neighborhood. No lands were excluded for development within this TOD except for a section of right-of-way that currently holds the Millennium Center office park. Several la rge parcels surround the proposed station location that should allow for the development of a master planned, mixed-use transitional TOD. A total of 184.9 acres are availa ble for redevelopment within the station area, allowing for a total of 3,698 units to be construc ted at 20 units/acre. Figure 5-10 shows the parcels to be redeveloped around the 43rd Street and Newberry Road station. Thirty-Fourth Street and University Avenue The 34th Street and University Avenue area curr ently exists as suburban activity center within an urban area. The area is home to stri p malls, automobile related businesses, and vast parking areas adjacent to the street, shown in Figure 5-4. This station should be developed as a suburban TOD due to its location on the northwester n edge of the University of Florida campus. Two tracts of land were excluded fr om this analysis, the University of Florida golf course, and a portion of the Hogtown Creek watershed. Many of the strip malls and commercial areas are

PAGE 72

72 consolidated onto single trac ts, making redevelopment into mid-rise buildings, mixed-use buildings an easier proposition. A total of 158.6 acres are availabl e for redevelopment within the station area, allowing for a total of 4,758 units to be constructed at 30 units/acre. Figure 5-11 shows the parcels to be redeveloped around the 34th Street and University Avenue station. Thirteenth Street and University Avenue The corner o f 13th Street and University Avenue should be one of the principal intersections of Gainesville that serves as a last ing image of the city. As it stands now however, the corner containing the University remains th e only quadrant holding up its end of the bargain, as a gas station, a bulldozed empty lot, and an outdated hotel occupy the other three portions of land surrounding the intersection. Several hundred feet north of the intersection however, several medium density, mixed-use structures (sho wn in Figure 5-5) have been constructed that may serve as a model for future redevelopment. Due to the balkanization of parcels in this section of town, redevelopment efforts will be increasingly difficult, though the prime location will likely keep developers interested. The location at one of the principle intersection between the University and downtown, the 13th Street and University Avenue area provides an opportunity for an urban TOD. Upon excluding th e University of Florida, a total of 77.65 acres remain available for redevelopment within the st ation area, allowing for a total of 2,330 units to be constructed at 30 units/acre. Figure 5-12 sh ows the parcels to be redeveloped around the 13th Street and Newberry Road station. Waldo Road and University Avenue The W aldo Road and University Avenue intersection marks the principle intersection of East Gainesville, and one of the major intersections in the city as a whole. Despite this however, the area surrounding the inte rsection is home to liquor stores, fast food restaurants, run-down convenience stores, and abandoned buildings. An effort has taken place in the past few years to

PAGE 73

73 revitalize East Gainesville, but this will likely be impossible without restoring this intersection to respectability and prominence. Given its prox imity to the downtown, this intersection should develop as an urban TOD. The two major areas that were excluded from later development were a small cemetery and a section of former railroad right-of-way currently used as a trail. After these subtractions, a total of 100.2 acres remain available for redevelopm ent within the station area, allowing for a total of 3,006 units to be constr ucted at 30 units/acre. Figure 5-13 shows the parcels to be redeveloped around the Wal do Road and University Avenue station. Twelfth Avenue and Waldo Road W ithin the past several years the intersection of 12th Avenue and Waldo Road has become an area of controversy as civic leaders and co mmunity groups have battled over whether to encourage or block the constr uction of a Wal-Mart and its accompanying commercial strip development. In the end the development was ap proved (shown in Figure 5-7), and currently the development is in its later stages of development, likely making this area a focal point of activity for East Gainesville for the coming years. Though separated from the downtown and the University of Florida and lacking workers who commute to locations within this area, its urban location in an economically depressed area in need of redevelopment dictates that it be developed as a transitional TOD. The tra iler parks and the Tacachale community for the developmentally disabled will present challenges to redevelopment, but the opportunity for the city to both encourage the supply of affordab le housing and redevelop East Gainesville will hopefully be enough incentive to overcome these obstacles. Upon excluding the Martin Luther King Jr. Park and the rails-to-trails right-of-way, a total of 162.9 acres remain available for redevelopment within the station area, allowing for a total of 2,500 units to be constructed at 20 units/acre. Figure 5-14 shows the pa rcels to be redeveloped around the 12th Street and Waldo Road station.

PAGE 74

74 Thirty-First Avenue and Waldo Road The eastern most TOD on the Gaines ville line, before the terminus at the Gainesville Regional Airport, the 31st Avenue and Waldo Road area is currently largely undeveloped (shown in Figure 5-8) with the exception of a discount store and a handful of storage facilities. Due to its remote location, this area should be devel oped as a suburban TOD. Parking should be provided at this location to facilitate a sma ll amount of commuting from the communities of western Alachua County. After excluding the wetla nds and nature preserve to the west of the proposed station, a total of 276.4 acres remain available for redevelopment within the station area, allowing for a total of 1,250 units to be constr ucted at 10 units/acre. Figure 5-15 shows the parcels to be redeveloped around the 31st Avenue and Waldo Road station. Stations Not Designated as TODs Three stations located along th e proposed line are not design ated as transit-oriented developm ents; however, development around these stations will likely occur. Moving from West to East, the first of these statio ns is located around the intersection of 18th Street and University. This station provide s access to a concentration of Un iversity of Florida buildings, Ben Hill Griffith Stadium, the OConnell Center, a variety of churches, and a strip of commercial service businesses. The surrounding residential development is a combination of older single family student housing and three to four story, limited parking apar tments. Similarly, the second station not classified as a TOD located downtown at 1st Street and University Avenue is surrounded by a mix of historical residential and commercial stru ctures, included a substantial portion which are currently at suitable densities an d intensities for a light rail line. Given the limited redevelopment potential and the signific ant number of developments which would be complimentary to a light rail line, these two st ations were not designated as TODs to save resources for other stations.

PAGE 75

75 The final station not designated as a TOD is located near the terminal of the Gainesville Regional Airport on Waldo Road. Many travelers visiting the University and local businesses use the airport to enter the City, and the number of these passengers will continue to grow in the next fifty years. Without an automobile, these tr avelers will require fast transportation to and from their destination within th e City, necessitating the linkage w ith the proposed light rail line. Though a station is needed, the location on the outskirts of town on airport property and the subsequent building restrictions associated with this are the pr incipal reasons for not designating this station as a TOD. Transportation and Housing Calculations Table 5-1 shows the total acreage, density, and nu m ber of total units to be located at each of the seven TODs along the proposed Gainesville lig ht rail line. Based on this scenario, a total of 11,135 rental housing units would be developed if the prescribed densities around each TOD are followed. Using the current average of 2.02 persons/household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006), a possible 22,493 residents would be accommodate d under such a plan. If Gainesvilles population doubles by 2060, these developments w ould house 10.2% of Gainesville residents. Given the annual savings per household of $579 due to the reduction in automobile ownership, a total annual amount of $6,447,165 per year (in 2 004 dollars) could be saved for households within the City of Gainesv ille under the 2060 light rail plan. Factors That May Change the Conclusion Given the lo ng range time frame of this study and the variability of some of the measures from location to location, the conclusions of the affordability analysis for the Gainesville 2060 light rail alternative may be inaccurate if a se ries of assumptions are incorrect or conditions change dramatically in the next fifty years. As stated at the outset, this thesis set out to determine the affordability of housing and transpor tation strictly on a monetary basis rather than

PAGE 76

76 on utility, which includes time. In a poorly perf orming rail system with long headways and slow travel speeds, the amount of time spent waiti ng may negate the monetary savings from not owning a car and living in a TOD. Commuters typically value commute time at half their hourly wage (Meyer and Miller, 2001).25 Using local averages,26 if the average household spent 14 minutes longer each day traveling in Gainesville under a light rail alternative than one of the other alternatives, the $579 average annual transportation and housing co st savings would be offset. Home to one of the largest Universities in the country, Gainesv ille presents a unique college town demographic profile, which rema ins relatively unstudied in terms of both commuting and housing and transportation costs. Since many of these residents are dependent on their parents for income, many students may not gi ve up their cars at the same rate as other cities that develop rail transit systems. R econnecting America (2004) estimated a 44% drop in automobile ownership rates for residents within fixed guide-way transit zones; however, Pleasant Hill Station, while designed primarily as a park-and-ride, had a car ownership rate of 1.3 automobiles per household, only a 19% decrease below the national average. Given the suburban location and the automobile oriented design, this would be an unlikely result for Gainesville. If this did occur though, Gainesville residents livi ng within TODs would experience a combined housing and transportation increase of $1,225. Most significantly, the abse nce of a strong regulatory fr amework and/or government subsidization would result in only high income housing being constructed around light rail stations, leaving the poor to live outside of the station areas with fewer transportation options, 25 Kockelman (1997) found that commute times were valued at $10/hour in 1989 dollars, or approximately $15.23 an hour in 2004 dollars. 26 These averages include a median single-household, single-earner income of $28,371, 230 days of commute/work, a 40 hour work week, and two commute trips/day.

PAGE 77

77 more isolated, and paying higher costs. This occurred in development directly adjacent to Mockingbird Station in Dallas, as only high-end loft style apartm ents were provided directly onsite. These high-end developments do not ex tend too far past the station boundary, though, allowing for a net decrease in housing and transp ortation costs for many residents. If a weak regulatory framework existed during implementati on of the light rail line and governments did little to encourage rental units around TODs, the current trend of c onstructing only luxury condos around high traffic intersections may continue around T ODs. If 90% of the units within the TODs are initially sold as condos and only 10% are initially rente d, then a significant decrease in the number of low and middle income residents affected would occur.27 Holding all other factors in the model the same, this woul d result in only 2,141 tota l units with increased affordability, or only 2.0% of the future city population.28 Several other occurrences threaten the conclusi on of this study but are more difficult to quantify. One possibility involves a scenario in which savings are only passed on to the rich, and captive riders and low-income families end up recei ving little or no savings because they already live either without an automobile or with the maximum reduction in the number of automobiles per household.29 The different scenarios which may ch ange the studys conclusion appear in Table 5-2. 27 Many new condos are eventually rented out after purchase, but usually at a significantly inflated price removing them from the realm of affordability. 28 Using a City of Gainesville 2060 population of 22 0,000 and the current average household size of 2.02 persons/household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) 29 Captive riders are people who ride transit because they have no other choice. This is typically for economic reasons, i.e. they canno t afford to own a car.

PAGE 78

78 Factors That May Affect, but Not Change the Conclusion Several other variables and f actors may affect the degree of the combined transportation and housing affordability in Gainesville but will not change the overall co nclusion that transitoriented developments reduce costs. A fuel price change or the use of alternative fuels may have some effect on the calculations though the fixed cost of owni ng a car will likely strongly outweigh this change. With many analysts clai ming that the world has reached its peak oil production, prices for gasoline will likely continue to increase for automobiles over the next several decades. Gasoline price increases aff ect personal automobile users disproportionately, since nearly all light rail transportation systems ar e powered by electricity. Unless an alternative to gasoline becomes widely available, automobile users may spend between five and ten dollars a gallon (in 2004 dollars) for gaso line by 2060. Without further tran sportation investments, this cost of fuel would add an additional cost of between $1,594 and $4,250 per household per year for Gainesville residents.30 This would increase the annual transportation and housing savings for Gainesville TOD residents relative to non-TOD residents to between $2,173 and $4,829 per household per year. A recession that delays the development ar ound the light rail line may lower investor confidence in future projects once the market turns around, leading to densities around TODs that may never be fully realized. Even in the absence of a recession, these high densities required to sustain a light rail system may never be realized, as they only exist in a handful of large American cities. If densities were to only reach one half or one third of their prescribed amount, the proportion of Gainesville residents benefiting from reduced housing and 30This calculation uses the average of 21,250 vehicle mile s traveled per household from the 2001 National Personal Travel Survey (Federal Highw ay Administration, 2004), the average Decemb er 2004 gasoline price in Florida of $2 per gallon (Energy Information Administration, 2008), and assumes an average ga s mileage increase to 40 miles/gallon.

PAGE 79

79 transportation costs would decrea se proportionately. Using a wors t case scenario where densities only reached one third of their intended amount, suburban TODs would develop at 3.3 units/acre, transitional TODs at 6.7 units/acre, and urban TODs at 10 units/acre. Holding the other factors in the model constant, only 3,710 households would experience increased affordability of housing and transportation using a low density redevelopment pattern. If Gainesvilles population doubles by 2060 as predicted, only 3.4% of Gainesville residents would fit into this category.31 Recently, many cities have used sales tax to fund either proposed transit systems or bolster existing ones. Sales tax increases approv ed by referendum have occurred within the past several years in Kansas City, Mi ssouri (3/8 cent), Salt Lake City, Utah (1/4 cent), and Ft. Worth, Texas (1/2 cent). Using the high value of a cen t increase to fund a system in Gainesville, and multiplying this by the percentage of median income used on sales-taxable goods,32 each Gainesville household would pay an additional $56.40 per year to fund the system, reducing the combined savings of TOD residents to $522 on averag e. Since all residents of the City would be paying under this plan, the majority of Gainesvi lle residents would be paying the tax without seeing a monetary benefit; however, the total savings for TOD residents of $5,812,470 outweighs the cost to non-TOD residents of $5,538,789. Several other factors affect the degree of affordability but are not easily quantified. Transit system operating costs ma y increase significantly over curre nt levels, and this cost may be passed on to the residents of Gainesville though fare increases or yearly fees paid by students 31 Using a City of Gainesville 2060 population of 22 0,000 and the current average household size of 2.02 persons/household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006) 32 The breakdown of household spending used by Canby (2003) was used. Housing, Groceries, Insurance, Pensions, and Health Care were excluded since these are not taxed in Florida, leaving 36.6% of total median income from transportation, entertainment, a pparel and services, and other.

PAGE 80

80 with tuition. Increased parking costs downtow n and around campus may also place an increased cost burden on non-transit users, leaving users of the transporta tion network who choose to drive with higher costs, which are only indirectly acco unted for within the affordability calculations. One final area that may affect results deals with the economic affects on non-transit riders. Only a small body of research within the last hundred years has focuse d on citywide rent and property value changes in cities with new rail systems. A positive overall effect on rents due to economic stimulus or a negative effect on rents outside the station area due to economic redistribution may have a considerable effect on the results of th is study. Under a scenario in which light rail systems only serve to redistribute wealth rather than create it, a net savings of approximately $33 for residents outside of TODs would be absorbed, as the equal and opposite amount of rent premiums experienced around TODs are redistri buted to the rest of the community. The different scenarios which may aff ect, but not change, the conclusion of this study are listed in Table 5-2. Gainesville Conclusion At an October, 2007 m eeting of the Gainesville Metropolitan Tran sportation Planning Organization discussing the 2060 long range transportation plan, Commissioner Ed Braddy suggested that, among other things a light rail system within Gainesville would create a significant barrier to affordable housing. Commissioner Braddy used the comparison of the price of a suburban three-bedroom home in Houston to a two-bedroom flat in Portland as an example to prove his point. While Braddys argument may be muddied by the fact that both locations now contain successful light rail systems, it can be assumed that the point he was trying to make was that cities that densify around transit are far more expensive than those that sprawl outward around highways and arterials. While in previous statements at this same meeting, Mr. Braddy acknowledged a connection between housing and transportation, his suggestions of ballooning

PAGE 81

81 mortgages and residential rents failed to define affordability as a function of both transportation and land use. The previous research, along with the case studies in th is report, dispute any definitive claim of rising costs when combining housing and transportation on a square footage basis. While there appears to be a significant porti on of this thesis dedicated to chronicling Commissioner Braddys statements, a broader pu rpose exists than purely settling a personal disagreement. Mr. Braddy represen ts not only a constituency within the City of Gainesville, but a larger ideological position which must be pers uaded by the conclusion of this study and others to change their position on this topic in order to achieve the maximum possible support from the public. Many conservative and libertarian public policy institutes have ye t to be convinced of the efficacy of the new age of pa ssenger rail transportation and thei r criticisms must be addressed in order to fully inform the citizens of communities across the country. Within the City of Gainesville, a light rail system with an aggressive accompanying TOD policy appears to contradict the as sertion of drastically higher cost s associated by some with light rail systems. Using the assumptions detailed in this report, the proposed system generates a significant cost savings for the renters living within walking distance of th e station. Critics of this study may disagree with the many assumptions used to construct this model and may use these as reasons to dismiss the ove rall conclusions of this study. While changes in several of the assumptions may produce a somewhat different resu lt, the conclusion will most likely remain the same barring circumstances which defy current norms. Developing a concrete conclusion from such a long term study remains extremely difficult; however, the results of this study should form a starting point from which a debate may occur as to whether a light rail system in Gainesville in the next fifty years will decreas e or increases combined housing and transportation

PAGE 82

82 costs for low and middle income residents. As a result of this thesis, this starting point will hopefully differ substantially from that propos ed by Commissioner Braddy at the October 11, 2007 meeting of the Gainesville MTPO. Figure 5-2: Oaks Mall and NFRMC Current Conditions Figure 5-3: Forty-Third Street and Newberry Road Current Conditions

PAGE 83

83 Figure 5-4: Thirty-Fourth Street and University Ave Current Conditions Figure 5-5: Thirteenth Street and Un iversity Avenue Current Conditions Figure 5-6: Waldo Road and Univer sity Avenue Current Conditions

PAGE 84

84 Figure 5-7: Twelfth Avenue and Waldo Road Current Conditions Figure 5-8: Thirty-First Avenue and Waldo Road Current Conditions

PAGE 85

85 Figure 5-9: Parcel Analysis for th e Oaks Mall and North Florida Region al Medical Center Suburban TOD

PAGE 86

86 Figure 5-10: Parcel Analysis fo r the Forty-Third Street and Newberry Road Transitional TOD

PAGE 87

87 Figure 5-11: Parcel Analysis for the Thirty-Four th Street and Universi ty Avenue Urban TOD

PAGE 88

88 Figure 5-12: Parcel Analysis for the Thirteen th Street and University Avenue Urban TOD

PAGE 89

89 Figure 5-13: Parcel Analysis for the Wal do Road and University Avenue Urban TOD

PAGE 90

90 Figure 5-14: Parcel Analysis for the Twelft h Avenue and Waldo Road Transitional TOD

PAGE 91

91 Figure 5-15: Parcel Analysis for the Thirty -First Avenue and Waldo Road Suburban TOD

PAGE 92

92Table 5-1: TOD Developmental Totals Transit Oriented Development Land for Redevelopment Developmental Density Total Units Rental Units (Acres) (Units/Acre) Oaks Mall and N.F.R.M.C. 160.0 10 1,600 832 43rd St. and Newberry Rd. 184.9 20 3,698 1,923 34th St. and University Ave. 158.6 30 4,758 2,474 13th St. and Newberry Rd. 77.7 30 2,330 1,212 Waldo Rd. and University Ave. 100.2 30 3,006 1,563 12th St. and Waldo Rd. 162.9 20 3,258 1,694 31st Ave. and Waldo Rd. 276.4 10 2,764 1,437 Totals:21,414 11,135 Table 5-2: Factors that May Change the Conclusion Factor Change Cause Result Travel Time Increase of 14 minutes per household per day Poorly managed or under-funded system No net housing and transportation savings for TOD residents Automobile Ownership Decrease of only 19% with TODs (compared with 44%) Poor TOD design or inelasticity of automobile ownership in college towns Annual housing and transportation costs increase for households within TODs by $1,225 annually Percentage of Renters Only 10% of new TOD housing units are rentals Weak regulatory framework leads to the construction of mostly luxury condominiums within TODs Only 2.0% of the entire future population is affected under such a plan (a decrease of 8.2%) Unequal distribution of savings (not available) Only higher income households have decreases in auto ow nership since poor households already own as few vehicles as possible (captive rider problem) Regressive system where relative savings increases with income (exact numbers not available)

PAGE 93

93Table 5-3: Factors that Ma y Affect the Result, but Do Not Change the Conclusion Factor Change Cause Result Fuel Price Increase in the cost of gasoline to between five and ten dollars per gallon Resource limitation and slow development of new technologies Transportation and housing savings for TOD households of between $2,173 and $4,829 annually Density Densities at each type of TOD only reach one third of their intended value A recession or a lack of market demand Only 3.4% of city residents would receive increased housing and transportation affordability (a reduction of 6.8%) Transit Operating Cost Increase (exact increase not available) Increased relative energy costs Decreased combined housing and transportation cost savings (exact decrease not available) Area-wide Rents Overall, re nt premiums are negated since their increase in one area leads to an equal and opposite decrease elsewhere Light rail doesnt function as economic stimulus, but rather as economic redistribution Average annual savings of approximately $29 for households outside of TODs Parking Costs Increase (exact increase not available) Increased demand and regulation A progressive fee which would disproportionately affect the wealthy and have a lesser effect on renters (exact cost not available) Sales Tax Increase in sales tax of half a cent to pay for the costs of constructing and operating the transit system Lack of state and federal subsidy for the transit system All households in Gainesville would pay approximately $57 more per month, while decreasing the annual savings per household with TODs to $522. Rent Premium Rent Premium of only 10% Landlords place less value on rail transit access A rent premium for TOD households of only $788 and a total annual savings of $1,320 per household

PAGE 94

94 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion The conventional developm ent pattern of th e modern era has become increasingly less accepted over the past several decades. Cost-burde ned municipalities with escalating amounts of infrastructure to maintain and their residents, who once moved to the suburbs for open space and healthy living but are being cr ammed onto increasingly smaller lots and becoming increasingly overweight, are looking for a change. While the pe rsonal transportation vehicl e is here to stay, a reinvestment in public transit is one solution which appears to be growing increasing favor among all levels of government as rail systems have been proposed all across the county in the last several decades. A comprehensive planning approach encouraging a dense, town-centered development pattern has become a complimentary policy to many of these new rail projects. These developments, known as TODs, have the possi ble benefit of returni ng the focus of cities across the country to downtowns and mixed-use activity centers and limiting the unsustainable, and increasingly unwanted, sprawlin g land use pattern which has arisen in the United States over the last sixty years. Besides reducing sprawl, TODs have the abili ty to provide more affordable living for station area residents when considering combined housing and transportation costs. Successful TODs have been proven to significantly reduce automobile ownership, which currently accounts for nearly $6,000 of the annual budg et for the average American. While transportation costs are lowered with TODs, housing costs have been shown to significantly increase due to rent premiums around transit stations which typically account for ar ound a 20% increase in rent. The balance between these two factors appears to form the barometer of affordability for TOD residents.

PAGE 95

95 Within Gainesville and around the country, the ultimate test of TODs at providing more affordable housing and transportation will be whet her these developments and the rail lines that connect them, combined with comprehensive pl anning policies, will be enough to encourage a variety of housing stock and businesses to relo cate at a medium to high density around the stations. If, through government policies and ma rket forces, complementary land use changes occur around light rail lines, residents of TODs in Gainesville and other metropolitan areas that employ an effective strategy may view the automobile as an amenity rather than a necessity. If this occurs, many low and middle income residents will be relieved of the significant cost burden associated with compulsory automobile ownershi p, and the community as a whole will receive a net benefit and a significant savings in terms of combined housing and transportation costs. A variety of techniques such as public/private partnerships, land use regulations, developer incentives, and government subsidization must be us ed to ensure that a proportionate share of the housing stock within TODs is affordable to those employed in lower paying jobs. For transportation systems to be affordable, from bot h the government and the citizens perspective, a shift of focus must occur from a series of widely spaced, arterials to a more tightly spaced interconnected grid system around light rail line s and stations. Refocusing the transportation infrastructure this way in Gaines ville and throughout the country wi ll be a difficult task that will require cooperation and a common vision among local, state, and federal tran sportation agencies. During the October 11th meeting of the Gainesville MTPO, Commissioner Braddy noted that any long term transportation alternative sh ould be judged on its ability to promote social welfare, using the definition of Winston and Ma heshri (2006) as the demand for and cost of [light rail] service (pg. 363). Th is report proposes a much different definition of social welfare that includes the net housing and transportation costs low and middl e income residents. Under

PAGE 96

96 this definition, and using the factors and assumptions outlined in this report, a light rail alternative for Gainesville measurably increa ses social welfare, as combined housing and transportation costs decrease for renting househol ds of TODs in Gainesville by over $500 per year, with over 10,000 households affected. While this document is not meant to end the debate on the social welfare or affordab ility of light rail system s, it will hopefully be added to the list of resources for making an informed decision on light rail systems when considering affordability as a function of both housing and transportation. Further Research Recommendations Currently, a lack of research exists on how housing prices ar e affected, not just along rail lines, but regionally by the location of new rail lines in urban areas Does the location of light rail have a regenerative or a re distributive effect on housing prices ? If the effect is merely redistributive, then the cum ulative effect on affo rdability of housing and transportation within the region must always be positive presuming that the rail line is reasonably priced and adds additional public transit accessibility. If the eff ect is regenerative, this may provide an added incentive to business and city leaders attempting to spur economic development. If the effect is redistributive, then the whole community may benefit in terms of housing and transportation affordability upon the investment in a rail system. Relating specifically to Gainesville in 2060, fu rther research is needed to determine both the forecasted ridership using transportation m odeling software and the estimated cost of constructing such a system. More study and more experience are also needed with the various forms of inclusionary zoning policy adopted at TODs around the country to determine which structure and system would work best within Gainesville. The inclusion and effectiveness of these policies will likely dictate whether affordable and market rate units are built within TODs.

PAGE 97

97 These housing units will be reserved for households that may already not own a car, yet still not be able to afford housing within proximity to a light rail station.

PAGE 98

98 LIST OF REFERENCES APTA (2002), Transit S tatistics: Statistics By Transit Agency American Public Transit Association (www.apta.com/res earch/stats/agency/index.cfm). Alachua County Affordable Housing Plan Team (2003), Alachua County Affordable Housing Study Gainesville, FL: Alachua County. American Automobile Association (1993), Your Driving Costs. Heathrow, FL: American Automobile Association. Bailey, Linda (2007), Public Transportation and Petroleu m Savings in the U.S.: Reducing Dependence on Oil ICF International for the Am erican Public Transportation Association (www.apta.com); available at www.apta.com/research/info/online/documents /apta_public_transporta tion_fuel_savings_ final_010807.pdf Bannister, David and Berechm an, Joseph (2000), Transport Investment and Economic Development. London: Routledge. Bay Area Rapid Transit District (2006), "BART Information and Tickets." Retrieved December 1, 2006, from http://bart.gov /tickets/types/types.asp Bureau of Economic and Business Research (2006). Florida Population Studies (Detailed Bulletin 147). Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. Bureau of Labor Statistics ( 2007), "CPI Inflation Calculator." U.S. Department of Labor. Available at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl Bernick, Michael, and C ervero, Robert (1997), Transit Villages New York: McGraw-Hill. Boarnet, Marlon G., and Crane, Randall (2001), Travel by Design. New York: Oxford UP. Borchert, James (2007). The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History Cleveland, OH: Cleveland State University. Retrieved December 25, 2007, from http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=S25 Braddy, Ed (2007, October, 11), Alachua County: the Next Fifty Years Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organizatio n M eeting, Retrieved December 19, 2007, from http://helix.alachua.f l.us:8080/ram gen/CommissionAudio/20071011/metropolitantransportation-planning-organization.rm?usehostname Canby, Anne (2003), "Affordable Housing and Transportation: Cr eating New Linkages Benefiting Low-Income Families." Housing Facts & Findings 5.2: 1-5. Retrieved October 22, 2006, from www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/hff/pdf/HFF_v5i2.pdf

PAGE 99

99 Calthorpe, Peter (1993). The Next American Me tropolis. New Jersey: Princeton Architectural Press. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (1993), Characteristics of Urban Transportation Systems. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depa rtment of Transportation. Central Florida Regional Transit Author ity (2007), "LYNX Fast Facts." GoLYNX Retrieved on Janurary 8, 2008, from http://www.golynx.com/?id=1156155 Cervero, Robert (1993), Ridership impacts of tr ansit-fo cused development in California Monograph 45. Berkeley: In stitute of Urban and Regional Development. Cervero, Robert and Landis, J (1997), Twenty Years of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System: Land Use and Development Impacts. Transportation Research Record.-A, Vol. 31. No. 4, pp. 309-333. Great Britain: Elsevier Science. Cervero, Robert, Murphy, S., Ferrell, C, Gogatus, N., et. al. (2004), Transit Oriented Development in the United States ,. Federal Transit Administration. Washington D.C.: Transportation Cooperative Research Pr ogram. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://www.mapc.org/transportation/trans_ alternatives/transit_PDFs/3b_TOD_TransCoop ResearchProg.pdf City of Austin (2006), N eighborhood Planning and Zoning Department. Transit-Oriented Development Guidebook Austin, TX: City of Austin. City of Dallas (2006a), "DART Annual Passes." Dallas Area Rapid Transit Retrieved December 25, 2006, from http://www.dart.org/annualpassinformation.asp City of Dallas (2006b), "Downtow n Dallas Parking Facilities." Downtown Dallas. Retrieved Decem ber 10, 2006 from http://www.downtowndallas.org/Pa rkingFacilities-Brochure-5a2.pdf City of Oakland (2003), "Special Trans it-Oriented Development Summ it Issue." Oakland Now (Vol. 2.1). Retrieved January 5, 2008, from http://www.business2oakland.com/main/documents/oaklandNOW.Spring03.pdf City of San Francisco (2007), "San F rancisco Parking Rates." Retrieved January 5, 2008, from http://www.sfmta.com/cms/pgar/documents /FY2007ApprovedRateAdjustm entGaragesW EB.pdf Dawkins, Casey J., Haas, P. M., and Sanchez, T.W. (2006), Housing & Transportation Cost Trade-Offs and Burdens of Work ing Households in 28 Metros Virginia Tech. Blacksburg: Center for Neighborhood Technology, 1-197. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/pdfs/H-T-Tradeoffs-for-W orking-Families-n-28Metros-FULL1.pdf

PAGE 100

100 Ditmar, Hank, and Ohland, Glorida (2004), The New Transit Town Washington: Island Press. Duany, Andres, Plater-Zyberk, Elizabeth, and Speck, Jeff (2000), Suburban Nation 1st ed. New York: North Point Press. Eisenberg, Albert C. (2004), The Housing and Transportation Connection Housing/ Transportation Task Force (pp. 1-19 ). Retrieved October 26, 2006, from http://govinfo.library.unt.e du/m hc/papers/eisenberg.pdf Energy Information Administration (2005), "Week ly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices." Retrieved December 10, 2006, from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm Energy Inform ation Administration (2008), "Flo rida Weekly Retail." Retrieved March 3, 2008, from http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/ftparea/wogirs/xls/pswrgvw sfl.xls Ewing, Reid (1999), Pedestrianand Transit-Friendly Desi gn: A Primer for Smart Growth Smart Growth Network ( www.smartgrowth.org ). Ewing, Reid (2007, December). "Research you can use." Planning (Vol. 72.11; pp. 52-53). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Federal Highway Administration (2004), 2001 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation. Frumpkin, Howard (2002). "Urban Sprawl and Public Health." Public Health Reports Vol. 117 (pp. 201-217). Retrieved November 19, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/article s/Urban%20Sprawl%20and%20Public%20H ealt h%20-%20PHR.pdf Gainesville Regional Transit System (2007), "RTS Fiscal Year 2007 Ridership by Route." Retrieved on January 29, 2008, from http://www.go-rts.com/pdf/2007/FY07_Ridership.pdf Galley, Catherine C., and Burchell, R obert W. (2000), Inclusionary Zoning: Pros and Cons Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.ginsler.com/documents/NHC-2.html Google Map s (2006), "Driving Directions." Retrieved December 10, 2006; available at www.google.com Gore, Al (2006), An Inco nvenient Truth. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Books. Hall, P. (2002). Cities of Tomorrow : An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

PAGE 101

101 Hanson, Susan and Giuliano, Geneveive (2004), The Geography of Urban Transportation New York: Guilford Press. Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (2007), HART Surprises 11 Millionth Bus Rider." Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://www.hartline.org/departments/mark eting/press/press_ release_09-27-2007.htm Holtzclaw, J. (1994), Using Residential Patterns and Tr ansit to Decrease Automobile Dependence and Cost. San Francisco, CA: Natural Resources Defense Council; California H ome Energy Efficiency Ration Systems. Kockelman, Kara (1997), Effects of Location Elements on Home Purchase Prices and Rents in San Francisco Bay Area. Transporta tion Research Record 1606, (pp. 40-50). Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board. Kuby, M., Barranda, A., and Upchurch, C. ( 2004), "Factors Influenci ng Light-Rail Station Boardings in the United States." Transportation Research Part A 38.3, (pp. 223-247). Link, Matthew (2005), "Best & Worst Cities for Men." Men's Health 2005. Retrieved on December 4, 2007, from http://www.menshealth.com/cda/article.do ? site=MensHealth&channe l=health&category= metrogrades&conitem=84a7481031e48010VgnVCM200000cee793cd____ Litman, Todd (2003), Evaluating Criticism of Smart Growth Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transportation Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org). Litman, Todd (2007), Evaluating Rail Transit Criticism Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Retrieved on December 21, 2007, from http://www.vtpi.org/railcrit.pdf McCann, Barbara (2000), Driven to Spend: The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses STPP ( www.transact.org). Metropolitan Transportation Comm ission (2007, March 19), "San Francisco Bay Area Gas Prices 1986-Present." Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Retrieved January 6, 2008, from http://www.mtc.ca.gov/maps_and_data/ datam art/stats/gasprice.htm Meyer, Michael D., and Miller, Eric J. (2001), Urban Transportation Planning. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Niles, John, and Nelson, Dick (1999), Measuring the Success of Transit-Oriented Development Integrated Transport Research, Inc. Seattle: Global Telematics. Retrieved on November 14, 2006, from http://www.globaltelematics.com/apa99.htm O'Sullivan, Arthur (200 6), Urban Economics 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

PAGE 102

102 Penalver, Eduardo (2007, December, 30). "The End of Sprawl?" Washington, D.C.: Washington Post. Retrieved on January 13, 2008, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122802449.htm l Pisarski, Alan E. (2006), Commuting Patterns in America III Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Pushkarev, Boris S., and Zupan, Jeffrey M. (1977), Public Transportation and Land Use Policy. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana UP. Reconnecting America (2004), Hidden In Plain Sight: Captur ing The Demand For Housing Near Transit Center for Transit-Oriented Development; Reconnecting America; Federal Transit Administration (www. fta.dot.gov); available at www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/download/hipsi Sanderson, Marlie (2007, October 11), "Alachua County: the Next Fifty Years." Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization M eeting. Gainesville, FL: Alachua County Comm ission. Retrieved on October 29, 2007, from http://helix.alachua.f l.us:8080/ram gen/CommissionAudio/20071011/metropolitantransportation-planning-organization.rm?usehostname Schlosser, Eric (2002), Fast Food Nation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Sperling, Bert (2007), "California Shines, Ohio Aches in Battle for Healthiest Cities. Sperling's Best Places Retrieved December 4, 2007, from http://www.bestplaces.net/ docs/studies/healthy.aspx State of California (2004 ), "Pleasant Hill BART Station." California Transit Oriented Development Database Retrieved November 22, 2006, from http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov/ station/stateViewStati onData.jsp? stationId= 18 Sturm, R., and Cohen, D.A. (2004) "Suburban Sprawl and Physical and Ment al Health." Public Health. Vol. 118 7 (pp. 488-496). Thousand Friends of Oregon (1997), Making the Connections: A Summary of the LUTRAQ Project, 1000 Friends of Oregon (www.friends.org). Tri-State Regional Planning Commission (1970, July), Transit Supporting Densities ITR 41954451. U.S. Census Bureau, (2001a), Census Tract 3, Dallas County, Texa s, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P58, P62, P63, P64, P65, P67, P71, P72, P73, P74, P82, PCT39, PCT40, PCT42, PCT44, and PCT45. Retrieved on November 8, 2007; available at http://factfinder.census.gov

PAGE 103

103 U.S. Census Bureau, (2001b), Census Tract 3240, Contra Costa County, California Summary File 3, Matrices P58, P62, P63, P64, P65, P67, P71, P72, P73, P74, P82, PCT39, PCT40, PCT42, PCT44, and PCT45. Retrieved on November 8, 2007; available at http://factfinder.census.gov U.S. Census Bureau (2001c), Profile of General Demographi c Profiles, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Texas. Washington, D .C.: U.S. Department of Congress (pp.11835). Retrieved on December 11, 2006, from http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/data sets/dem ographic_profile/Texas/2kh48.pdf U.S. Census Bureau (2006), 2006 American Community Survey. Retrieved February 17, 2008, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/AC SSAFFFacts? _event=Search&geo_id=&_geoCont ext=&_street=&_county=Gainesville&_ci tyTown=Gainesville&_state=04000US12&_zi p=&_lang=en&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010 U.S. Department of Energy (2006), Fuel Economy Guide Washington: Environmental Protection Agency (pp. 1-24). Retrieved December 10, 2006, from http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2006.pdf U.S. Departm ent of Labor (2006), Expenditures in 2004 Washington: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (pp. 1-20). Retrieved December 3, 2006, from http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann04.pdf Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2007, Augus t 27), "Transit Oriented Developm ent." Online TDM Encyclopedia. Retrieved December 23, 2007, from http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm Walker, Carol J. (2007, March), "Building Book." Facilities Planning and Construction University of Florida. Retrieved on January 25, 2008, from http://www.facilitie s.ufl.edu/pdf/BIB2007.pdf Warner, Sam B. (1962) Streetcar Suburbs The Progress of Growth in Boston 1870 -1900. Ca mbridge, MA: Harvard University Press. White, S. M. (1994). Affordable Housing: Proactive and Reactive Planning Strategies. PAS Report No. 441. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Winston, Clifford and Maheshri, Vikram (2006), On The Social Desirability Of Urban Rail Transit Systems. Journal of Urban Economics (Issue 62, pp. 362). Zwick, Paul D., and Carr, Peggy A. (2006), Flo rida 2060: A Population Distribution Scenario for the State of Florida. Gainesville, FL: Geopl an Center at the University of Florida. Prepared for the 1000 Friends of Florida.

PAGE 104

104 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jeff Davis is currently pursuing a Master of Arts in Urban and Re gional Planning at the University of Florida in Gainesville, FL. He prev iously received a Bachelor of Civil Engineering from Auburn University. Jeff worked for five summers with Garver Engineers as a design engineer/CAD technician, and currently works un der Gene Boles in the Center for Building Better Communities. Recent work with the Center has included writing the Data and Analysis for both the Future Land Use Element and th e Transportation Element of the High Springs Comprehensive Plan. Upon graduating Jeff plans to move to San Francisco to work for the transportation consulting firm Fehr and Peers to be on the fr ont lines of the transportation engineering and planning profession in the be st city in the US.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101109_AAAACD INGEST_TIME 2010-11-09T21:48:59Z PACKAGE UFE0022221_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6510 DFID F20101109_AABMYY ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH davis_j_Page_020thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
ff73c78e4bd205f2d7b2c2638ecd9be3
SHA-1
e282d8e292af9e2ed4a0638509196ca6315bcc09
3854 F20101109_AABMCE davis_j_Page_093thm.jpg
48bfde7a665daa154a7d243809752687
146b38bfa3836adb18a2a7c47c906d76a0d857ba
55455 F20101109_AABMBQ davis_j_Page_050.pro
7278ff63306a1854a8780e5d3272a268
c341acc79636d81dd612f6dcecbc44fb047ac213
28880 F20101109_AABMZM davis_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
075d67d17d68c272ae8542fbef1dcf09
c549e6cb47fc686c4dd5f969ffccd63cd7e9a05b
28802 F20101109_AABMYZ davis_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
63c52295138df5e5a2e5578119aa494d
7300f41cb05005cf4f8ee21a4f8b0eac7d9c1012
1051962 F20101109_AABMCF davis_j_Page_050.jp2
6c62439742d8ae6554f81ad314f89589
bf6526ea48694aafecb919df7960e6e5fe60adc0
84579 F20101109_AABMBR davis_j_Page_094.jpg
b1ec6946af7598d326fee4f3c2e263a1
22217766f71faf13ff386e84593a43733ecc6aeb
16310 F20101109_AABMZN davis_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
ab30175af25a48eb1dc698eb1972f577
6bb97c280586b203ea243b39652328e103f21a1a
15053 F20101109_AABMCG davis_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
2a4c345363ccae93e3846e8fbc6f4e1f
55c1af5a3c652d70c2f4a0a84e2f0aba3070d6b8
29573 F20101109_AABMBS davis_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
0b0aa1f87facf136eaf75f7099b6b6eb
4613fad28e9760c5b2ea675d19de668d1e34d88d
26765 F20101109_AABMZO davis_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
dd2319ef330dbad67ea950087797dacf
34d26201d7eb19e5b5a74522720bb73fb9089353
2461 F20101109_AABMCH davis_j_Page_102.txt
e1075c00e4d0a6d5d8d82d633cff3063
234ebec3af3fad1d0ce2fe427f283fa7e04f55f6
68391 F20101109_AABMBT davis_j_Page_057.pro
8fbc17fe64484faa24ec593a77773a20
8d19a585760d8446320491382fb9f13102727513
20318 F20101109_AABMZP davis_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
a97325dc4d60a17631cef990133ac912
df7a3d5d3a0471a46162e3c88926c7658b2a4e31
6545 F20101109_AABMCI davis_j_Page_013thm.jpg
41ad11a59633580890e22b36bb3431f8
8b0e1d849cae5e5919582a13e20850965ec67080
25271604 F20101109_AABMBU davis_j_Page_029.tif
2071a2d136a6b2f5ff3292335f7201bf
f50a2ce7661bb532e505058f01be507b061ac9ed
6331 F20101109_AABMZQ davis_j_Page_022thm.jpg
6c75cae8bd658498133ee974b2b8fb15
143401dad32f3e876bb7becd73335bd15d88775c
6989 F20101109_AABMCJ davis_j_Page_027thm.jpg
8b9f1d0061edbdcfc3b36a01bc043be5
3a3e2b127e357e6dbcf858cf0217f8a2508dede4
54138 F20101109_AABMBV davis_j_Page_062.pro
5b0e295f531f19837bcb9585091d8295
d5761fb11b31b8f712d71f1f64f7e29a10c8eee9
4430 F20101109_AABMZR davis_j_Page_068thm.jpg
2c19f9415388994128a92c2d52dbfbc9
70de63164e0fff2197e6b4083dabc7bcc5e0d5d7
90090 F20101109_AABMCK davis_j_Page_050.jpg
be159fe7972709cfb88a5a2c5ee4ad04
84ccca861aec52383a6e84493d5eb81f34b47630
F20101109_AABMBW davis_j_Page_028thm.jpg
f22a3129a489939968c62c538f2c0e4b
f320fc52bcf82d3ca26692d6303827b230f4f252
6749 F20101109_AABMZS davis_j_Page_023thm.jpg
b67712d7c47bda2f8438747f951fa825
d34da165bfd85b43430b86e36742a23d889f2dda
6334 F20101109_AABMCL davis_j_Page_052thm.jpg
f7a53dfba9ed8ef784561e4a52f86d3b
86f2efe198e0a622842ab73b81a444c6ab7a788b
27106 F20101109_AABMBX davis_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
e47fdf057be98c01cd3f3d4fbb6e6181
29d09774ea9994262389bb09cda0984c90583834
7995 F20101109_AABMZT davis_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
7002dcc7e46eff2e06f3a0b56c4ac9d9
170db491177340970855ea634b933df7d200c70c
552 F20101109_AABMDA davis_j_Page_007.txt
b3dd7b9d5040468804b9adddf9e935d4
56a4e82c0008680e5839a72e236efb95f182e953
105799 F20101109_AABMCM davis_j_Page_102.jpg
bebe226f82e750d6626d583c14b950a3
1f9888ecde901479ff14558a98182075fe213faf
1051985 F20101109_AABMBY davis_j_Page_066.jp2
87a9afc3bf17864cc4f6623adb697898
f2b424d5fedaaa69ae566685f88778da4408cdb8
16223 F20101109_AABMZU davis_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
ed9cfd38d169a58c9f04fda4c23f213d
430406a5ce45b5ddaaf9ac903cffe93c5e659bf5
2013 F20101109_AABMDB davis_j_Page_033.txt
e70f83fc8ddf148aaa595dafe0e7b8ff
4fb60869cd7d60f31af41ebd04be0a443f5bbb5d
57541 F20101109_AABMCN davis_j_Page_044.pro
c1bfc313f64d258068a27ece64a07805
2b71cc9b5097a7bf420a660c9f30dcb8ecd46347
95259 F20101109_AABMBZ davis_j_Page_039.jpg
7f6361ddf4e25c5b1990c9ba396f9a82
fc1de0893190a3f07ca2a07aa99466dce272a5a7
5132 F20101109_AABMZV davis_j_Page_008thm.jpg
8fd32cf705d14a31a7ce5f510fa1bbac
f42e4b1979e371a99fe1465023c36f6cc5ccb072
27310 F20101109_AABMDC davis_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
b6d786fdc0c9bdf8a0138f53f691c712
07168a4b22b38df2cddbbbef3a5da169b7dc6e95
8851 F20101109_AABMCO davis_j_Page_082.pro
f31525b77b9ad044c4afc5c2937ef547
32e814f7ca309b86e29b2afaa69f06f4b999a295
6708 F20101109_AABMZW davis_j_Page_043thm.jpg
16238dca7a85d43792d476804f3d789b
f0ca7b941ffd499d22111fd5ea49bfcb95dfead7
2253 F20101109_AABMDD davis_j_Page_044.txt
54c650d43469c0f1e90a39e843036163
994c374c731792ed19ac755eff8486eeca49fb33
1741 F20101109_AABMCP davis_j_Page_008.txt
8b39de03b5d557149e7478c3bc1ed4fd
dc800deb3b3c0fee3172afa6821c4d4b873033c4
11262 F20101109_AABMZX davis_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
c1d1c465697c7942495d5be8c1dcfefb
5090b32de11d466886571e4f6ca0f65dbbb1ea66
1051926 F20101109_AABMDE davis_j_Page_023.jp2
0a90c513ab3cd9ed8aae77fccc04e967
8a8fe23be914b7095a745a3b3be5712c158c4487
105042 F20101109_AABMCQ davis_j_Page_097.jp2
436c3c32bbebc3e8f6c31c73b06accf5
cafbb020a1f2c4bb575235d0c1184089af1a837c
156241 F20101109_AABMZY UFE0022221_00001.xml FULL
d4544e917dd3ec288f890446730bcf7f
b6ef9f9d3a3ce6e94a6d0f1b09af21900dc57ac8
28125 F20101109_AABMCR davis_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
5fcc13e5b0b0db2bac8f9052799e3649
5823ba5793b5b05838a8696dc00c2efabb6569b7
428 F20101109_AABMZZ davis_j_Page_002thm.jpg
66371095e209c81d3f13e74de860df9b
3a0715775e47f7676eb64d46f75b940c38c3e356
6576 F20101109_AABMDF davis_j_Page_076thm.jpg
bcabd1f336bf252569e275dcee5cdaa2
fbaaaf07e0c9db7c4c467e20e765a9fb63b44491
2209 F20101109_AABMCS davis_j_Page_030.txt
d45efdf26d474989aa07d8ac808bdecf
d769f9bb027832d0958aea190d2b48f2dcb93f3d
99407 F20101109_AABMDG davis_j_Page_021.jpg
f88d00a0476d3dc6a835f92ce392a9e2
840962185dd4e5f09253886c57ca89648193eb4f
2363 F20101109_AABMCT davis_j_Page_029.txt
df22b82bfdcb201e2549d4ed50e5a5dc
602e3446cd38d2fd9fa9efbfdaa1d68931878b69
F20101109_AABMDH davis_j_Page_031.tif
0bb624069266f7de84f5daa77b012ddf
9069e338462d872bd015f99c00c511ab6805bf13
26253 F20101109_AABMCU davis_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
87c28db25755c513177a2e74412704c8
7a16f49c160638be7a43a53aeb52ac7e6d8231e4
2261 F20101109_AABMDI davis_j_Page_027.txt
b283161b11b175a5cc228185dbd329cf
0b890f13bea0c836f204001d221f2c37e0ec3d78
28514 F20101109_AABMCV davis_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
e88175ac8c7e7ffa0a1654b868ba6a81
9986cefa6f653402d199495b9de48c6d1de51732
2283 F20101109_AABMDJ davis_j_Page_079.txt
f62b03a4292e21fd9e25edcbbbb677f6
03eeb9b2756442c27c20df9a3a2fb047b0b6e124
28394 F20101109_AABMCW davis_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
11e3eafb47eb5ef8fd9d5d9bcecf8309
f08336d190b35318f534a759dc96ac88fcff080f
F20101109_AABMDK davis_j_Page_027.tif
658d725ff75eba8c1e0c9021232bbabe
bc813e37a0190b81ff35a35416087f2918b51f03
57504 F20101109_AABMCX davis_j_Page_095.pro
c1d218e84be30fe2ee1764c8b6132b2b
e4ad57813542f435c2a0317f38a4f66aafcba8b6
1774 F20101109_AABMEA davis_j_Page_092.txt
bb3857120a3d266d47029a783874961b
d46de0f4b0b36e8dd42c1ad16a2675832dc40fa7
F20101109_AABMDL davis_j_Page_028.tif
368fb086cf0b3004db47be64a0d40838
043cd01a58b96d039e8f99744b3fa39c169a720a
3796 F20101109_AABMCY davis_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
12981855a6b63ca26e1480061bfea466
a435bc5fc105bbbe05d148bc3b9c327d0f635768
1051961 F20101109_AABMEB davis_j_Page_079.jp2
712fd068532b419c804b5021e6137d9d
35df44cbad53f3e65b886b3ace1b0e0aeeb27a97
16619 F20101109_AABMDM davis_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
4043d95cd523bcf8fc400cdc6e5b1856
7b3699856d93d9f27b88b83d29e5a24c9f494bf2
30253 F20101109_AABMCZ davis_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
335602fb9fca4784af782a2eaf983fff
e655b146e2979e2c304bd6c9ade158f8369c5a35
6825 F20101109_AABMEC davis_j_Page_081thm.jpg
a28e4e4331638102a9c9043a4cec70af
d82de93585155a57b51b5a1966b8293a93471425
16372 F20101109_AABMDN davis_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
1f6f24f6aec96310e62cefc157b78f77
07397140b548661d714f262960ea06fd9ca85644
1051981 F20101109_AABMED davis_j_Page_098.jp2
62e53ff3ec9f6b158261047a55d04e05
0055f3cdf635ef9325f4df4ba60bf3cc41a42084
52599 F20101109_AABMDO davis_j_Page_022.pro
9774926b7ea6c43a5dab99dccecc5dd5
7d858cf24e284b0ac60f4776b6e47ac34343cc03
28041 F20101109_AABMEE davis_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
f70958b24263bea0bfd93015a00dc725
0c0ea328968d9df18a91e5ab53e83158c8a9dca0
F20101109_AABMDP davis_j_Page_096.tif
82e477cc6762d391b77ca549e20b0f1f
a283373446355e5b70ac1b7c42fd614954bb216c
6852 F20101109_AABMEF davis_j_Page_030thm.jpg
558ceaa16dfe3abd060a660af0680401
4162cb60a99e4cc2af916db05db24e9ec3a2fe8c
7450 F20101109_AABMDQ davis_j_Page_090.pro
c88622bcdafe7112dc11f962f57327dd
b361669d382d8765fb492471f232883f260aff68
50218 F20101109_AABMDR davis_j_Page_091.jpg
8546a64e4c7563f19bafe712ecadb638
6b9e9004b12f0b8bd4a9a872f736fd2a736087b1
53194 F20101109_AABMEG davis_j_Page_061.pro
c8ed010af06a8bcedf286ff29c6f981f
eb53471228278b7aba080019e7f607f4b0beb994
88276 F20101109_AABMDS davis_j_Page_066.jpg
96cd4be14bcf5da158539d74493cad1c
4e5e80c6fd218fd98d2afd3837e2b617216c6e26
6832 F20101109_AABMEH davis_j_Page_073thm.jpg
f72a81863ea983ce474af8acd33a96eb
9bc7e1d23875df25be9b60162a718d7393b6c3b7
7034 F20101109_AABMDT davis_j_Page_103thm.jpg
01f1d1393d51d9a1d5578dae6c4d4721
e30a246c0412b632f3752be2c67939ad2da84573
F20101109_AABMEI davis_j_Page_078.tif
33ae5e202d2344b5cea0d637e7d2f57a
c1171996c76801fd2204a5b1821e61cedfd56502
89750 F20101109_AABMDU davis_j_Page_072.jpg
2d2064bb092b81d665399d0595b689ad
22ace9c990a27bb9282edceee6ffff10e4412e3f
1051952 F20101109_AABMEJ davis_j_Page_017.jp2
1dd983812884794e576cbb7c773ee3d2
d9a640d0bc1817c16f67f26a20bbff786ad30ad6
6410 F20101109_AABMDV davis_j_Page_033thm.jpg
ccd64a5de13b03f70fcad4b2c0cf7c05
a4d728cd897a75f55697a5adcdcd35fc55738863
26775 F20101109_AABMEK davis_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
33f6b4a3437380e9dd4137177f5c8ab0
11b41311b0024e4916d190961c42822d7e1a62ce
89505 F20101109_AABMDW davis_j_Page_035.jpg
4aa0b80dbe800bed52063d62056441fc
46f3511c6f6633815546f6113b2bc54e2759fe61
3698 F20101109_AABMFA davis_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
e463482379255d46e8cb11be9bbf7943
a48ad5ad4841474b0cde33a54cdc6b1f530a3afc
26586 F20101109_AABMEL davis_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
805d311a7a2228065acda6cc7d76fdde
9661886827feecf46036023301961aa481b3ed2a
92236 F20101109_AABMDX davis_j_Page_080.jpg
361ed9c10e14a6e3db875d4a22e2c7f7
72a83cb57cbd912fa58a5ed7ab7072559a9bcbe7
15850 F20101109_AABMFB davis_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
7d94fd7f66179af905fdc70f8573131c
68479106c5457380d3c92be8f863d08acd7a0f29
973 F20101109_AABMEM davis_j_Page_097thm.jpg
37281095ca344e3adb227fae7bcf1cc5
d9518ac69b0923e94129b2dc2325a14d39fcda5a
102388 F20101109_AABMDY davis_j_Page_057.jpg
6c10cc71b1c2a871ed50ccd08036056c
4f2127cf62ae98bf942194fa66e04d0e2555e222
56462 F20101109_AABMFC davis_j_Page_071.pro
547b0b154a7bb8e6200ce4bd617b3fb4
9cfe7836d9c33ae567f18f6c256c4040237137d4
1854 F20101109_AABMEN davis_j_Page_001thm.jpg
f13931ef7d2fa7bf563eba9d785f23b0
24f69eb4f8df27bb8c7a29cdf55614d69219a1d8
51615 F20101109_AABMDZ davis_j_Page_040.pro
6ab3aada6dafa1b421a37c6ec323348e
b411f6747a8be3e03e5eb37cd00bb21db452a260
25265604 F20101109_AABMFD davis_j_Page_093.tif
201c0d6e7137df1e1855e7c1609968b1
0f97be0f12a0821b4694f915fb950f8746e748c9
1051901 F20101109_AABMEO davis_j_Page_094.jp2
5d6cab337d25df1b06d2e802959d317e
80eb9b176f49218aeb1a0ecb3191147f1d9bc972
408 F20101109_AABMFE davis_j_Page_087.txt
7ede8422597b653aed5986143e2cfb83
b7106538289c6dacff0d3ebf8c7732009d2f9b5a
28860 F20101109_AABMEP davis_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
b250165f0b8da40a54b235dd8f76c4a2
9425bbc7f1781ee9402ee720e4a2b8bf96253604
6658 F20101109_AABMFF davis_j_Page_078thm.jpg
57b948b6cec95469c597659fe037ab47
93d6896f6125ae611ea9c5b8faf2e657fa926110
F20101109_AABMEQ davis_j_Page_037.tif
41891b14963fe5dfb5ab1aaf7303d473
55d0dab9cb433577b0d1f645bb65ef2b6a6d2161
28519 F20101109_AABMFG davis_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
faec38b5818a79fad2b0cab08dfd80cd
fa25a95458c19f341307a17cf1d909a5bf0ed9a4
27848 F20101109_AABMER davis_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
e199182f2d1eaebf295a64156894b51a
755a6810c90b2939909373269b507c77e59d5ad4
2382 F20101109_AABMES davis_j_Page_017.txt
4757317d4e1fdf862bed34a809f631f4
3b027a5f7f641916c7beb58d3e4bac5f32292dae
5993 F20101109_AABMFH davis_j_Page_004thm.jpg
c6ad62ef0cc3818dacddd1ef2caa3c33
5353af4d107d914c71e3e1a5ff71c53b982b0fbf
87708 F20101109_AABMET davis_j_Page_096.jpg
099400559e71b62fd8add7913772b7d3
25913d4465bbbed7c0d92f8f9a4ba36db6961d5a
1051932 F20101109_AABMFI davis_j_Page_076.jp2
542712e810ed08fb69f40a7a1d33e81a
cb7e5a10e930e823fa8a3f48db3b48d88822ad07
1049385 F20101109_AABMEU davis_j_Page_055.jp2
27519df9b8bb94b78d1ec7a3ed5ee6d6
1398f281a6237acf9b9542790a9dea449652c24a
F20101109_AABMFJ davis_j_Page_013.tif
cae23fb6be4fb7e46ed5f8c5b6a690a3
17898ca1833083dfe385486639ffaec1d677b45c
1051975 F20101109_AABMEV davis_j_Page_087.jp2
284f2d4efd2a46177eb012b9a75d79ff
d8789d1f06dab8d331c29e33c85f1747d91d07ad
2162 F20101109_AABMFK davis_j_Page_070.txt
41a498ed961d852d3c30759ef0ab78e9
cdfe599b0ff33f01c978d0a6c6b67711a4751e83
2067 F20101109_AABMEW davis_j_Page_022.txt
a66334e04d34355ec420b5381d00bd52
05313ec6a155579af8e002715165f5b1b5f1ef2f
F20101109_AABMFL davis_j_Page_071.tif
b21c053d5a02293ec79cd63e58d7392a
c53144a586077df7f3f05336a337c3b28ea9a985
2145 F20101109_AABMEX davis_j_Page_096.txt
12143d719d994766723e2f3d598427cb
7b18ad59a933d9184cf1b6da7d206a7f4c7136a0
6717 F20101109_AABMGA davis_j_Page_034thm.jpg
aabac953b95c6f3f0feb76a3c1c7ad49
bfa4fc886a41949d7b55203bfeb2e0b6bc1b6399
1051931 F20101109_AABMFM davis_j_Page_015.jp2
4d852d1415714c85a74144c9db7cc246
3f5343447cc7ce6c918a47aaea41abad94b55b32
17076 F20101109_AABMEY davis_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
bcbbd997fc89c46753e43cb9f306fe00
bd23c17af929571de07941f3e2fdd86adf651010
1051920 F20101109_AABMGB davis_j_Page_071.jp2
c4d50a2a5e3caacc3efce46bd8441e1f
090ecbe97c009a79beda257aa405ef864fd1991f
27291 F20101109_AABMFN davis_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
e1978d3dca3cee0e19d9510218e07186
8722e3468ac02066adf1815a0d336a149d587040
91806 F20101109_AABMEZ davis_j_Page_010.jpg
0f02f4cb02e2f9f8d42080e12189b28f
9cbc046f4f26d572d6227b51d2640b17794edbd7
89594 F20101109_AABMGC davis_j_Page_024.jpg
9a56493a3a7d5cfa08987973a8a75d19
85b373ff329058db8fb0d210bfae10f8254f7a92
4645 F20101109_AABMFO davis_j_Page_090thm.jpg
7d74232b985cd0f2b0a83b3e0153dd91
d66c3e7a8041a015c7db3df8b46a24633b2a5740
60341 F20101109_AABMGD davis_j_Page_043.pro
b01c887c8c2f9ec5634675cdb341b36d
d56eb2011efd7344e2ef1a71f9761377badfd2b8
F20101109_AABMGE davis_j_Page_039.tif
03a7dcdc13e04ab6f6fe7f8f2a45b5b9
7b1ca3d069bc84897e6a525f791835c20ca1def6
1051977 F20101109_AABMFP davis_j_Page_034.jp2
f02942af5cd4b639b7790ad30d800b48
c80d1782457bd09971288fc89ba4091b8f80c44b
F20101109_AABMGF davis_j_Page_045.tif
f92c766acbeaf646819189f3520b26cf
cc319da9570f8d242b23a04fb3b426f43b6ca07a
7989 F20101109_AABMFQ davis_j_Page_083thm.jpg
2ba6d4c571097b1af3b4c7cdbe79597d
79812c9aa45f14ad01813945530e4decb998717a
43158 F20101109_AABMGG davis_j_Page_008.pro
86a0132d9c935476a815f5b259250bb5
d4824233b02b53ab52f445e17e14ff01b0d0075f
F20101109_AABMFR davis_j_Page_052.tif
6ab83074423133d4987cb3cc784c09d9
4216466a3135d8f210b951312f1020a565f85d71
1051960 F20101109_AABMGH davis_j_Page_077.jp2
8611b8c477ab0c526c4a2e3173887556
1aa66b413740446841818f759134f9b093524155
54523 F20101109_AABMFS davis_j_Page_087.jpg
e9f81b22c5e6e74d4620dd49a930fe98
9e667baea785a0e58ed34c7cfc4af15a98f59122
2204 F20101109_AABMFT davis_j_Page_067.txt
9e8bcca2107ab82e1d569f43e587f10c
7d104d4afcfb4f4f534bb6aad5f3964829372ea9
60569 F20101109_AABMGI davis_j_Page_103.pro
256acbb1f391425726ef7fdd0e04f191
6a570034442961c4a236539219320e61ca6666c4
74247 F20101109_AABMFU davis_j_Page_005.pro
10336d603390f7a1d8bcedfc8877d25a
9fdf3e9c1c60f38eff4c08ba14ea69868a02c6d5
6411 F20101109_AABMGJ davis_j_Page_040thm.jpg
4d7c1343f411bcbefe1aa207f627e2d8
371b452f78093a76c393b832a7265210cefd9716
51908 F20101109_AABMFV davis_j_Page_084.jpg
0e9d7edddff075bc72b518d3cf266178
613ddb6a33b6d79330dd878fa6383dfffc943d60
54999 F20101109_AABMGK davis_j_Page_075.pro
8566fa8b01f85bbf3b902b441c6694a4
debd4c74ea33150b1894fd0ecbbb35a9244ce3f0
11109 F20101109_AABMFW davis_j_Page_009.pro
6a2a9a5fcb6e6672b91382c2ff112a5f
b53a2b0589382d188d3e796d6aa852908d9d7c89
1051983 F20101109_AABMHA davis_j_Page_031.jp2
c68df2d673890ab6df2b21981a2916a8
16826878ee2c09aa804c8c7eb967936965fda6d0
6502 F20101109_AABMGL davis_j_Page_047thm.jpg
872e54cc1ec60ce7dcd94fc5f677207c
cac8fcc7c173c3fd0d2c7fa553de6cd7f29278aa
2169 F20101109_AABMFX davis_j_Page_025.txt
96c6c0c9829c51d72c2a8b9dbefbb443
d984fedb648a21cc38ec18ff3978fafc352da54c
92713 F20101109_AABMHB davis_j_Page_030.jpg
92602f476d0979aa5d57ae591009c27d
af198e19e6c0dba33fd20b25efc0a354719c7a13
51885 F20101109_AABMGM davis_j_Page_077.pro
5e8b9c530ed05f087f02b0979d484fd4
e9585db5534b24ce2bc6e63d214c84ab849eae21
99587 F20101109_AABMFY davis_j_Page_098.jpg
f33e6c8039d4c123a8108f74bcb470dd
09ca582e0b5c845e118b27942a2cfcd6e60250ff
1051980 F20101109_AABMHC davis_j_Page_075.jp2
e599920eb87cb66244bcdb73ecda93d6
5c57e0b0010cb246a3001ba983ad8cc99aec5a2c
93446 F20101109_AABMGN davis_j_Page_095.jpg
cc1fe3d7ea39c8dc035a8c851f44cca7
cefedc856ccd51733abf3e8382a770edf981c3cc
28283 F20101109_AABMFZ davis_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
8d02409d83925aa5e991c0904f76e062
1843aac0594294038b57d8d4d7615f70b63a46e4
83225 F20101109_AABMHD davis_j_Page_005.jpg
26afbaade9eb6420596fe640407868cc
c2dc48cd6a7df8c809a6015ae0589da7b3cc1da6
26636 F20101109_AABMGO davis_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
ffade82675be937fb62b578648c34e8a
fbd5f4d9894d2c5eb1576e090b2aff8cdd1a2fe7
92604 F20101109_AABMHE davis_j_Page_058.jpg
277c571e6cc3cc510be0ebdc3ecaad16
d8659df6690e680648eaeaa31bd45bd3a9375dd1
6564 F20101109_AABMGP davis_j_Page_075thm.jpg
f23c128205c19a38d1de470ade24aa08
8a72fb4f42134572774d6e0a1381160c3097b1d9
488 F20101109_AABMHF davis_j_Page_009.txt
e111dcf5e4923bd323047d19dc4e286e
f8ec4bf48141370a8bc34ccd16f46abf42cb643f
29128 F20101109_AABMGQ davis_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
46acbb9beb250d8b7a570357f9cdfc33
f4ba170155f9c86e552da0d0e12b2c53e213aeb6
4442 F20101109_AABMHG davis_j_Page_091thm.jpg
0ffb46f6c1bb5d21b883f66295c892c0
3321badefa4f6355231c2b4d0e030c05665c5f1f
29881 F20101109_AABMGR davis_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
eb91aaa9a030b56eeca7b7f3c96b6f49
04908210a0acb4103bdc43f33cd2afba33cfd5c5
51799 F20101109_AABMHH davis_j_Page_018.pro
6cb409a1ff682382f920816a85c4c84c
9b5403b8ebbcda73b90426727fd5e07631cb0879
62351 F20101109_AABMGS davis_j_Page_099.pro
8dbe34d234ac89b8d5d5505059503d51
26a80ee3a27400099ba073b79f064650a47fe026
1051979 F20101109_AABMHI davis_j_Page_025.jp2
ca82fb1ccbca4c679f0bcaf0787ffe60
eac6607ce26b046ecad9d6740fe1c1ceece8bcf2
F20101109_AABMGT davis_j_Page_055.tif
6c33f9cad26dd60088537f3527fff24a
431402f9e3799f1afdccb7628b4dac2041fa9739
89309 F20101109_AABMGU davis_j_Page_069.jpg
2939956a25fb99a1a68ef0491c548e49
e7685a875b541b1468c8be3dd09dc782b37f6cd5
21323 F20101109_AABMHJ davis_j_Page_104.pro
4c5dcc783e4123f25aa0af248676bce1
9dce50e845d1fb02e91d8ba59b4bed15f55fb127
6248 F20101109_AABMGV davis_j_Page_014thm.jpg
4623deb8667dd5a13b9111996379bf3b
96bc8a74cc425468499fc9372222d09fff25b40f
F20101109_AABMHK davis_j_Page_091.tif
426457ca0b82decd259044f10b7286d7
8dc4c75b0db22929723685a10727cdf04847bec2
39298 F20101109_AABMGW davis_j_Page_104.jpg
52bd678ade0298afa307a3e038159795
e8799cd9564bd65966156d6ab9b56625700f75d9
2179 F20101109_AABMHL davis_j_Page_072.txt
dc9d12e14a70ae4a340ecac34df6f850
7ddd76fe0fa98aabe45f4a0f9165879cd3d763dd
91094 F20101109_AABMGX davis_j_Page_076.jpg
83a3002c08c3c65a77c2b8d6ca088e64
b8961fc10bd4b2711ba5a6b025905c4fe1fcdf88
49319 F20101109_AABMIA davis_j_Page_093.pro
51ff9bb9a3362f49605023d9542ae11e
33dc848ec37861d93185efb6696ba9738b733c50
F20101109_AABMHM davis_j_Page_011.tif
ee4449f3f74e66c46f3d787e7411c64a
bb19aac53287998f4d7fbad792cddb2e3cfd3d1d
86329 F20101109_AABMGY davis_j_Page_052.jpg
9ce89b4a809a5f62d3421217ac784285
b14b7f071c0061c8f767f76d4975951ff2599d73
84293 F20101109_AABMIB davis_j_Page_033.jpg
2b80237285cd2550f921b8c94f485035
2a4b182fa3cafd21d095a76507301a6f4f52bcc2
24130 F20101109_AABMHN davis_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
464d8ccf499061e2b7be84ea87cace14
424a5ebf4ac3e18edd5633efffd0e91b197dfa52
F20101109_AABMGZ davis_j_Page_074.tif
139a51f14eaaa5901b364d8ac6985a57
481e151f3fe1e7720a4367fb9f40056618feef1e
2941 F20101109_AABMIC davis_j_Page_006.txt
f7f74025b1850410f723c5b5244b3951
17c8e35c1bd4cb61d5d5da304b1490be03063518
F20101109_AABMHO davis_j_Page_008.jp2
251f72ceedecdfabea3ad0ff57840a83
8430c4ba17555c7387215c7af7ec00c819d9c63d
6686 F20101109_AABMID davis_j_Page_079thm.jpg
50134e5629ab1eabd11d1caae9b9d7d5
5541516985dde9cc836a28a44b186eb073d2c568
F20101109_AABMHP davis_j_Page_059.tif
d3a671c1a7aed3e5ae6d365e3719f18e
b2e66124e74ae439b433414499a14f5801239fb3
6803 F20101109_AABMIE davis_j_Page_016thm.jpg
88c21188880eafc1af1ac56d2fcfc125
a6f868ede3afb0e433e08405b296244c4be5fd77
27839 F20101109_AABMHQ davis_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
d9fd67c4500d70574100d95f7cc4d6df
8ca4f53ed816dcb68144f5f2c65af39886edbd98
28367 F20101109_AABMIF davis_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
b9e061baee7fd12cd7d12b7d72380d43
e5a076aa29a8a1180fe937ee68565d440e39b401
2039 F20101109_AABMHR davis_j_Page_018.txt
e48caeea13620decfcbfb094d46dec9c
bf4b044b3110711b7d5ea2dde2306c503298ad12
F20101109_AABMIG davis_j_Page_093.jp2
48eda45263781b6accc7dd146a15c11f
74037f07363de3f8ed5941372d57c714b8471c1d
884 F20101109_AABMHS davis_j_Page_104.txt
ad91d72b5de365e93ed10a70e1267520
3a9325a3d6f83405bb61be628a2c432faef7b0e8
28797 F20101109_AABMIH davis_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
c640d9b7c49ae4b147b923bc1075fd3b
22d4725643552e90bfec138f8821e5ed3a6519c2
2089 F20101109_AABMHT davis_j_Page_031.txt
d80d3d9dc87ce12901efa80dacf16573
8d41afa2429fb2e9ba017dcf06fdb82f6b5a6569
994 F20101109_AABMII davis_j_Page_003thm.jpg
c56ac6fdb93ac05283595b2a8149b5df
859f44dabb1e8fcf81fa771940a11a18418567f2
8623 F20101109_AABMHU davis_j_Page_091.pro
12ff787ec54cad497ff9adfe95eb09c5
3dd7ffa9b774ec8c70069861eda1c02a8d5138ac
2042 F20101109_AABMIJ davis_j_Page_019.txt
e09166f09107a8e4eb32bd4f46f8c5ac
8a0341db09206a4d48ef526d7d3773a7ed204e2a
28323 F20101109_AABMHV davis_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
067cae015c6719eafbf27569246ca677
c216085835e3088b6e9c8a693c70463be6fc356b
92418 F20101109_AABMHW davis_j_Page_078.jpg
9e6ea01df8ddeb2608201970722e5639
87016e06cf3ed6abcd1150aca170d597d50297af
52119 F20101109_AABMIK davis_j_Page_052.pro
402e8c79b48d2126d690e627f756823f
260ee845a20945d460d5b1be3c50cb6fb8008593
89497 F20101109_AABMHX davis_j_Page_081.jpg
7b7a5a019f6592c425d88176e028f0ce
8be2a2914a37a9b261d1de25aebae7a5098279be
4718 F20101109_AABMJA davis_j_Page_003.pro
15ed10fae98d1acfd74571b917a436b5
1717ad7e89ebddc4fa028a935c7a29b610b39a9f
2690 F20101109_AABMIL davis_j_Page_057.txt
b69d6f6c5d8688195ff9e370f86b68f9
ce84ec5a6d5f62d6f1c8e0818b173f3fcf38391c
2083 F20101109_AABMHY davis_j_Page_064.txt
52de2091f3e8084ee137d661c3160128
2429f49c74696d1ec2faad653943dc65d6b437e9
10049 F20101109_AABMJB davis_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
b4ce458836fca791fb439b684179c29b
d6179f828c6ef11b2ba64d1c9c898f8159a21379
456208 F20101109_AABMIM davis_j_Page_011.jp2
a8fc743f0afe6c422c318a100c4f4e16
c7b30d6e96a086d460d21fb508bff298b519820f
F20101109_AABMHZ davis_j_Page_081.jp2
be4886dfa7d8b2d895b2e5edc515ebef
2d30ad2902b5cf09301ceed613c5ab46c120c10c
2459 F20101109_AABMJC davis_j_Page_046.txt
c4fa71af9288d4d4624d7f938c4bfbad
5e1eb1ebf019c0653ae6126b31c3db84b5d58efe
6684 F20101109_AABMIN davis_j_Page_060thm.jpg
c16bab97f2776aa15fb3db870315dd12
b0623f2b192d76007d86b8c8a40df97ab3b2c9ce
F20101109_AABMJD davis_j_Page_009.tif
e12cb29d426a98ddf40c3abf6d0d74c6
ea7d47ee0c0591a47c03f64dfadaa21d9086ea6d
3260 F20101109_AABMIO davis_j_Page_002.jpg
43b084137dc780ccfd325b5612534e7e
0719fd573b90c2bb44c632b371d84e84fc1ef90f
F20101109_AABMJE davis_j_Page_072.tif
c95cd91b1c962ae30360686a1f383ea0
21f4e491cfd02473739f1b06ec1dcf02ead47343
F20101109_AABMIP davis_j_Page_075.tif
0cc228219940e90aa80ff0c8d0426134
f0cd42c83128537c3d27ab74a11ef54e3478893c
2167 F20101109_AABMJF davis_j_Page_042.txt
f2685735760237452775e75389bc9894
74b2faeae95163bdf182b54cf86234e5f45d2565
F20101109_AABMIQ davis_j_Page_008.tif
cbc1c5a8519c641c68b45529cf002bd1
8c202c77034d930415b92565463eb787851800af
F20101109_AABMJG davis_j_Page_021.tif
8ae1ff2983185e362f0a5dea0f095f4a
73bc81621de67413b427e446cc0e573f3ea8ad77
30100 F20101109_AABMIR davis_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
87bc656bd3a413a5deb885525c494f1d
9b3e20180161fd37e553c8657a497c09f0404cc0
58024 F20101109_AABMJH davis_j_Page_079.pro
8c0cca0f71c961c2624bdb828b97f625
6af132049789029a6ee3b7d9684fa072fb555dad
3152 F20101109_AABMIS davis_j_Page_005.txt
e1ff702bc0f0520e412b692dfcd495cb
980eafa35befa9619ce141558ca374c9d727cbaf
29370 F20101109_AABMJI davis_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
01f01e9db084e225f7fbdc61564d6f37
0a605261a1a1c3f6b52c954f2fc671083cf3388c
F20101109_AABMIT davis_j_Page_061.tif
b98ead62f3908c269fb5653812aec7d4
65c7852372aa03d690fa3e8e6e9cce48b1fdfbb1
10666 F20101109_AABMJJ davis_j_Page_001.pro
e33d5e92acd998cd45f58d89c364044e
2ac391a7a04c3ea11c5c37a7c4c6a4cc38d8ac39
4009 F20101109_AABMIU davis_j_Page_053thm.jpg
979a8b365e417f83d73e66d0aedff16f
a5a46ab89cd79bad26b14fa4366f962a9bcdcb18
51877 F20101109_AABMJK davis_j_Page_068.jpg
5b048760e5cf07d62db12229de7e5b97
06a79ee28e7cab82074083e3ca4593af6c9d2b6c
54577 F20101109_AABMIV davis_j_Page_013.pro
513908ddc0b9d031f821be14358d884a
509f2e6060bbea7de3e8d5940c98e06f40a3d6e9
27082 F20101109_AABMIW davis_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
1977acb79a17bf6ce76dc962ff406c10
8ab502e3ce1b29494a8cdd78dcb6c23f8a2739fe
F20101109_AABMKA davis_j_Page_015.tif
557d5de77b9926f1fed9760b1ee01fed
665f95044babc8b30d1cdd3e84c7c900205582f9
55063 F20101109_AABMJL davis_j_Page_025.pro
eb48e43a93bb5c200012cee6e28eaa7e
8437cf638a2457e873179c2d1bdd991b422eb670
6703 F20101109_AABMIX davis_j_Page_012thm.jpg
8449ed09e5ee1e79d4d944eeeccbca38
2010d7e168572685c9588491b5446f173ebb34be
54949 F20101109_AABMKB davis_j_Page_063.pro
e866f821653e0c5aa8d7e78f03e0a456
7043c24fc73ce46fa044570ca7e0d187681d6e4f
2152 F20101109_AABMJM davis_j_Page_016.txt
d58815ab15ff1f07593bfe319dff9ab9
e4a1270cefd600931799d856f05572fb7489269b
89618 F20101109_AABMIY davis_j_Page_065.jpg
aba21a14739575b6bec0f946316f0f53
69472491ff1b76161f7b5f5950c818126277fea1
F20101109_AABMKC davis_j_Page_077.tif
3c41ea68d7af9463213b5ebd57701971
0efd399ddeeb88094347fd27eb56f9f3dfb4a700
2355 F20101109_AABMJN davis_j_Page_098.txt
dd3fcaa16d8f7aca5bcef3d3fca0c8c4
d37d2f815d27ebe25895850a4b57806c5bb8b5c1
2833 F20101109_AABMIZ davis_j_Page_054thm.jpg
a53511416bcdeba564e12314105594b0
7d05a290c07a1a59313bdcfe39d8787a474a1810
56154 F20101109_AABMKD davis_j_Page_067.pro
6f29ab8b94a9a66dccab8c0e306fd83b
0cdf40e2ed5dcd02443a274954deb5a7a67599fa
2284 F20101109_AABMJO davis_j_Page_100.txt
6f2d5a0cf0edf91344605b76955ee534
02f94b72ff8d71507ab1ffd9c1c054542d0c2bdc
6865 F20101109_AABMKE davis_j_Page_057thm.jpg
2a6901dfd5578149482524d366c4c905
e98fc3793d9909d2bbe67a15920a8a4f5f3de0cf
2148 F20101109_AABMJP davis_j_Page_013.txt
86263b9a7c7b76fed7285812719a866f
823617140a08f4243c3e092e5e0702d5240066ae
58794 F20101109_AABMKF davis_j_Page_059.pro
e4de6716944c5b49a4d6eab3edad0ac6
d9ad5760845eae9c8bfab680b3824fbc2d5b6bde
3736 F20101109_AABMJQ davis_j_Page_055thm.jpg
00ea3dd66cabb216fd9ddd423b27e2fd
4fe0f491f3340130ad9569d4304843f55052d190
4634 F20101109_AABMKG davis_j_Page_087thm.jpg
904a40ab287b2f0231a5f8d576f3feca
49d99622d5eed825aeac02fdd571cda75a115260
811 F20101109_AABMJR davis_j_Page_011.txt
963edd26d3108106cfd951a8e5d80743
6312ad1ac52b2da92c9b8fefee700695f6ddab0e
2242 F20101109_AABMKH davis_j_Page_058.txt
60638c1c9898cca8da323f5dc626baea
426a4f6f9d88a06ffab7226118005397020b2c8b
F20101109_AABMJS davis_j_Page_063.tif
a9384eff1dc5e3a43e8c94bd8bd5b2c3
abf3a0b36cc27381c64d0a0ed0d3b334eb75a8bb
57643 F20101109_AABMKI davis_j_Page_098.pro
4410f9cd0e45c8cb93f72309b28e4181
1729ae7e5c717968529338fea08e75302917094b
31605 F20101109_AABMJT davis_j_Page_054.jpg
74712944e8dbe7e2633b9eb4b2bd72ce
c67587dd8185d0c5bf5cb3d94ed36dfb4654a800
467235 F20101109_AABMKJ davis_j_Page_007.jp2
03da6619cc6e92177ce14e3e2ce135a1
0d029c05260363d15ef93a22e828709e2f199bbc
1051986 F20101109_AABMJU davis_j_Page_048.jp2
b21c0340de928dbb993c4251dbc2ec98
a9c782cdc7d80612853a5bd3ea383eb0073afbbe
F20101109_AABMKK davis_j_Page_007.tif
c9ae5947fd2311bf3cb113f89c396b49
3af314bd006a354e9b214d126dbbdd1b9d382a58
53131 F20101109_AABMJV davis_j_Page_031.pro
3712526ebb148ef657330f3a3ca21c25
9d89f69246f7262547d0b17c09e52c7c59039460
89826 F20101109_AABMKL davis_j_Page_038.jpg
0fae1332389d194f6a204796d2d09eec
5f12291129ba354f6e8dd0fad878fbb208cd484b
1051954 F20101109_AABMJW davis_j_Page_029.jp2
8de06d6c08f12fe63e93aeacdc086eb6
8b325bff2d65008d3b111b71a85d3d9a669a3935
F20101109_AABMJX davis_j_Page_092.tif
d73cd59e9a725f264aa020c9a6bae2e3
a51a65963b30d21450e45581433ac369cb154e1d
F20101109_AABMLA davis_j_Page_017.tif
8865ad7978cae3d87b8271b6adbbdac9
ae06d84f1ce88e4b92eb623729de0a6cac51970b
93031 F20101109_AABMJY davis_j_Page_071.jpg
7753ee824354f387e1c7b5677863c12e
829be5c6cc80e0faf23a6b35e7038b05ccece6d3
2104 F20101109_AABMLB davis_j_Page_009thm.jpg
6148fe25c9ec0530963a150d2714ff89
ae2a12afdd18f448f1ad4f764cd2cf622f4ea61a
1051963 F20101109_AABMKM davis_j_Page_064.jp2
4a4eedde27371108690ed3d52a6e6a9a
fd4ed31cd0fde8337a97c683b68b945622adf6b3
6723 F20101109_AABMJZ davis_j_Page_017thm.jpg
324e56dd412f81a3a3bfc62f9cddbf9f
9a0e4ea014c3f7f1ed7d32a73a6be9c8e2a9277e
90481 F20101109_AABMLC davis_j_Page_051.jpg
847733e93ebdef235e39dc2fb38c43e3
67d810b1a53caf8e82b5a3febc14462b49f5249c
F20101109_AABMKN davis_j_Page_030.tif
4d30525e571e4c0df3eff25217a7fc9c
7fee31e28ff9079de99bd776cb0a1cd61cda2a9a
7955 F20101109_AABMLD davis_j_Page_055.pro
96c720c51b48aea320d29502c9bbe75e
5d17e2968697fd014d8f78393b631645b7762d82
56226 F20101109_AABMKO davis_j_Page_030.pro
c31a732009ff5214380b0f0cc85dae0d
c527b6aa330437eb4c218fd9d73172c379a375f2
F20101109_AABMLE davis_j_Page_046.tif
8442d56994d07a68cb8eff8b13a52c56
8bd3d8e352963bb8aab969887bcbe6fedea19bfe
3048 F20101109_AABMKP davis_j_Page_104thm.jpg
52aa684d5e110884b9a322e49616d855
ab4f2777d459a2fe637ab3bcc8ab4736b49301a6
27325 F20101109_AABMLF davis_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
5ba54b02a0ab196a29f20acccec610c8
43f79cb4c5763b33758c71aeac576d05db0596c0
2573 F20101109_AABMKQ davis_j_Page_099.txt
1d45b831175600a0340e3aea432189ff
4c7c3126ffba2b50e15a66ee8f29bbbce68cf37f
2011 F20101109_AABMLG davis_j_Page_093.txt
56cfc80e0dfb9e6fc8341f38cd9575bf
22c4b65a180e239977a472f14abf0c82056d01ff
2221 F20101109_AABMKR davis_j_Page_032.txt
75cc166325ab737813c4fe5d7f4a0019
84a57709041f548f556365c2ff17a64d82a16480
54699 F20101109_AABMLH davis_j_Page_016.pro
1315bc6ae7405f4cb0b500eb14e221e6
d38f7835ce7123b49bac65f43c139969e2963f8d
F20101109_AABMKS davis_j_Page_006.jp2
f629ca274b9447560d573c24c8985d8f
b9cf3cad8a8dbbf60e2aa5a033d7e4eac19a62fc
F20101109_AABMLI davis_j_Page_057.tif
4fe5593dc59932666d8178adb2a8a297
2a8ae23bad811108d6b8822932465257f2407833
29321 F20101109_AABMKT davis_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
83a0b46e5461909cdc9d16b46f9cfddd
ed77556bbb93604012308405dc38dfa9d0cf7844
27420 F20101109_AABMLJ davis_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
fa5d60c05d117ac4550263b85c373c35
a61edcdd9f88f89d51dc278b1cf9065fe82b73d7
6976 F20101109_AABMKU davis_j_Page_058thm.jpg
5708d0ac2eab1205605b3ba4f333c484
a70664cc1d3328dd30509b6ee8136158c81de53e
292 F20101109_AABMLK davis_j_Page_089.txt
6d248c97f0c30dbae2c03213beb862c6
7c93b0e34d6ca5f6cb4a25169e491744c8b03ede
58026 F20101109_AABMKV davis_j_Page_089.jpg
3534006dd6bd0198ebf74a955c750f36
6246a3c2faa6435f0ddcdf0bc83e4b5bad15e098
F20101109_AABMLL davis_j_Page_058.tif
0f07627bbb0c4af5b820048dea4a2308
2b31ceaa7b343b48d13c45fa7e6c6fa2cae172bb
F20101109_AABMKW davis_j_Page_035.tif
382ec9ffa814bd7c54302c68a16787bf
88106448b8ccb6b9978592ace64a182c055c4839
93552 F20101109_AABMMA davis_j_Page_070.jpg
54d65aace500dddfb358f4c57580d65e
2979c697dd94ae50b0585d41fce85824199a24a4
94750 F20101109_AABMLM davis_j_Page_059.jpg
bdd56793a83223772a843b3185a1a487
0b012bc026ec59d0c49bae598c693de6b97b8ea5
90433 F20101109_AABMKX davis_j_Page_020.jpg
3345820639dd9f97e8b904968a5bf659
39656fb828d00bd99422ed297b17a962242ab8c9
F20101109_AABMMB davis_j_Page_020.tif
e83ea609e7578518e66705b1685be5e7
3af078a8ad7284049a6a4dbbf8e323ab19f0cbd6
1051865 F20101109_AABMKY davis_j_Page_089.jp2
1469dd11fe08185669bc3daf442adea1
57c31c515854d625f06d9f6ee7b32039a3312f84
52917 F20101109_AABMMC davis_j_Page_064.pro
b94be7cc47f66a500fcef939b09b46ba
a6657fe919ff7f4a26bbc003d7021db9da2f6266
2291 F20101109_AABMLN davis_j_Page_038.txt
5dadc49b5aba34ec536b58d5744e997c
676c4349a91bc2627be50e8437102239ec5d5b59
6679 F20101109_AABMKZ davis_j_Page_038thm.jpg
7bb73f756ac8af49ebdb626f2fd19ce9
0d2f189e933ee262883cabdd3353289af8dc2ab7
F20101109_AABMMD davis_j_Page_063.txt
5d6e5ca25a5aec2cc4e71ca66f3bc6f4
1c5dd1975a29405b69fccf688879fc55b64f5f8d
1158 F20101109_AABMLO davis_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
35ecd0236d379490c6671991983fa1ad
fb090d77f0161f45e3d502db7468aecbf5a466c0
47253 F20101109_AABMME davis_j_Page_015.pro
920c7fe771a63c5b56647b6fd3a39257
c14e6ff653ff611305fdc899162e4ece27f63207
185 F20101109_AABMLP davis_j_Page_097.txt
f3c036801a16b1c898a132f7a4c01f15
b9372a6694d9260ae2e3fd077f085dd9d158c022
91011 F20101109_AABMMF davis_j_Page_073.jpg
c6839a3641b1ddd3e0882446e7231e89
5f3735c5761c0c2f52681db2e0bbd095c7cfcd92
2060 F20101109_AABMLQ davis_j_Page_060.txt
d85dafaa73eb5843c4bba9c6fb2e9c4d
f67b80fd705d6ba98d9afa88851147b0a696a54e
F20101109_AABMMG davis_j_Page_022.jp2
7809997bacbd30fcebe6f6db2dfe7ff5
8ddb4f59f41557c7a1ba6a9cfbccbca021fe408f
223 F20101109_AABMLR davis_j_Page_084.txt
e1e20259f3881d4142f728f2501b353a
821af6a1f3cdf70216ebff1a3fcca515e7fa614e
1051968 F20101109_AABMMH davis_j_Page_014.jp2
740a4c84c206a1186c512023e4a3b0e1
d910a0f04c6ac2d277cad8bddb48e49429146834
82 F20101109_AABMLS davis_j_Page_002.txt
ed3834e739cef5a10873e0f8c9efc325
3737e5e363d43fe4776c225f5066ca509928367a
F20101109_AABMMI davis_j_Page_076.tif
c3f5e9f3d13111432ecbb911310eb2f4
cb8134d04f66f8fb3103d72e256c28cd786933bc
4848 F20101109_AABMLT davis_j_Page_084thm.jpg
540f58232eeb73416cb37081d263a6ce
6d1663df7c9e6bf15e604c908fbe3b58c9766554
1051924 F20101109_AABMMJ davis_j_Page_038.jp2
7ffe29c7e8bbe7d01a83afa143b7347c
336cc21b4588f1fdadc3084d4f44cd2688c2d573
F20101109_AABMLU davis_j_Page_086.jp2
86e0374e566b4ccee5e8179639852570
cfb7c9f97817bf53cafb365509bd082fb5fc6ba3
120877 F20101109_AABMMK UFE0022221_00001.mets
422f6e81b4f24304e3db000503a91b05
74fa126bd821986c4fe1d04e4cdd52e961f7373a
3643 F20101109_AABMLV davis_j_Page_092thm.jpg
255e4a4885024fb96378e8b2f14f3cdc
c7f3e30801d2425911ad7efbeeff624d6ad284f3
F20101109_AABMLW davis_j_Page_067.tif
48b8ea641ca26f3697360b71e8f8b128
ab244dac7ccb0687b5f73bc47434c551379943c9
85396 F20101109_AABMLX davis_j_Page_026.jpg
baafc5603afe7572dba7efdde4152d9c
628bf38c2f73b3dfd137a04795fde57732f5dda9
96621 F20101109_AABMNA davis_j_Page_017.jpg
06be79b14437a7f39a6bbc6c321eba7a
0653e4d634a1563ab4a580848bdfb91c4cb8d783
27806 F20101109_AABMMN davis_j_Page_001.jpg
4df27a9fd996356282dd3b6a99b9e2cf
f1ab53d3c2cab85f7e0ac069637989591ff3afcc
57352 F20101109_AABMLY davis_j_Page_058.pro
479602e2c646c5478f62f334ead48e7d
44d541c7288ddc20246e72be94f318fc2a4252e6
87488 F20101109_AABMNB davis_j_Page_018.jpg
4f18f49aeb16ddd207c6dcba0d9d263e
e098a9ab5cde01e2cd82dd627d78140af6ed2e49
16741 F20101109_AABMLZ davis_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
ffb4a0d33a46d926fa963dfae6404d7e
2d6f32e1ebba2f3c33c3eb07cbc756a68434d5c0
86568 F20101109_AABMNC davis_j_Page_019.jpg
8fee7fbb3410236a1ef8a371959d9289
352ddbc6a9751968a5d63264b2cee00d9030c557
10118 F20101109_AABMMO davis_j_Page_003.jpg
88b9897fc08b7599c102f0372b63bc89
f4f26b013a15963986ad3d2b14b6f8f2bcb115d7
86413 F20101109_AABMND davis_j_Page_022.jpg
6ce1f6709e7a71abed0b43f7bb988061
b888e5fd398f24b1450fa074509a2bbfbf47f87b
78182 F20101109_AABMMP davis_j_Page_004.jpg
85b0badd6b5fcea75b06b8b2e22ce9f4
7542e6a3043ecb29d1359a7ad12aaef87b8440b6
91754 F20101109_AABMNE davis_j_Page_023.jpg
8cee6f89279298a7a5a1f7356beaaee9
630d44cb548aade3cf3c99449410d893eb97210e
94315 F20101109_AABMMQ davis_j_Page_006.jpg
9d06fa8c8da33dd06d3cc8e15b08df35
e3989298fc4cdce3b22bb27cf206b2298165efea
89018 F20101109_AABMNF davis_j_Page_025.jpg
7e2aa611ee546fb8989f8e71c1c4b285
b0bb95000a024cd8a9db377f84721af48da00871
22847 F20101109_AABMMR davis_j_Page_007.jpg
c690d6feb39cf7de39917feed0d02709
1c695c7a817ba192a47bca89c7b22f6711625cd4
94022 F20101109_AABMNG davis_j_Page_027.jpg
32f991d485add1815746f77316d8e2b0
4689a7e01c006be694bfe91a422b31e1481e7a11
73465 F20101109_AABMMS davis_j_Page_008.jpg
aff82fec9d906b577b3f6c17fb779a61
5796950875cae8408edd404c40f7b2f4d537002d
86961 F20101109_AABMNH davis_j_Page_028.jpg
ded3a966d6f2a33d44e5cca27e297c3d
2ca0028260088808d9d4a96716a45a8f80c5a595
24673 F20101109_AABMMT davis_j_Page_009.jpg
8e8a818e08d3a8686f45aab04ef85b8c
5693321afb2cb630bd8945d99c5084eb0c021b46
94370 F20101109_AABMNI davis_j_Page_029.jpg
d66f1856bb4175a05641e65457d149df
775441a19dce736bff280e55671843b3a3e5f78f
35801 F20101109_AABMMU davis_j_Page_011.jpg
202b1ecf7c36255ad5d90d0c4f146356
0b4ea731de1035851767ba7d9969b99a016c3dfd
90030 F20101109_AABMNJ davis_j_Page_031.jpg
bfaf1f5befbfad6beb5951323820106a
81acde56ba36065966d5a3006d7c032abee1ab99
92890 F20101109_AABMMV davis_j_Page_012.jpg
cc9ca9384a75ecb7a8ca8ccbf724c18b
44ddfb4302b836dc4e9c2aabc92bdf38245206da
93435 F20101109_AABMNK davis_j_Page_032.jpg
d371f8ed4df7a150af8e4dbc44dc6ec4
271f284aebbe1162b3a15b6bc200d94eb513e1c9
87029 F20101109_AABMMW davis_j_Page_013.jpg
091869269bcb669cbab0f0dfae5b6ecf
2055644b57f1615b70c21bf58239d2aa001f1a0a
98622 F20101109_AABMNL davis_j_Page_034.jpg
855c81660e6481b964f0ca3fbcf45057
2abf8736e325ab9d6591001d1e91d560b9ff6881
85083 F20101109_AABMMX davis_j_Page_014.jpg
aa4e95e58fc014592bee6268a221037e
703a62e3c24e941e2667100c38f612d7b4835e82
83457 F20101109_AABMOA davis_j_Page_056.jpg
12d9f70faa0393f14bf006cc89159572
f24015f3833cedea0c07452db81fb5834b2f7e0a
94255 F20101109_AABMNM davis_j_Page_036.jpg
ae734b59f983cc2d0e98c08d49bec4c0
de9cdabb696003263677a8c8f992ac080052b268
79019 F20101109_AABMMY davis_j_Page_015.jpg
0f8f9e138e1d43d0955fb024934ef498
988fddb52a2f40078ef0038783985c386db82b15
88146 F20101109_AABMOB davis_j_Page_061.jpg
9fca577a04cebba1b38af540b973aac7
69efb71adc2a26bc05737923d968996d11360c02
89886 F20101109_AABMNN davis_j_Page_037.jpg
6f3b566a83dfa34d8c885b7c3fdd5aa8
b8978e07441e70a62f534f1fe645d6b570b8ac24
90718 F20101109_AABMMZ davis_j_Page_016.jpg
da9b2a7f729f26281a587438d5f83a93
322f14e69ebe84a8af17f952744a4fd57be6b8ad
88854 F20101109_AABMOC davis_j_Page_062.jpg
c2f60e273b946c674b3d7e9fca7f1c71
7bcd190575c742adf47e17daf4b09e1383b17f9c
84801 F20101109_AABMNO davis_j_Page_040.jpg
04da1679df522fa4098b9cc3e5ee8635
fda43c0709934746e2afe8176b4726c3e9968f34
91031 F20101109_AABMOD davis_j_Page_063.jpg
19005ae1130e21672c4b2aa3a2074fb0
aff9b748ed969a49edf46be22ae47b6f20c81a68
88424 F20101109_AABMOE davis_j_Page_064.jpg
893ab1edba4371d76d3bbf9eb935619d
c400e82589578d0e5c85f55d28a38ffcd347f7ea
24749 F20101109_AABMNP davis_j_Page_041.jpg
625fc2ce86ba8081ed30e1d652414456
8624923b9177e519d20355f486479b30d818ed97
91256 F20101109_AABMOF davis_j_Page_067.jpg
2fdaa16c659bd4f746952a4431d8b408
3a8f6d33197d4f87b544317d7251ed5a50f43d81
85281 F20101109_AABMNQ davis_j_Page_042.jpg
5d134c0c970b8241c730f214946bf950
355b7a17588de2c53556e859c4fdd85aed753c70
89437 F20101109_AABMOG davis_j_Page_075.jpg
940224873850517a7e58388ff8ce8ce1
eaa6e9d4b3b2c78d0d7142f5be46016d43859391
92686 F20101109_AABMNR davis_j_Page_043.jpg
b1ef4ed8347d8435104d92eb9df952a0
1c9bfb9a8610bc12e729d1c78e985d9aaf9bd892
80262 F20101109_AABMOH davis_j_Page_077.jpg
85c1ea6aa45e01958295ba354b1c8893
667917e1f4a58294c620ec7b2c68c90eca6e7605
92119 F20101109_AABMNS davis_j_Page_044.jpg
f6807092926e2494f1f6a4f28bbe43ba
1dc95d5b32eb8fc36c16a1113d8b7f1c67afb3f9
91599 F20101109_AABMOI davis_j_Page_079.jpg
feb495fd1a3add1a2a3c12827327f22b
4f02498ce050173ed176ba56145bd24d64e4dba5
88245 F20101109_AABMNT davis_j_Page_045.jpg
eaafab26a250ba6fd8a1470641cbe81e
23e5c6869b57efba3f19bace98747f27023b1994
67490 F20101109_AABMOJ davis_j_Page_082.jpg
80a6fa7505b0a0124758a27e01635a59
70734b17d47d0a34a68417ed90ea3bbe64e91a58
91730 F20101109_AABMNU davis_j_Page_046.jpg
6b4f93b3794a9479200e55a56a17b976
868740d53f925ba7fca961166f9210eccff47f47
84054 F20101109_AABMOK davis_j_Page_083.jpg
23f40d875f3b74f0cfed2679346b81bd
8c97c45246309e41b85ca701454ff6a6d796f685
87094 F20101109_AABMNV davis_j_Page_047.jpg
65a083c64b819549bbf9fe0f257ab12c
017b6df486ff0769ec933de5999f84781cbffbfe
55105 F20101109_AABMOL davis_j_Page_085.jpg
87f5ca524d7893d573025c2bfbef7785
3f0f8cad8b9cb84f2c0c539c2dfd1b40e3a933d7
95031 F20101109_AABMNW davis_j_Page_048.jpg
8f941c643b43f0b82fee0f53b9f8b640
438fc1ff5fa23fae809c75f1236e2c906ed6b3b9
1051913 F20101109_AABMPA davis_j_Page_005.jp2
c37de476aff96a89b6b863984f3e5109
6dc66ecace52a26a0a73f78e8d83aa46880fd9bd
52925 F20101109_AABMOM davis_j_Page_086.jpg
f7f1e9c81713f108d2bc975e330c1120
eb38108215132d2e1439a1577e8a0be283d23b79
88974 F20101109_AABMNX davis_j_Page_049.jpg
1b9e54aa9323ee1ca283c761b5880451
c79f7ca1bae10d27ddfadcd020ec7900ba0bf137
291782 F20101109_AABMPB davis_j_Page_009.jp2
092df26d5741807cca0289b7483a7ad9
04d027f7ac53229bd0a043c4be09856d07873ce8
57176 F20101109_AABMON davis_j_Page_088.jpg
0f42e0c3c249db4210c33695990277bd
cad1f1a3bad35d4fd289c61332fcc457f24055b9
50622 F20101109_AABMNY davis_j_Page_053.jpg
a08cff9db1d348e4f774a672a0bb02ec
2e5383bc8ea5f58b946069c533363af8b97ea785
1051958 F20101109_AABMPC davis_j_Page_010.jp2
3bd3d6f5bca35466aa3e9b3e19603137
0790b2e10da0ee5dd4b275c85dab21f4ef0cb0f0
52149 F20101109_AABMOO davis_j_Page_090.jpg
3f8270b2303f041d368b43f4edb700e9
aa0f81968465b085f7ed5e53d0276fbf9020882e
33425 F20101109_AABMNZ davis_j_Page_055.jpg
ef627eaa69889b69189099a6068e5971
d92d345f08cb0a43fb0aca1e10676c8f4c49b7f1
F20101109_AABMPD davis_j_Page_012.jp2
7d2f5028a02a43fa4af163a60f23fb0e
ea32c92e0ab1f4edcb6b048bc47f1fc1ef6614a3
48372 F20101109_AABMOP davis_j_Page_092.jpg
eeb98b149f14db9749d29b28aa33ca31
d3ccba28472526d21453ba912bbf083b48d68967
1051966 F20101109_AABMPE davis_j_Page_013.jp2
59a6b84191c28506680e06df3bb679e4
a74b27ab304536ce2d20c41194f018188b7af12e
1051956 F20101109_AABMPF davis_j_Page_016.jp2
27286d2823f81cd927504f9d6a1c13d1
e86c3aacbecece46b6f92b89044c79792fd229e4
51528 F20101109_AABMOQ davis_j_Page_093.jpg
de5d4bdbc672b7e2a7386bb2aa452649
a895842e424b9ea6f90f6773127116d071987020
1051946 F20101109_AABMPG davis_j_Page_018.jp2
bcaa94c6367031cee42235a5449e4131
9503113bf97be7950f000499b31af18feaa79354
10094 F20101109_AABMOR davis_j_Page_097.jpg
513a50bb6634b936737384f0609e894f
dc6d14bb02e40c468b09a6b6833ab75d7620702b
1051970 F20101109_AABMPH davis_j_Page_019.jp2
01352a192df091908c324b9b81aba36a
a313f06e690ae772587bf470a4991e58e63bdc29
110335 F20101109_AABMOS davis_j_Page_099.jpg
adbf3d85f9618869f155442d0d926692
fdb158bdd43830ff402799fccc3d8ad85d4d5863
1051971 F20101109_AABMPI davis_j_Page_020.jp2
1f79b7d1b9597f0777430f71c9d674c4
437df898fc330a74b27b185af0a3b95626987ff2
100103 F20101109_AABMOT davis_j_Page_100.jpg
4d58c87b6d2ab8da323d987aa882afec
f2e23798d7c41e34b08f8aaf16fffa2fdf1af155
1051972 F20101109_AABMPJ davis_j_Page_021.jp2
8490855e5cb1ef451ad19fcf11de1f2b
c2d61b34149af3a810d9b06fd5aeed274515984c
105392 F20101109_AABMOU davis_j_Page_101.jpg
2b36a094c0084b8fb2b9c8cb66c1bd1d
58712e4976e5a6c0aed777b2715498c0a0ff35ff
106735 F20101109_AABMOV davis_j_Page_103.jpg
70ac576279ae65e876cbd40009163901
96cbace483a64ff9324ca5dc80e3246af07224ef
F20101109_AABMPK davis_j_Page_024.jp2
894a7beef88aba86307d4f218c332ca9
aa9099c195b6f81e3a055c60371f41fdc63b8ec0
319733 F20101109_AABMOW davis_j_Page_001.jp2
859a6c8b4755c1bfca858b9a58686c4e
df27dd218ee782f80e210d9e6726f14b57c96550
F20101109_AABMPL davis_j_Page_026.jp2
a111e1d847a9906c387c3a77e284e89f
a201ec07f653f2967ed4bcadb39ed6c32fb77b3e
21647 F20101109_AABMOX davis_j_Page_002.jp2
7e32be700e0f3f00cc530086b0ce3269
23b410a7d1f487756f77a0a8a8b68db025cc1827
1051974 F20101109_AABMQA davis_j_Page_045.jp2
53a5d4ee45930ed0fbd13b9f4af94d64
df77909e036cad79db544335f7c6672e61723950
F20101109_AABMPM davis_j_Page_027.jp2
8a776bd092dc3b6984160540e2c99e63
2535fb0c498d5e2246dbbddfb3e8463ecaf14096
110869 F20101109_AABMOY davis_j_Page_003.jp2
823d60a7678af9810ae805a6226df876
4ea185d695d72f7b0096a409e5167c7e6a50e9df
F20101109_AABMQB davis_j_Page_046.jp2
63bc1161d706d069a7fd6b898ed19026
ee3765e6324e09d78a8aa1b9d51c68817383e05a
F20101109_AABMPN davis_j_Page_028.jp2
9ad21d25e97cd3ace0e38f5ccd9877d1
14338131045d7555282ca2cfabe29e512631421c
1040317 F20101109_AABMOZ davis_j_Page_004.jp2
d2934fdee08f42239030aec7da96540f
dce0a200058c15498b23a1d1f6d2a1c835c6c049
F20101109_AABMQC davis_j_Page_047.jp2
5a7c2d4c7332163cb82af1ad13e4583d
8f7101fd6da51003ac8e48a91ac70863795b6300
F20101109_AABMPO davis_j_Page_030.jp2
cb7d95647360b71752b66c97ee9f2646
7bb66a2768d31ae1fe3fd4694ed1b7a29666042d
1051984 F20101109_AABMQD davis_j_Page_049.jp2
81902978e11e5da55f5eb8566047fad1
8687f51ee84c3cf6d5ad7fa5800503c6f21d5c19
1051957 F20101109_AABMPP davis_j_Page_032.jp2
16ee3383dd9cfdbe830d4cb8e44cb4f9
8a8980aac99b14ef81a869b79f49f2be08a77512
1051936 F20101109_AABMQE davis_j_Page_051.jp2
b9a82d0f2752d773c6b37ff79b3ff680
d6ae624f10f84a821cb5a34c94070420f3e848e3
F20101109_AABMPQ davis_j_Page_033.jp2
67d15c754d2a608f9691d4d12c7aaf45
dfcd4b9237ab9fcd3b622144ee7036afc33efb6d
F20101109_AABMQF davis_j_Page_052.jp2
7ee0275e69fb2002c338b5b3bd2757fd
937b3018aea6502fa4597f75f7149ac5db16f188
659758 F20101109_AABMQG davis_j_Page_053.jp2
a4e2a67bc864c76bdad40ad020bcf02d
5f03c8debddf3ab6a1e29c91e5dc0a4b6cb13f49
1051951 F20101109_AABMPR davis_j_Page_035.jp2
b9928d4a5f86bdc9267074af437ad8c1
b262b24fbef91da6fcab395377ed7164f18cee0f
515621 F20101109_AABMQH davis_j_Page_054.jp2
4fcdd5aaea60a2b1cdc9f07c20ed9c3f
210158237f1add563a7560194986ac449fdc0f2d
1051941 F20101109_AABMPS davis_j_Page_036.jp2
183ea387a820380d8a1010abad73cce2
26a4837c836b5e07582ee39c972cec125dd0e2c1
F20101109_AABMQI davis_j_Page_056.jp2
1a07b6e7536fb5a156ca1ebcc95f58ee
80fd25544dc41d2d9f751914bf7d89d50b13713d
F20101109_AABMPT davis_j_Page_037.jp2
07b11e78ba182fa77462bfa2cc7ae66e
de2731423e5657683f02ab3c5a7cc8ab298e3bfe
F20101109_AABMQJ davis_j_Page_057.jp2
bf37e2c8f056df9e54073857d11dc82e
1518d23738fc5fff0659d88528243b907a3af972
F20101109_AABMPU davis_j_Page_039.jp2
c9a4ca3d1aaf5379153c156e9e9cf87b
6dcd74fa59ffb00f8d2952b19c02ebb0af7ebadf
F20101109_AABMQK davis_j_Page_058.jp2
532f3f3da922cd2362e93d633fe1b992
bd6053f61aba171218a94ac3bfeabf3204cdc5b2
1051948 F20101109_AABMPV davis_j_Page_040.jp2
2bb5a2e0eea288482e211573a68e0e40
b8b6eefa5d0112e83d054e1e8992e2defe48cc08
F20101109_AABMQL davis_j_Page_059.jp2
eda2af367792ab042973ce53ad4e0448
6c797239e5a5e9dd2b65175f89e32f589b1e6fd8
305036 F20101109_AABMPW davis_j_Page_041.jp2
de0048b5858b1a82f425c2ec2343b0d2
c64ffed8c7432339b9c4476e4a56870de48527eb
F20101109_AABMRA davis_j_Page_082.jp2
12a8e0a2bf822fca8f0f68e48315813f
1342cdec825e52f9a2638a544d309312dec1981a
F20101109_AABMQM davis_j_Page_060.jp2
6d4fe3822516256d72cec6f8e0edfd27
5d8d45dcec9d64a458f3565645c587d9ca8c9984
F20101109_AABMPX davis_j_Page_042.jp2
2ae0878a3a01c03748c2533dbd8d3b83
6e2a2ce8d6bbef072d3c6dcc7b57a347f2d54c7a
F20101109_AABMRB davis_j_Page_083.jp2
41c47d2ea27baf043315b5d62b4d3b6c
1003a0ffc15ec5c81e371d4a86e3c32ecb93bb4c
F20101109_AABMQN davis_j_Page_061.jp2
3ae152f9adfb591e3af44d7ec3871f42
3dc67ada07930d80d2e55915b073cbc31433061d
F20101109_AABMPY davis_j_Page_043.jp2
ce3ada0a35bb5e0c8309eaed81332135
ccce1ca2d35dcd5483aeb1fcd26259732ad5d6cf
995795 F20101109_AABMRC davis_j_Page_084.jp2
627a57740714fb12d44d8ab48cd0a1fd
690999aa1707e8b82078829e62f375269ec45b68
1051964 F20101109_AABMQO davis_j_Page_062.jp2
7091035e014118bc86d7991646dbf2b1
37f24c8675adeb79660304322e7e9cd65c3280e2
F20101109_AABMPZ davis_j_Page_044.jp2
819e0938a64d430ff49ff063560be914
5850ebc06cb572c1579027297d0d9ed467917ac5
F20101109_AABMRD davis_j_Page_085.jp2
be1d43c69212ee3a0ca01edc2a5fd247
a49aa853a378ac49c152f1efffa97c63cb68cd53
F20101109_AABMQP davis_j_Page_063.jp2
1c0927f13d870ed3118c690a8908f105
e1a5940f5922a4c4ce274699b5474c4527ad900a
F20101109_AABMRE davis_j_Page_088.jp2
24c71aa3d138d2f9dc10230a63e0a1ec
b43793f5daf168e19c139acd851d680f59754198
1051929 F20101109_AABMQQ davis_j_Page_065.jp2
98455b7e5633debbf20d862db96edd2c
792da238a6fc3dd40b0cc5b2f0555f426bfda5d2
F20101109_AABMRF davis_j_Page_090.jp2
3dd6ecb87928072875b3b73ee4216e9d
01b68c72c7a81a37856933a668e9786c92f4995e
1051945 F20101109_AABMQR davis_j_Page_067.jp2
0ca5375738037ac196a3637861d3b96b
301226ccc0aae43b7406eeecc60dd2f1ff4cf415
1051878 F20101109_AABMRG davis_j_Page_091.jp2
da02a05a525a2232ac9e820fbfe5c5b5
44b510aef4edf457673fd542e45d62c3ecb291d8
966516 F20101109_AABMRH davis_j_Page_092.jp2
7f8ccbcdb5e35f621fe314a36a473750
81b8d64190d4f8e1c7b1fa3f112e9130e0d8e3e1
653771 F20101109_AABMQS davis_j_Page_068.jp2
308e03786e1f3bcb2ae74ecc39ec74e9
e400d487d39ad952321f9a329390a3f8ed00db1f
1051953 F20101109_AABMRI davis_j_Page_095.jp2
f2edf60185f5fca4838d743f5c76f208
a86b5adc36ae53d47a2c5b9da0be76f3033d1f69
F20101109_AABMQT davis_j_Page_069.jp2
47cc25544d854deb1d2a1846c7911ab6
1572e1774920428984ac899b1b27ff72c95606ff
1051973 F20101109_AABMRJ davis_j_Page_096.jp2
ae7c8fe50162e882def351b649f0512e
4b4d04977de9061df12abe78f92a5d7adeb0aaa4
F20101109_AABMQU davis_j_Page_070.jp2
8d4d5f2e1cbc3002b05c771ceb3ec422
38f7668641bf484caa31b5d4fffd67d8ca1ecdba
F20101109_AABMRK davis_j_Page_099.jp2
82ee23fa80d06b15c8154d9b36631f2f
162a0154b82f362b528980870158b3b8be5fdfd9
F20101109_AABMQV davis_j_Page_072.jp2
755a649df7b9886826269fd8b2cd3b9d
ef196de4862af8042ecae9bd8304048a0016ad5c
F20101109_AABMRL davis_j_Page_100.jp2
7cb17578d76dfc5e000d28cd26c9da8d
6b5a8c11141c42b5178b1fd0c47d787d1b895b4d
1051939 F20101109_AABMQW davis_j_Page_073.jp2
5e2c4c8a2e73eb5f52f8b9da4cfa88af
400c27d8ce38e173bb277f8ab1c4483a345958e0
F20101109_AABMRM davis_j_Page_101.jp2
1c876af2bcdf4b4f5c8eace9881c3a31
1d39199bea8ae14a125dd61c60ad6ff6c328e91a
F20101109_AABMQX davis_j_Page_074.jp2
eca7bdeb6324320baf170cb7a3f7b572
794b02eff456b4e3229bbef92b031b07422ae8db
F20101109_AABMSA davis_j_Page_018.tif
e6acf20550e8ada0aea26e6f5150dd56
142650c665807de83f493b84bd9704b3df37bf92
F20101109_AABMRN davis_j_Page_102.jp2
a9875d28383e2ac0b9a6c1c1f59bd11d
cacdd2f0d9a760d5a97c9b82d5ce8dfe5b64eba3
F20101109_AABMQY davis_j_Page_078.jp2
85679ca857d8c5ada2e61a35c2f390d5
68170012ddcf001636a88f61d0c003e87adafd6c
F20101109_AABMSB davis_j_Page_019.tif
0cd7ed5b99a7a0990288beecc0fe2bac
85d0b3642af39e4a19c4095c926f12a5cd0f86a4
F20101109_AABMRO davis_j_Page_103.jp2
75ba5679ac9a0d1b60e7b3b83a960d1a
2c6f63e322e6aeb6093e442c5aa2cac1959689a5
F20101109_AABMQZ davis_j_Page_080.jp2
624a82d4093e66097a3226ce5b7a3ec8
20e43734fb6a16fc1c5a7ffa4de3982af209d436
F20101109_AABMSC davis_j_Page_022.tif
c7885ea1e64297a242dcef757c68fd50
22d2326752bc5eeb1c40b10738972c5bc4001764
495314 F20101109_AABMRP davis_j_Page_104.jp2
52ec88bfe97c0999ab312608b92aef04
a3438d8243caaaa1b16aa8e4c9f0835db48717ad
F20101109_AABMSD davis_j_Page_023.tif
bedf165e3d66ada700730a5d753eb3e6
5e0c00064a227e1ca2be324e34e667f593fea51e
F20101109_AABMRQ davis_j_Page_001.tif
3848ee642e9c9886fb9b68beae797d57
c50a97ba4885695bf9754230e69a364d59711249
F20101109_AABMSE davis_j_Page_024.tif
eec1364d9cbe33940ba5b84b8a92fb16
4b266b5873be61dabb14e44f026c2113574208cf
F20101109_AABMRR davis_j_Page_002.tif
f30839273553fc0fb75b5fff3ec64657
911d40a7e808a448de943559f903c6a4f4260bcd
F20101109_AABMSF davis_j_Page_025.tif
96e239de5f6739569e33e2b3afd8c7b3
9df3ce60504ab680df3260921fc83b204d629040
F20101109_AABMRS davis_j_Page_003.tif
fd9a7f99d47986e2648b2c683ad254b4
597aa4923287e041a846073ac59d5806aa4ace3d
F20101109_AABMSG davis_j_Page_026.tif
9c05cac850c88d7793f261ce40d45a40
763a3ef649ab17bae6986c28d778a462f3845f71
F20101109_AABMSH davis_j_Page_032.tif
39f1171b0806b74bec4c0659cb8041ce
e5721dae4cf792dccae112df5b038f4617a3f794
F20101109_AABMRT davis_j_Page_004.tif
0785fd72e50af6c2c91a24d431a86e96
1d8dd7d85adbb4b7f451764df286cecc51c91366
F20101109_AABMSI davis_j_Page_033.tif
a649c1cc39e6d376a461b20143941ea2
ff1083efa6e75b4b56c885773c725c68764a7080
F20101109_AABMRU davis_j_Page_005.tif
a3557ec1d1adbe5af0f940349acf21d1
77d25e2554c8cb175318b62a8f836a047631cbbb
F20101109_AABMSJ davis_j_Page_034.tif
c863966c3956a6cb4f5ca6bb620fa7f0
f6a9ec29f4a1ce27f232b7f041763896ecacd13b
F20101109_AABMRV davis_j_Page_006.tif
d7d9a0fbe6ed356c3af52e1b498303c7
d4a78ff91c795719e4e724758b2e142d60e4f813
F20101109_AABMSK davis_j_Page_036.tif
dcd386608ad6b1c24b36f0072406948d
349b25bd74b449b1a3a9a4b84949693ede1ce988
F20101109_AABMRW davis_j_Page_010.tif
6cfed040d360fed51e2a7a9283399fbe
06aa194aa108192d869618439212a5232fe850a7
F20101109_AABMSL davis_j_Page_038.tif
2b1dde03acfc1c8511100ad0146e4a1d
ed000502afd2fdf0bb563acde667694950b2c04f
F20101109_AABMRX davis_j_Page_012.tif
e379e17ec93646520fe7e3d46bf22807
9e2b329f85e50a95269c2915fa4c7bba29295b3e
F20101109_AABMTA davis_j_Page_062.tif
320a5071041849676dac76a41a86eb00
d292a24a0114d522f7f48b9441f675c7a902ef1e
F20101109_AABMSM davis_j_Page_040.tif
ffc03c473f444a97059b8ed965cad57b
11aced461a7053fb2145c8fc89984c41e8488f2a
F20101109_AABMRY davis_j_Page_014.tif
9ac0b0b991d1d4eeb2c900ff43a521a1
b0b5ffd6a7f0da5d83d550e61204cfbce5578bdc
F20101109_AABMTB davis_j_Page_064.tif
869f26c88b780f48a9fdf2bf96c3857b
c35839103157db2aab601e4739a545d8d32b47a9
F20101109_AABMSN davis_j_Page_041.tif
ad68b9c65af7db5bd450989b5600a84d
b9468df028e39524bdcf110f5e071d5a2044babd
F20101109_AABMRZ davis_j_Page_016.tif
72e0209cb7ad0ff02bdf203f40e84ad0
5e7bf089f8d971481505fde682c1660f1639ad49
F20101109_AABMTC davis_j_Page_065.tif
f46c1abe2e44696549e8537aa87fc3ce
231fe9c889dfc724728334d7095bb9afcab161b9
F20101109_AABMSO davis_j_Page_042.tif
901fba7b820bca6e99d31b49b2a989e2
4e3698f07f03b7d6df833412b359ffa524d166d3
F20101109_AABMTD davis_j_Page_066.tif
037adfd0311a7fe2753f154ad52f8b53
4051964778fdc416ef9b106705b0b742ad0415a6
F20101109_AABMSP davis_j_Page_043.tif
54db5650614d5e380c2f9b8f6b9bab1c
d729234d6ecfed7a356b413ab8284015d068121c
F20101109_AABMTE davis_j_Page_068.tif
272c6b0ed22b587f6ace25b6acd869f8
625cbb15715bed3485b6910a6d927347e9822d17
F20101109_AABMSQ davis_j_Page_044.tif
636cddbc56ce0321e51be1e5dfa67359
b785fcb670020a3ccb30f94e163dac1fc0ff58e9
F20101109_AABMTF davis_j_Page_069.tif
4d354a168dc8bec1b831a9e2ba19bd2e
ca0c83c824665f5486ae10c5866abfb8dde75506
F20101109_AABMSR davis_j_Page_047.tif
e7eaee8f2e2a9e92f75a5bf1da8d8f00
345b89c7df5d49fe468ca53c66d44397d7916c32
F20101109_AABMTG davis_j_Page_070.tif
41ae7ad591f403e117cb161d3b27609c
ea022ab68ac92dfa87e708e559caf704fb3245c4
F20101109_AABMSS davis_j_Page_048.tif
9d1622e5844ce8acfbff16755c5ca229
4c834457681cfde489da8a56ee644e62e0c4c7cd
F20101109_AABMTH davis_j_Page_073.tif
8960114bc6bebd4376a7e17ef1bde64f
9807b25e520f46b70d43e8cde81b23dd290fc3a0
F20101109_AABMST davis_j_Page_049.tif
2305b8c4def9ad0213f73b7158f0d543
e8725e6f6ac44172235c8bd46ac3d99c15cef374
F20101109_AABMTI davis_j_Page_079.tif
0eb1cf1b1ad2e061775723268a9cdf80
3c7822a7cdd53474b239826e42380733e1597f61
F20101109_AABMTJ davis_j_Page_080.tif
f3273af5b99fefd209aa8e7b4823b13b
ae53937caeafe66bc6a36a1d0add0d54af93554c
F20101109_AABMSU davis_j_Page_050.tif
ecdb43f1df34b5e06a87a734ea614188
1b0ff44c2e293a8044d38e312801cd611960f51c
F20101109_AABMTK davis_j_Page_081.tif
b776f8a9a8a185378acc02b48212f53a
0ae8e819e49709fb4fc0011d0a78f607671f77e7
F20101109_AABMSV davis_j_Page_051.tif
3e73e360cea23861b73876a7cde7f630
5703eb4a066424fa7bd076bd57ea27558fb7c64d
F20101109_AABMTL davis_j_Page_082.tif
aefaaa1dfe820b3a2d62af24beb520b4
698b76fdf0343ee179938331321a3e415f84c2fe
F20101109_AABMSW davis_j_Page_053.tif
7c911077ca83dea74748a59cb2fef977
f13ff67d760e09bd8f912f62435087ef7fe4b226
F20101109_AABMUA davis_j_Page_101.tif
82cbc9a4cfb9ddc35cdd87926f2260f7
c33c941002b3ee25678d971385fa2ff71c72974c
F20101109_AABMTM davis_j_Page_083.tif
7a0c085688194489ec7297cb5442a795
01def023ab5b62468b4aff460de93366d9bbc70e
F20101109_AABMSX davis_j_Page_054.tif
3d02474ffe41ee35a74ced38bdee3927
5a70fa888bb644a81ea5c9b9286ac8a6081ed8b4
F20101109_AABMUB davis_j_Page_102.tif
d0d7f1857d4e3f95e93420f6102cedc6
401dbfc4cc3e1d64fc66f19469a60b179db2a16c
F20101109_AABMTN davis_j_Page_084.tif
9a70d377b1bb6fe8efff604cd11144e2
2ea6c06b4b55f3490bdcf291fd85ae8373bc3d2e
F20101109_AABMSY davis_j_Page_056.tif
155b960a6547642ef4d05d78035365cc
4039cc47f2238545a1e4d1257d4578f7c3f96daf
F20101109_AABMUC davis_j_Page_103.tif
7f586ea5bb9558aef440d51c605051df
e0d8db9c1c5ba7af980901b3b8b176aa99c4d8ba
F20101109_AABMTO davis_j_Page_085.tif
70afc3cd3dc4f5e765971f08b00f63ac
766740f3b37a8f20596b51118c6fd46f94c9d631
F20101109_AABMSZ davis_j_Page_060.tif
b86ee82a5fa8b39cfcc25ddd34d2e1e1
f61399abd7493e7ae98b40c760d13b77ae38439f
F20101109_AABMUD davis_j_Page_104.tif
d28b7d337a77511165369e9adff976fc
2d5272e8df9dd6ea551520f17255bc85b44beb9d
F20101109_AABMTP davis_j_Page_086.tif
c42fcf5527ae13b837a8b4a0d821a9f4
7c4d3821da2545b465c4f8cea35ee17c8469d52b
725 F20101109_AABMUE davis_j_Page_002.pro
c597b578b4fc0a512648171732f4c165
cca4bc7a13ceb10bae3873647dd8618e81e970ea
F20101109_AABMTQ davis_j_Page_087.tif
3ce37678641e584dfc1eef2ab6d47dfa
1bf55856354b485a9600ce9d1f3e96139dc520ff
45924 F20101109_AABMUF davis_j_Page_004.pro
50a4ef6d899bc9c7f2aafc998914e2ba
5c3f2db6428946014678fb3534db6e11c3a4decd
F20101109_AABMTR davis_j_Page_088.tif
657ccd132b88fd6eb92d6000a87b9556
80a33bb093e69665dfdbb233b2924471517f2ab1
17001 F20101109_AABNAA davis_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
0e1aa7fd7a77d400eaca8883cf540066
8b4cb95e42dc5c5bef564c7182f2980c26a610c4
67486 F20101109_AABMUG davis_j_Page_006.pro
bfd4ebd62e34fbb1309a5955f06c93f1
e8d390bf9c500bebbd0d11e5155b294d11256b1e
F20101109_AABMTS davis_j_Page_089.tif
f65fa13fa95e011ed208a46b21be866c
a9e360c224051c8a2d89ee9ca61eccb2a9ef4ce2
F20101109_AABMTT davis_j_Page_090.tif
4bdaeb9c46c6cc8d6e0a11eee8c18078
cf143fcaa300210be22623266e302265445f18c3
4831 F20101109_AABNAB davis_j_Page_006thm.jpg
f35a96daec921df52bd0116bf03416e5
f49112688a470fc17e022555343dbdd013ee1734
12654 F20101109_AABMUH davis_j_Page_007.pro
a18030b6d540c8dbec0c4b4c34473c7d
76b9e98388edb9771630ad39ee4ebf9752e33216
F20101109_AABMTU davis_j_Page_094.tif
8e8d80330d40271308eb31ec954b9982
29fc82030c5b20f1d0f72e496e639496c52eb3d5
6710 F20101109_AABNAC davis_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
9e338ebe85f183beca516ff00fce8d74
2617be87724d8b5e48efe04c8e9d9daf517b0fbd
52065 F20101109_AABMUI davis_j_Page_010.pro
3e46b0789197cbce1c10328661d86d0d
3ddbc84fe6903156acf5088b150b004183f70412
1917 F20101109_AABNAD davis_j_Page_007thm.jpg
21b507d1b67fad0375460cba6aebe3a5
8f28cc3ee7eb8355c7880728ea34cb02d6ed821d
20267 F20101109_AABMUJ davis_j_Page_011.pro
3e165fae54535582a2dffc5201aa3ccf
6c68054bfdc39415606c0ea4bace8472b706b31b
F20101109_AABMTV davis_j_Page_095.tif
bcd0ea0b5090c201470d9e2586d30f83
37f7bfdf591403a431321d0bf6a41c3ee3f98603
20620 F20101109_AABNAE davis_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
1398db8f5faf32732ba657723a5c0e52
6933b452aa90504b92570fe68e929cadeebf7928
55990 F20101109_AABMUK davis_j_Page_012.pro
e67cb13f892953fb3021d5fbddc30947
8ef28709ab745a06a7ffaf1361c1658c74b2f6e9
F20101109_AABMTW davis_j_Page_097.tif
0fc27397414b1dd12c25effd4dbce3cd
b20d9be2e1b04999c7e0b65f31c3e494f9822a87
8148 F20101109_AABNAF davis_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
f49e149e1c072af3138a57fb850ced03
7ec009da676a368df902ef28be2768dfb0042a49
50875 F20101109_AABMUL davis_j_Page_014.pro
dd820314e84cf70f1d0039bade6eab3b
8355551b9cbf958577e7d6db51a9c189725ab20e
F20101109_AABMTX davis_j_Page_098.tif
18bca61d6200fb64fea4e37ab69418e7
dbf84c95a9ad04bbf36d98ce0fb80d38843ffd2c
2890 F20101109_AABNAG davis_j_Page_011thm.jpg
ac8a3a20bc0c93459dab4e8c3cf9613d
0e17ccbe4269bdaf25f5e4e6b09958d7f3fde44f
58181 F20101109_AABMVA davis_j_Page_037.pro
99cd44fb9b97b37fa6291bcb5aed42b5
2dd8a16d6e65e6f979d62604d2bad1fb15dfa926
60099 F20101109_AABMUM davis_j_Page_017.pro
1da3c5ad8f8f1258f5de6f039fb00389
3b385d70af0a7dbe152be0c452762b400e822f77
F20101109_AABMTY davis_j_Page_099.tif
cd641ea2482bacc66518ef81a035b2bb
022f8337d70fdf110a9eebbb0a1b0a1195f7fb9f
28704 F20101109_AABNAH davis_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
e9c043c223c82c6c03de49e7bf6f5822
f81d0f14bcd62508d9ebbaa88828cf83b139cd64
57692 F20101109_AABMVB davis_j_Page_038.pro
e146860f8753658c6cd3a971c09766cd
8d3672951abfc316215f9d8ca5d269bb7b86609f
51786 F20101109_AABMUN davis_j_Page_019.pro
692fae002fc3b3ce7893cdaba054e54e
c119de936912027b6a605906cb310cbb6ea407b9
F20101109_AABMTZ davis_j_Page_100.tif
8ef49a90a64e00ec84b254c802485454
d7d71e6d5a6b3612790111eb9434628c3f2bc72b
25288 F20101109_AABNAI davis_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
224489e4e6b5a3201fef67bd917f82ed
1365d1fa1f0e6ef90d012dc50e3a2e81baf3a03f
66003 F20101109_AABMVC davis_j_Page_039.pro
10a6d1cd46e10bbef01772dea0113dcf
101a82dab08ae5262a6f9c6fb7f07f3b50d28a7d
54400 F20101109_AABMUO davis_j_Page_020.pro
7412042d2a2f31f7e6d368e5c1a91d3a
0f8659fd1c2221e1fc6f9ce6dded22987c75db2b
5882 F20101109_AABNAJ davis_j_Page_015thm.jpg
fc179092c0ce360cb47565022200ee98
1ceff130a4633132d36ca80c5376270ab5968ae6
13409 F20101109_AABMVD davis_j_Page_041.pro
9581ca9c61225b14986c96300edebc08
f2c79e3512fe02c36c7e1f261e4b2b3856de1c73
65871 F20101109_AABMUP davis_j_Page_021.pro
bd1611f49a42b6d99c40d679901480ff
82a1e28dae8d02dd8a1b0247b368948742a6e7e9
28887 F20101109_AABNAK davis_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
fbe852a63af186319ebe6f7f89d5a01c
2a9b23135d34247329f46499aea04770eee1df31
52113 F20101109_AABMVE davis_j_Page_042.pro
1d3c25635cb22a8b14d477e577057b15
5e9c6651263782af73e6489b47ddca9049439dbf
56561 F20101109_AABMUQ davis_j_Page_023.pro
9fdc582898440f7ea187ccc42f9cd2cb
ff6b4e59aae77ec8f5a3690ec2ba3dc3f0a060d2
7019 F20101109_AABNBA davis_j_Page_036thm.jpg
14e6cbeb1a251cbc7766a1905d72c5ae
050841fea9839dfc3dee6d2baa4412a25c17271b
28919 F20101109_AABNAL davis_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
fbbe2b00d291a20e34257b6c0e37a7bb
1cc4923a827496b13a73a038739eefce99b142be
53398 F20101109_AABMVF davis_j_Page_045.pro
ba05dbbc1622cfbd68d49693d8644bd2
ae92337f592c817371424ef360616063e134fb8a
55860 F20101109_AABMUR davis_j_Page_024.pro
9a5f0baa46777e348abe88f4e7af9f38
c65bf22d21b17ac3e4694ce6a65d8806f98b3f6c
8005 F20101109_AABNBB davis_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
4a8a99514c7819715f3d1f1d58902b09
0a70810a533a73c4636466f0ca09bf7cf610aee3
26882 F20101109_AABNAM davis_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
afe2c06ea89aaef218a5bfa2964f0e97
5fc8060cc2ba8b24aa5f2896a9822443a37e3f89
60939 F20101109_AABMVG davis_j_Page_046.pro
83b68d428df5284f6028d42588621e27
882aa429b6d3a34695df98270b9479c9578c178d
57805 F20101109_AABMUS davis_j_Page_027.pro
7e49b4402b3e6da7af015f020636fb96
1cf5c058bff732038c8f978427e1c6dd95860ab2
6466 F20101109_AABNAN davis_j_Page_019thm.jpg
ad26651fe5248f47b4b8f6034954fb26
22c33aca4db16af866c3cf6f79dfa29a7ee83420
54707 F20101109_AABMVH davis_j_Page_047.pro
a4a025d2d01d05fdef93b697dedd3298
61a7eca6e31600d9c56e595ea415fd1045f950c3
52809 F20101109_AABMUT davis_j_Page_028.pro
619135e2b8f389c1f472f5f5b7aa5fce
98f96e2ec17fc09dcff0d02323ba6dc83ffaa491
1955 F20101109_AABNBC davis_j_Page_041thm.jpg
d1f5588886de4dc29439fd5d43fab196
6ebb8759341596ba4f8fe8a23ac9ae795709171e
6833 F20101109_AABNAO davis_j_Page_021thm.jpg
8aceb25b08cc9e5ed9ed7b282b3b4dac
106fea54c3428b4e9b8a54410f34a644a7d2b412
61900 F20101109_AABMVI davis_j_Page_048.pro
43e1919fd0ad452fff099b6c19ef9995
4eb230999d15d8ed59f4fab73d614093701101bc
60253 F20101109_AABMUU davis_j_Page_029.pro
28685b815879a261660fac962ecd1c18
f3deb37321c3f3d2979ce445aa4ee08275c2a7c9
26563 F20101109_AABNBD davis_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
5f6f34c303fb15fb9def0349a1392d3a
f6d9479125d4984361044cc2c7654c76e6670478
27448 F20101109_AABNAP davis_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
46095bef78da175b9fb73c1d42db8d5d
03d1c250b6c151e76527ee34b3c06ac128049050
52553 F20101109_AABMVJ davis_j_Page_049.pro
e027e9ebe5ccd9fbb97de72d22c9599e
4116c3a1d4972cc19895ddde33c4c8ae67b992c8
56414 F20101109_AABMUV davis_j_Page_032.pro
58399a3cc098773e85779e6f3649b689
a8741c911cb7fdbed549a4c18fca47088535a33d
6477 F20101109_AABNAQ davis_j_Page_024thm.jpg
5d89d7e9f310336f05849400743f5379
073d535734a6f642e6c40eba90374851541bd1b2
55539 F20101109_AABMVK davis_j_Page_051.pro
81801af5ec6c16ddaa3e2aeffeda73f5
3d1ead1aa104ad07830d991d558b38478cb49a39
6317 F20101109_AABNBE davis_j_Page_042thm.jpg
1339b6cfb58b9e8c59bf6f28ac86c705
baca690b5da26f5f92c2eebb6098d4d2608fe07d
6660 F20101109_AABNAR davis_j_Page_025thm.jpg
0fd01b47a6d92cedbfea895176ed3161
4011689a50f72980ffaba54d300c0342d82d6909
29182 F20101109_AABMVL davis_j_Page_053.pro
a8f3833ca694cbd057e4d9647ea1297b
1cc24603dd0b61c6bfaa83493ee9555b36051c42
51144 F20101109_AABMUW davis_j_Page_033.pro
f35efae4ce0574e350cf11ee34944c3d
d7daa5b02f84481ecc594d9e4752aac508541742
28262 F20101109_AABNBF davis_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
4e5126ecb297be744afc572d876927d6
02bbfe0886beb295d5386a8c18b25e7f8aa746d6
55185 F20101109_AABMWA davis_j_Page_081.pro
87279f8ac1668b23ad00f0da0b5d256d
8f1c725c7107e4f636130edae4aaaae959d64ed4
6424 F20101109_AABNAS davis_j_Page_026thm.jpg
2e0da6e224e60b38cb0a7ac58585636e
b0e7fdd5a9219973220e6c4fbf11bf2543cb11db
6543 F20101109_AABMVM davis_j_Page_054.pro
ae79b27a7f1eb17b4e847ff29380950e
56bb9ff1e259e91b245fd3f013a9deac73f827a6
66310 F20101109_AABMUX davis_j_Page_034.pro
b4e00e8aa7cfedcdc664d9c446d12f17
0c6c22496f164122743cc9cb704fadafe11c313b
28746 F20101109_AABNBG davis_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
ac9a50c675f4fb7f2557e62ce4fc2e29
a96efcc1af7f8b1e8491aabddc74d761e505ed7b
5947 F20101109_AABMWB davis_j_Page_083.pro
2af88749729d88a8f9013be195f14466
ca69ecd6b096568ca553b3d3a28bd93f344f3a0c
26962 F20101109_AABNAT davis_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
e6f4c888028b662a077df7fb84ddc2bd
fc4ab2242011baae37818f2e2775f8c7ceb06bc4
50469 F20101109_AABMVN davis_j_Page_056.pro
5ef66c08cebf6fdf694b540ddb0f9a24
22b9157a177cd80c3a315b8fb1b2e2b7ac80ecd6
55442 F20101109_AABMUY davis_j_Page_035.pro
a4280ea7c45f05298e79f2637ed7f232
25a8364fb4de172e82282040a7ab7bee180461ab
6698 F20101109_AABNBH davis_j_Page_044thm.jpg
b4613b477a193eb9044b2a08019abb25
6bb07ae42094dae1864b21ebb30ff82b7f00ce17
4270 F20101109_AABMWC davis_j_Page_084.pro
c2fdde76f3adee97a91394b67645cc7e
efc93d79af90437f25e09460d73a9cac8a670930
6691 F20101109_AABNAU davis_j_Page_029thm.jpg
1ba6a3aaed274b8a60ae09a8ccf9040b
55c47bd9cac77fdec37e81570cde542a0082b06e
52296 F20101109_AABMVO davis_j_Page_060.pro
57df96458a41dd15eb1d1b07cb0b9a97
ba939f8a9b87ab3f7779f7b5bc1f90c341872595
58075 F20101109_AABMUZ davis_j_Page_036.pro
7c2514ea9a98165d7383b1d9a27588ef
b858c58dbbfa01264b9c635f2612d30187135c05
6497 F20101109_AABNBI davis_j_Page_045thm.jpg
0f59ca133f13976715e972530262beda
abb2d1d36dd4fb54a98d307c77fc69cf277866f3
8321 F20101109_AABMWD davis_j_Page_085.pro
a88a35ac2a3026d89ec93fc5c4db9f03
39ffad09eaeaa6a5cf0018621dff409ba3c039af
27824 F20101109_AABNAV davis_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
8611b792cc08de0289e8f7630bea33a4
787f1fe68fa09467a43d37f967d8fd8d12c07571
54315 F20101109_AABMVP davis_j_Page_065.pro
e80d7c3d01068628c12c4f8de1c3072d
6b2762f97a9e7489c485b79b7b53db4e3fa63ce7
26034 F20101109_AABNBJ davis_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
7392a322c6cf0c629d15c9433adf1bc8
234c168306a1e3dd4c0cf0314333eff316c8f55e
8603 F20101109_AABMWE davis_j_Page_086.pro
20123dd3a6c8e5a1a7cda06e70aedbac
d374ccf6e4fa9f5147b77902a25fb53cd9cb56e4
6656 F20101109_AABNAW davis_j_Page_031thm.jpg
3e7d486dc284606b677b4699e03e9f2a
7b3bf14189016bf7b443235b7ac7db8c7b2d9391
54874 F20101109_AABMVQ davis_j_Page_066.pro
d045b75ee8b5e9828f8f19ca89a0af17
44405765ec67fea1f17674aa7135634a79b181a8
27919 F20101109_AABNBK davis_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
f0c59f14863677de244ec6fc04407150
eb6e99631f96ba6c3ba2d044a7bd099507d22bcc
8856 F20101109_AABMWF davis_j_Page_087.pro
83b0c7accf5fbd51098463a6b2557b3e
3e44b193ed313b233e814f99f3c534770aae003a
28770 F20101109_AABNAX davis_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
6a3bbdf0283b5b0e93b34f3050e448ac
c67f331b7d0705faa5738424a35c2c4fe5e51ac8
27429 F20101109_AABMVR davis_j_Page_068.pro
762fa2acdce3a9cc173e81a524781a3a
3f9132ecab158192bc092361df7145b8d7ce7e5f
6590 F20101109_AABNCA davis_j_Page_061thm.jpg
d3325f7c4b3ae15eb38c305658256bb0
850234a599f50705caf8a1e1ccb6e24c06443f79
29114 F20101109_AABNBL davis_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
7deb0ee24078274f17b7b0816d026139
fa14aa5f1b71b2c3d8f1c1b3d8d4c28485a8c0f5
8101 F20101109_AABMWG davis_j_Page_088.pro
e721aab383e0f155c21ab0f71bf20170
7f7e3b99e9b0013cd3bdfbd5d5866ace09025d56
27356 F20101109_AABNAY davis_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
b08b4e7575d552d33a0b406c4cdb5cfd
1a45d4a690247c792bbaffa6d95acf9e5c8b25a4
F20101109_AABMVS davis_j_Page_069.pro
8290447e70d2159563ba09f3537ed27e
41858c5a1e8d22c7638f035f4d0b556b895e0251
28170 F20101109_AABNCB davis_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
e99e8fc9dcdb88c8f70ae90589724b84
27998981f9d5d3b65d91f446c0374dc07690b523
6732 F20101109_AABNBM davis_j_Page_048thm.jpg
2edd2467b796910365e5f4443dec04be
b8076dc60ec9d359a313d251dc5d3d98eb9dcd55
F20101109_AABMWH davis_j_Page_089.pro
0c46fb9cc990593c4094dd772c2f1dbd
e6d17d67e94f44427bda5642e03c612ca00c1d1b
6629 F20101109_AABNAZ davis_j_Page_035thm.jpg
4e6f344efe3137c62d9449987d9803b5
ae59c035f58d61e817f580600d10da09c4e0a5ff
54364 F20101109_AABMVT davis_j_Page_070.pro
2cd943c4c54f1205446cead912443c58
94ade679b8bc2488a4de67aa528d5c186efc2917
6589 F20101109_AABNCC davis_j_Page_062thm.jpg
e817d4fffa951da796d46adb8d157f8b
8f90c112f3eac4c0173b4174368e5e60780a2993
6750 F20101109_AABNBN davis_j_Page_049thm.jpg
87400073c74e7ca0f9107be0d334b94f
2019ab894fc60b6d12c97350bb54c0cfcbbd5d1e
42529 F20101109_AABMWI davis_j_Page_092.pro
c8bf8b0e54135b1315c394bb09524c80
67b3e222f7cd37301c2dc8f5b5bedc73fc21e8ed
55517 F20101109_AABMVU davis_j_Page_072.pro
e10522eaf4cb058cef977718708edc3b
7ead368929a18d382f6ac8ca848781f926368eb2
28182 F20101109_AABNBO davis_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
136bf7fb9f1d4cdb6951ceba2c28d4e2
59d791c7ea734b71857e2b288db373023f8a4b64
49766 F20101109_AABMWJ davis_j_Page_094.pro
35bcd006e241b7dde32846bd2fe8b866
195613958453f41487bcf8e78a0aeb7e5bd28eaf
55619 F20101109_AABMVV davis_j_Page_073.pro
083add84661bc8b2e17842e559ce2b1e
5919e9d2b9e88e193fb514090d7a1227f9fc1f03
6714 F20101109_AABNCD davis_j_Page_063thm.jpg
0b46d028470288958929ebd77d7a311c
215dbb4ed637e8ca364b9c6620a33c0e3bb594d1
6596 F20101109_AABNBP davis_j_Page_050thm.jpg
ef457558d14d0946809c0636f89e0440
125b571da6922f16eee5f0b6bb262e84fd14ab7d
53850 F20101109_AABMWK davis_j_Page_096.pro
cb9ee8a83cf0f174b4f35f896aae908c
9a214e85c0842452c548330f57475dae10f5d6fd
54221 F20101109_AABMVW davis_j_Page_074.pro
cfc56b4ae4c0d643abdeb9410166125e
dc4a2804b28f7fff75d06217bc2cc4e3cbef9e51
27736 F20101109_AABNCE davis_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
a97205a497753b2c9097a51da6db540e
d954dbfe009e1b65c7049ba52433e41961e94811
6597 F20101109_AABNBQ davis_j_Page_051thm.jpg
7a0f0c3603a0a9e27d62948bd0864b18
fc97372eb2f57c0229988f94f7c73e6213e33967
4587 F20101109_AABMWL davis_j_Page_097.pro
165d22b067a7fa67b5f7131204b15686
4646f7aa411d0d7c8521ce94225bd450a52bf05f
6459 F20101109_AABNCF davis_j_Page_065thm.jpg
8fc9634df6379871ee1fe59c7910d100
513a814b314ed41cd152f17d77129ec28778c1be
26627 F20101109_AABNBR davis_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
2755b44f828494c919f19791d792bca7
05175320e230370dc71b81fdfacadc35b4ea4da2
55850 F20101109_AABMWM davis_j_Page_100.pro
270b332d74d418039838a79f39ad5576
95ee7e0ce1c65752d8c112395ddf306296d2c64b
56326 F20101109_AABMVX davis_j_Page_076.pro
977af3529b6611a9a14fc757c379ffe1
1a8b9ec2fbc717cd20f0e66c7f7ab159131ca7a5
27895 F20101109_AABNCG davis_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
41de712f76763ef9bd8eadc131991758
4afcd761fd495220096f1cdcafbd15901b840d9d
2087 F20101109_AABMXA davis_j_Page_026.txt
a15b9841c21716f153ac143df9b55e47
3aaa0b0cf3e1ef5869f9438f5bd2f714f01a77c9
16058 F20101109_AABNBS davis_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
5f96ab36e438f62c957d3ee956039b31
103d2d42b95714c7c5dee187b8315ae4e1932234
60476 F20101109_AABMWN davis_j_Page_101.pro
b3c9ab64aa6b1de982e5eaf09c7e4d7b
f70c3dea6c7e2a8b972a04b3973e0d265c302204
58833 F20101109_AABMVY davis_j_Page_078.pro
028f60dacefb4cb91de396fe29d7d4d7
449726fa684efa4fe1c78983d7b868ca3049a854
6694 F20101109_AABNCH davis_j_Page_066thm.jpg
049c8bb22a858a9b3fbf79f4520e045f
b6670a3dec3e93ec4fb7c1de660fd9c5d8478466
2076 F20101109_AABMXB davis_j_Page_028.txt
7750696ea99966ff42843876b005eaec
9204693bd10d234ca04697a8a6f8bd34f956d87e
11733 F20101109_AABNBT davis_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
a92bd832ec82ef88699618c6ca66b2d8
e9aaee1fc846fd86131e25ac6bd39388253b159d
59686 F20101109_AABMWO davis_j_Page_102.pro
442e017009737372b484eda23b7fc120
6cd6450ef18c9b6c4bb9f8d8b17e2a1081d2bd4b
56169 F20101109_AABMVZ davis_j_Page_080.pro
2992dd6f803b4013c1d2b37199314baa
857454f66becf64b67cd4560357b4feaee74f068
6772 F20101109_AABNCI davis_j_Page_067thm.jpg
10d2dbb056ce1cffeac933f1fdcf6fef
8fc9ed69b70a07767fc22f0d287a5981e445d2df
2593 F20101109_AABMXC davis_j_Page_034.txt
f4f2939c4616d7cb92f065fa220d108a
c2572b69d0898423d0252ce4ac5b6d0774020256
25961 F20101109_AABNBU davis_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
1c29d4ff49b052dbf303bd0a8d4e9577
0e96950ff1ae99ad8d476f53f2a70201cc55562d
561 F20101109_AABMWP davis_j_Page_001.txt
96e2cc462d49e55a3300a1134bee3b1f
f25cde4b8de18aa1995ffd91ce8f8a0222af042e
6568 F20101109_AABNCJ davis_j_Page_069thm.jpg
e1748490eaea91ca65e4ae60c523daba
2767231dbed6e51fd8fcccbd373445b84e5c93f7
2180 F20101109_AABMXD davis_j_Page_035.txt
69931ee845b9998f42a8b08e16e66110
20a05a0953992d047e4f624c64df2645c0f01e5a
6482 F20101109_AABNBV davis_j_Page_056thm.jpg
0c59857c9b40b22ab412edf083dd3f53
24bb73f6935cc8623f8d6d8d73434d88d877590b
245 F20101109_AABMWQ davis_j_Page_003.txt
0a25a3d68302a74d02db13fde6f3fa1a
070ad50298c91a1d3a343d76f3678215ec43d19e
F20101109_AABNCK davis_j_Page_070thm.jpg
b9d5ff926a26d53d5eb5e1eef3930901
ac69d08656acead5b7927b7a931231a7469dce62
2271 F20101109_AABMXE davis_j_Page_036.txt
a4b846b95c0c84b7364f2203f4a0a099
2e9e1495797aa71f9d9e172a0c68db103c2503d2
29160 F20101109_AABNBW davis_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
5dee384db39eb359045ad508cc066064
2e9720fa28bc5a77cf1535fd6cc5a66f345a275a
1865 F20101109_AABMWR davis_j_Page_004.txt
9b2b8da97b7421d5c58ca234e98c9442
86d19d3d4ef797df3d1565d3bdbbeded3008e9e2
15869 F20101109_AABNDA davis_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
ba4900d3d6fcdd6083f38843be16b966
37bec0d5776cd444e24233dc5537cdd75ee8d1d3
6849 F20101109_AABNCL davis_j_Page_071thm.jpg
382e598f4879a889976bae9dcaee9d63
89349cf6b49aa332af296b9de274f4e4f415a516
2269 F20101109_AABMXF davis_j_Page_037.txt
98547c72efdd72d9a492c43a973179b4
5c8e473ad12c1cc1700c3f40d41e2609052a1ab0
29237 F20101109_AABNBX davis_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
2af424d65775ecd46570485e4ab3e9e1
51d09bbdd07bdd0b8da70f35aef2086f9e07c2e2
2229 F20101109_AABMWS davis_j_Page_010.txt
68edc79a5aa722ae3b05ec6aa2449869
10b58afc53693e73ba415fc0c942716ddb4bb1ea
4575 F20101109_AABNDB davis_j_Page_086thm.jpg
eeb99992fe49532d798bd5be80a1b195
7b41580f97521c7c15ae16dece3ffeb63367b5c5
28637 F20101109_AABNCM davis_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
49c30fc2ab8e8731606bdc8f351ad408
88201ff6b0e8ed20814f33563b321825e54cf843
2548 F20101109_AABMXG davis_j_Page_039.txt
71979267c287524c966bee05d13af77c
d009614042fe841aadb6e4ebd75faf18ced5ddf9
6960 F20101109_AABNBY davis_j_Page_059thm.jpg
360c7cb1ee379cee0f6d76202b8660b2
fbaffc510cd748c5e7c5273a4726505b9f1ac638
F20101109_AABMWT davis_j_Page_012.txt
61dbaee3decd47bfa1c8cd9c9e566874
bfa10c7e22dbc3406a252e0c9f0b356db57d4cc5
4666 F20101109_AABNDC davis_j_Page_088thm.jpg
5a0cbbae9ae8185081e3a3c6b50efbc8
d7758f453ce2ef23f24a6d3d4e9218fc993d4b9d
6569 F20101109_AABNCN davis_j_Page_072thm.jpg
843117e6cf98a7864a593821aaf0aaf7
80580e1d7f6caf128d322e2a57bca87e8ab18fcb
2072 F20101109_AABMXH davis_j_Page_040.txt
220651a5c2d014b8fe37cb9b5349bdb2
714b68b1c3908562959f2611415f07d2f0e633a5
26772 F20101109_AABNBZ davis_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
5ce8964acaba25a029ef62d95f587b09
832fb72fc02a7998e37b3f1c94721325d3b87741
F20101109_AABMWU davis_j_Page_014.txt
ae026df62b2aac8de9d1c0c5df070141
6aa4c22dc411ceaed6e3265de2fe3217106fb5c2
4868 F20101109_AABNDD davis_j_Page_089thm.jpg
ab8debabf236fbe07fe116b183af0775
07b8c4b5b2e17e5c7643db8b513bd66d129ff6e6
29154 F20101109_AABNCO davis_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
926da4ff2461e1d2226510d038b77e92
2991a1547e23c806736569763742984085abe4c8
542 F20101109_AABMXI davis_j_Page_041.txt
e99f32568f2d2f47aacc4b1f083513f2
bbd0410ce18970eabd83d0f8fcd39bc9bb82751d
F20101109_AABMWV davis_j_Page_015.txt
453aa743ac98ca8dfd3448c6ad401441
e4ef9d7c8ba4a32679d48e4a0fbe541afa661af7
6572 F20101109_AABNCP davis_j_Page_074thm.jpg
58b9d9fdd6cf04cde94d18a01015fef3
c007ba0c8a2faedba4c6cf9447abd07b07995eb4
2357 F20101109_AABMXJ davis_j_Page_043.txt
3917f4db23aeafc23d3445abc265ce5d
50481d1c33caffc10537f55ff69af8d51dbf9417
2146 F20101109_AABMWW davis_j_Page_020.txt
e8e4b94c30852cc5e1ac4276bd4926da
d4b1ce4dc01bf9e686ac1d9c56bfc5462f75cf33
13865 F20101109_AABNDE davis_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
1fd50bc25e7976066d39cd8d1954923f
97de4ef4fe7133e71845049b49b6af1bed941915
28533 F20101109_AABNCQ davis_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
cb41f2fd611fb0276f582866be974fad
38bdc9870db2079271e55a0f91fb148ddb826019
2099 F20101109_AABMXK davis_j_Page_045.txt
da433e0d5a8eae74c87b157ab0b2e38e
5cbeee8907f82e809fa08756d3609bc4b6421f1c
2552 F20101109_AABMWX davis_j_Page_021.txt
97e8d84836ff38425e578c4dfa31dc2b
f66bea483bd88b864b2576fd6c6de285bc087b10
26727 F20101109_AABNDF davis_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
7544681fce5c639b80b741658fa717d9
e80f866275f59a5b222573477c0c16ee2b16e26e
27660 F20101109_AABNCR davis_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
e77aeb0df2031f4c90346a6eaf667fff
38d1f76201b5c84386c5d77aa3012f309b59107e
2151 F20101109_AABMXL davis_j_Page_047.txt
761baaf49f16f5b6531fca4da32e0b0f
b4d277328c02b8b47772bf1d858e699eac5f882f
6072 F20101109_AABNDG davis_j_Page_094thm.jpg
c565ff05979bb214f413d611b933b9b9
979c96b03a59a3b79bb47acdcfecbd80d5736ba7
1352 F20101109_AABMYA davis_j_Page_068.txt
157bc44aaa2377ed9e4d4d2d6be5662d
e6f4fb9323ee6ab5475e00226b54fc45a5219e1d
24566 F20101109_AABNCS davis_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
bd4d7d8a95f154bf56dbfe7566c534b5
9d9ff83bd06d95f81cafb867533bffbe01ddc05a
2424 F20101109_AABMXM davis_j_Page_048.txt
94cf33bacad4de0b115f1fa6f29d1b59
bfabe840f542ba29d0c2413b2680896ec04b5bc3
2218 F20101109_AABMWY davis_j_Page_023.txt
ac05a953d527ed48cefb4a012b7a5274
a610c3b2c90ebdd1b56f4298429d9a4d9c11e6e1
29112 F20101109_AABNDH davis_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
8a30960ba88823f14e8f71b2fed913fd
eee8cf50357b6ddde588394d38cbd2126b1198ae
2176 F20101109_AABMYB davis_j_Page_069.txt
0942cbfddd8829c718426889ba235e02
93e591a64162fe89904d93a3a565249752c9e64b
6014 F20101109_AABNCT davis_j_Page_077thm.jpg
dfd14890f32bafe5dcb0e5e6e752be5e
9165dd5351b9859d4b96f661d4d8e93ddb633d53
2065 F20101109_AABMXN davis_j_Page_049.txt
d88acaa3365349d88d2ad752f66e9dce
d68bcf147ebc4678566cc551384a640ed62e0a7e
2191 F20101109_AABMWZ davis_j_Page_024.txt
a4cd0e83e820545cb1027ec547b15771
d0ca06af0020e58ef1f56ef75096b719e86773e9
6944 F20101109_AABNDI davis_j_Page_095thm.jpg
f3737122b90f8d3f2d5629d1e323cfe6
19b0d3457845a3863798683e2fe421b2d9927445
2213 F20101109_AABMYC davis_j_Page_071.txt
a5512ccf1d7694628dc653ca722c3811
1b57197d8534e7218ff8b29c32caeed355fdb5c6
6592 F20101109_AABNCU davis_j_Page_080thm.jpg
1a71c533915d0535db4181478c2ed4ef
7264dd1661aaa006e2b70a21b027284f9a32ca37
F20101109_AABMXO davis_j_Page_050.txt
5fe37917fae323409429a24e65ca289c
8496d0c278ea7385c44d736f18c8ba70ca4d186b
6555 F20101109_AABNDJ davis_j_Page_096thm.jpg
616195503d5b3a4302cb37c7c13bbd87
5f5247764412da3468345a7dd0bc99f95b471feb
F20101109_AABMYD davis_j_Page_073.txt
944fb1c718e42f2557be78f26c83872e
9d007889222e5b584eda6e88a6a794a6c5b08e00
28218 F20101109_AABNCV davis_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
aca80b7421a78af4023d0507ca1ee277
b18431b4a189bde6724af866f52f2d3cf3472272
2256 F20101109_AABMXP davis_j_Page_051.txt
24fcd2b7eb2afa41692f14a3bab67320
416190ec5b37221c3a679ea86dc93ca177accc83
27586 F20101109_AABNDK davis_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
994745b6ba3bd1e6196c47fbb156e9b4
be588e49a2459def7902847dcd2319a47b3a28f0
2132 F20101109_AABMYE davis_j_Page_074.txt
fe8c2aa142638ed97197bcdde47807a2
bf2c2924b81f0353bf9590e518beee5855853885
21610 F20101109_AABNCW davis_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
f7f31ac11b0a443ae5f60022a9dcac6d
69bf55b19b2000ba15e11cd270548fb993602078
2050 F20101109_AABMXQ davis_j_Page_052.txt
6f287a28b5662152733fa46d8d70388d
cbbd1563601aac7158673e9833f40a73797392af
6959 F20101109_AABNDL davis_j_Page_098thm.jpg
ef9bbcfd5b254d7d5f207f631cac91b9
4d39cc6eea9b8876a609b692a8dfce51dfdba1d0
2187 F20101109_AABMYF davis_j_Page_075.txt
2f9f986df3a41c69bcdc0a96e31a834a
84204dc371ac4e793c9b27f99011458964c7fc68
6187 F20101109_AABNCX davis_j_Page_082thm.jpg
73562b5339cdbca3cd22ca08bd0a531a
b148ef7d8a223e94936fc7bb0eb9a8f1269afa70
1167 F20101109_AABMXR davis_j_Page_053.txt
0062671f26e3cb2be622577966bf47fa
60a0eeb8f00a056977c2b7a341839738f1846fe6
7499 F20101109_AABNDM davis_j_Page_099thm.jpg
7dc9d637391e3efd97b9a388b763ab76
b36c31fdc3115e5029664696cf0304d5ce725e09
2205 F20101109_AABMYG davis_j_Page_076.txt
6216524b4c95916f462d8ff077dfe664
92efbcdaf48fd528d8d40a3d9255c006e06b4d57
27032 F20101109_AABNCY davis_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
8148c54c2e312c5ff6b8d84d779c82aa
2871064328570aa9bc970151fb7065c63441e054
310 F20101109_AABMXS davis_j_Page_054.txt
769e97e2befa3876e4f9fb69b0c65661
a6616568df40d5e37c6dd65c572bb3dfd951b7f5
28492 F20101109_AABNDN davis_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
fa5decc544d4ab08bc7a907b6659eda0
9a9fe542fb78994db6fb00731af4385cf1f76018
2036 F20101109_AABMYH davis_j_Page_077.txt
64edb69430a2345d78a1ba5baf71cb0c
e8b992cd4aeb31bba41b407f7da2f1b41b37dae6
4869 F20101109_AABNCZ davis_j_Page_085thm.jpg
7df7f89eb0ee7b1c6b857f1dc6f12330
4d91e3e001d080fe3d31005c57cc63c10265bdbc
348 F20101109_AABMXT davis_j_Page_055.txt
a5c3bc308d7564e8ab6ef92a5b5095e8
68586397838e122b67e265bec3b1254180d48e18
7005 F20101109_AABNDO davis_j_Page_100thm.jpg
4c6a76d5a23958486b6267d4656728b1
29dfd2c777ec60fd7688c5a1bc4f8ea55bcde5b1
2302 F20101109_AABMYI davis_j_Page_078.txt
94d52d3af9566160df859f023c8f748c
0b35062de4565b1dada40cb27741fd6c42a65e92
2133 F20101109_AABMXU davis_j_Page_056.txt
d27bfd819eb6545d0bcc7161e2d94eab
edf1c186e3ec7f367239ff072447db220832e82d
7168 F20101109_AABNDP davis_j_Page_101thm.jpg
2641667d315e7449d51a21abd3f1c7c4
2d03a013e69b7afad2d1770fa3a945ca7a1150d7
2230 F20101109_AABMYJ davis_j_Page_080.txt
d659d2025a1e18447b79b407d9c4b648
a694e8cfba6ec78c93f9be54f440313a209d48e0
2295 F20101109_AABMXV davis_j_Page_059.txt
7dc07b5df75c7b6962f26fae04905c9f
040e13a46cf6af2bfe639100b319b502e4741fc0
28616 F20101109_AABNDQ davis_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
3fbd4b5ef3723df24972f754c8b8926b
2e2edb04e6a52ce8f7a66737fca07625d05a91b4
2168 F20101109_AABMYK davis_j_Page_081.txt
02260f79ce37626df75690c3d88bd7a9
31be4753c957b2faad229c35f2f49d42bdaf0962
2095 F20101109_AABMXW davis_j_Page_061.txt
550c8f533d191b36f764434aa9adbc4c
f8f54372e84e3f90b0d70a67e1af6b5f191f4c62
7216 F20101109_AABNDR davis_j_Page_102thm.jpg
ea3835228303fffe746c7e6f984505e8
f9c3693391c83d6bc6f56139cc2442ee21a5ebf6
358 F20101109_AABMYL davis_j_Page_082.txt
4ae2865f848ab828a65cead3f6472651
ca98b02933f5e31e5f6420f0ed1f5bd3dfcdb7df
2124 F20101109_AABMXX davis_j_Page_062.txt
1c4fade6c4adcb5e9c0dd0bef9198e88
caf056b3f74e4d759127a8ccafe690a39116ea20
6355 F20101109_AABMZA davis_j_Page_039thm.jpg
5fc751c66aad8b180f22a3245ca20e4f
16b1623fa71cabd0bf01b4078641f22960d8aa01
29366 F20101109_AABNDS davis_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
9212b5c8a406daec29ce82c1d390ac42
efcfdda9b346b80f9356160a56afa3fb27bc1890
266 F20101109_AABMYM davis_j_Page_083.txt
852ccbc3116a848fe864ff8460a1fba6
7711438188329420aeb637d567b7bf5fd9c66e7a
2171 F20101109_AABMXY davis_j_Page_065.txt
e1e89c502bb5536cfe90a75ab99b9328
47d9a05f1a1513c2c55cf16b80d51bf1286e4eba
27882 F20101109_AABMZB davis_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
f916c03e714207a7b7c605c86cdb6166
d24d35d26ff5ac47ffbd83082acb11eee11b305e
12296 F20101109_AABNDT davis_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
89817172a93408ae5a4ff0a4c21d2d05
32b335ca9f983f452554df8798d6919a8e02d00c
379 F20101109_AABMYN davis_j_Page_085.txt
22547e3f3ad79acb71ebd1ae4a172e4b
2dc796c2594cd71ec385e6f30a4fb2f23f196c94
6506 F20101109_AABMZC davis_j_Page_018thm.jpg
0024e3983d715242211c3327b627811a
74fde4a3fe414f0523a81859edcd3153ce18f1de
479 F20101109_AABMYO davis_j_Page_086.txt
28ee6df38ca142603ce1b94448881076
ca46455cd96e83ac03b591a8fd731befaa63a542
2154 F20101109_AABMXZ davis_j_Page_066.txt
2333847b32c5fa96aca12b1d08dec06c
3a005863c390658a9859deb32caac7022cf450d2
6262 F20101109_AABMZD davis_j_Page_010thm.jpg
4c5e46d328a65185827f01c12dd1693f
eadb6ca18971a298472f23f73fbc3f68f1fd70f6
446 F20101109_AABMYP davis_j_Page_088.txt
18c652586e0165f40c099a174df0e732
19d006811a0ddeb65e2a78d5e65161c2ccd1fbb6
334 F20101109_AABMYQ davis_j_Page_090.txt
2e474bc3f95eff21bd9960c980ec000d
4ed23469b1da8a445144dc01068073a837c84440
28089 F20101109_AABMZE davis_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
7f914c447edd1bd65b00477d7172dcd4
72c6a248f110eb8ee305d16e6ab50b67f546c5c3
557 F20101109_AABMYR davis_j_Page_091.txt
5e256ad97980c8348b9ef60e404107a4
d9d6ff468b56ed7605425a479a512eb0a14fa4b0
26917 F20101109_AABMZF davis_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
0b062fbe1309d0ce313e2bba3a696538
b3f0c49b012774c8808c778373859ddb10c1eb73
2049 F20101109_AABMYS davis_j_Page_094.txt
da45d9e299ff4c2da98c2b73c38f38fc
c40021ef3a0fb37a89ffe2d20a36401d1456eb24
F20101109_AABMZG davis_j_Page_032thm.jpg
c0509f103e7c738d6a15b4c40131ce8a
00e4027479ce7a11454193fcad92ce24c53c3db5
F20101109_AABMYT davis_j_Page_095.txt
3064993183ee615c0040e30c33e5d6d2
85bf3fd561767c7a0097cbc60e31c843af6fbb58
52252 F20101109_AABMCA davis_j_Page_026.pro
b4474dd1385f3d5787dff1e5e0f9d2f5
1f6a675e59b6dbd843d71ab3656a999dad791aee
6431 F20101109_AABMZH davis_j_Page_046thm.jpg
7849c142f32762811a835c7d71a5560c
cc2901c2bbca00c6846412d1f2710c06f5eea782
2480 F20101109_AABMYU davis_j_Page_101.txt
8d12fbd3d1b4564aed8b6f2c09e8b6a2
68c4405c5849de778b7f859b95ef852c12a50996
86563 F20101109_AABMCB davis_j_Page_060.jpg
920012b37ec9f556946111e36c842c88
6ace814aebc8c81cea077c4e28e1b72103ffa5c3
13245 F20101109_AABMZI davis_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
79982864974435366320bc79c99baa6c
c8f59edbf73184c01fe091fb0ac76b40ba5b1bd9
2495 F20101109_AABMYV davis_j_Page_103.txt
23fbff6f6c1bc0bace9bd91ec2c91adb
0cd89966cfe21c0cebbd487988a0698bf7ad7a49
88994 F20101109_AABMCC davis_j_Page_074.jpg
fd8f259c6c43540464340b0bbaae14a4
413dd819cd8248cc81cb53c24f33204b868fcebc
29497 F20101109_AABMZJ davis_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
849b72daeb490f7a5ac9a43d25fa6961
14ea8a94a35439639309345cf32040e3cd0bddac
1793928 F20101109_AABMYW davis_j.pdf
a9cd05d813b5f5b65298e45fc7276f3b
85bec0e6b156559a794d081dde08ffb36235f1dc
29288 F20101109_AABMCD davis_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
69ce4d95c1965fc5b46786c666077b9b
edf8d1ed1ca7eb2f1d558dce50c6d1438936afe3
4353 F20101109_AABMZK davis_j_Page_005thm.jpg
958d437047cb6408aa83911bc5f17de4
a41ebfea515ab1ecc57e8f4456b6a8069da4f9f9
6489 F20101109_AABMYX davis_j_Page_037thm.jpg
6fe2abec779c8e834480e284ef1db955
b3e2001ac3878ab6d282d4074804ace0bf137f6c
6619 F20101109_AABMBP davis_j_Page_064thm.jpg
42a45067dc2c1a88f13bebe8e82f8969
38f5d9daed153ac23490ecfa25574bc7cdcf4782
27890 F20101109_AABMZL davis_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
4cf03eeab8563149fbcc82f5b8251074
35c053d0884ad87d8707d3240d366b540f7093c9