|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
1 TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS: A COMPARA T I VE STUDY OF PROGRAMS AND POLICIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES By CHRISTEN HUTTON 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 2011
2 2011 Christen Hutton
3 To my met match, Nate
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to thank my thesis committee chair, Paul Zwick; my co chair Ilir Be jleri; and special members, Andres Blanco and Stanley Latimer for their guidance, advice, and enthusiasm. I would also like to thank Paul Zwick, Gene Boles, Lila Racevskis, and Linda Dixon for the opportunit ies to work and learn from their endeavors in planning profession. I learned invaluable intellectual and professional lessons from each of you, thank you again. Additionally I have to thank all of my family and friends for all of their love and support. S pecifically, a special thanks to my father and mother for all the years of relentless guidance and discipline. Finally, this completed document was inspired by the love, partnership, and friendship of Nathan Holt.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 LIST OF FIGURE S ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 11 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ................................ ................................ ................ 14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 Introduc tory Remarks ................................ ................................ .............................. 18 20th Century Land Development Patterns ................................ .............................. 18 Sprawl ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 18 Housing ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 21 Congestion Costs ................................ ................................ ............................. 23 Vehicle Miles Traveled ................................ ................................ ..................... 26 Transit Oriented Development ................................ ................................ ................ 27 Definition ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 27 Housing Public Transportation Connection ................................ ...................... 28 Transit Oriented Development Housing Markets ................................ .............. 32 Transit Oriented Development Economics ................................ ....................... 33 Federal Programs and Policies ................................ ................................ ........ 35 Barriers, Challenges, and Obstacles ................................ ................................ 37 The Case for Transit Oriented Development ................................ .................... 38 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 39 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 40 Methodology Overview ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 Research Design ................................ ................................ .............................. 40 Method of Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................ 41 Method of Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................... 41 Types of Case Studies Sele cted for This Study ................................ ...................... 42 Indicative Criteria Selected for This Study ................................ ........................ 42 Indicator Variables ................................ ................................ ............................ 43 Limitati ons ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 44 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 44
6 4 TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES ................................ ...... 46 Introductory Remarks ................................ ................................ .............................. 46 Boston ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 46 Planning and Development Background ................................ .......................... 46 Transit Oriented Development Policies and Program Initiatives ....................... 48 Silver Line Washington Street bus rapid transit ................................ ......... 49 Silver Line Waterfront bus rapid transit ................................ ...................... 52 Dallas ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 54 Planning and Development Background ................................ .......................... 54 Transit Oriented Development Policies and Program Initiatives ....................... 56 Carrolton ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 56 Plano ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 59 Addison Circle ................................ ................................ ............................ 61 Mockingbird Station ................................ ................................ ................... 63 Portland ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 64 Planning and Development Background ................................ .......................... 64 Transit Oriented Development Policies and Program Initiatives ....................... 66 The 1972 Downtown Plan ................................ ................................ .......... 66 Statio n area planning ................................ ................................ ................. 67 Statewide policies and programs ................................ ............................... 68 Regional policies and programs ................................ ................................ 69 Local Portland policies and programs ................................ ........................ 70 The Pearl District ................................ ................................ ....................... 71 San Francisco ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 72 Planning and Development Background ................................ .......................... 72 Transit Oriented Development Policies and Program Initiatives ....................... 73 Statewide policies and programs ................................ ............................... 73 Regional policies and programs ................................ ................................ 74 Bay Area Rapid Transit Agency ................................ ................................ 77 Washington D.C. ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 78 Planning and Development Background ................................ .......................... 78 Transit Oriented Development Policies and Program Initiatives ....................... 81 Rosslyn Ballston corridor ................................ ................................ ........... 81 Arlington County ................................ ................................ ........................ 83 5 COMPARATIV E POLICY ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ... 101 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 101 Congestion ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 101 Population and urban land area growth ................................ ................... 102 Vehicle miles traveled and fuel sales ................................ ....................... 102 Cong estion costs and indexes ................................ ................................ 103 Development Patterns ................................ ................................ .................... 104 Population density ................................ ................................ .................... 105 Housing types ................................ ................................ .......................... 105 Ridership ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 106
7 Commuting patterns ................................ ................................ ................. 106 Public transit modes ................................ ................................ ................. 107 Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 108 Boston ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 109 Dallas ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 110 Portland ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 112 San Francisco ................................ ................................ ................................ 114 Washington D.C. ................................ ................................ ............................ 116 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 118 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................ ................................ ................... 130 Policy Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 130 Policy Recommendations ................................ ................................ ..................... 131 Future Research and Limitations ................................ ................................ .......... 133 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 136 BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 148
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Massachusetts transit oriented development policy and program tools ............. 86 4 2 Oregon transit oriented development policy and program tools ......................... 87 4 3 Regional Portland transit oriented development policy and program tools ......... 88 4 4 Local Portland transit oriented development policy and program tools .............. 88 4 5 California transit oriented development policy and program tools ...................... 89 4 6 Bay Area transit oriented development policy and program tools ....................... 90
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Boston growth and congestion patterns ................................ ............................. 91 4 2 Boston housing development patterns ................................ ............................... 91 4 3 Boston ridership and commute patterns. ................................ ............................ 92 4 4 Dallas growth and congestion patterns ................................ ............................... 93 4 5 Dallas housing development patterns. ................................ ................................ 93 4 6 Dallas ridership and commute patterns. ................................ ............................. 94 4 7 Portland growth and congestion patterns ................................ ........................... 95 4 8 Portland housing development patterns ................................ ............................. 95 4 9 Portland ridership and commute patterns ................................ ........................... 96 4 10 San Francisco growth and congestion patterns ................................ .................. 97 4 11 San Francisco housing development patterns ................................ .................... 97 4 12 San Francisco ridership and commute patterns ................................ ................. 98 4 13 Washington, DC growth and congestion patterns ................................ ............... 99 4 14 Washington, DC ho using development patterns ................................ ................. 99 4 15 Washington DC ridership and commute patterns ................................ ............. 100 5 1 Population growth ................................ ................................ ............................. 120 5 2 Ur ban land area ................................ ................................ ................................ 120 5 3 Vehicle miles traveled ................................ ................................ ....................... 121 5 4 Fuel sales ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 121 5 5 Congesti on costs ................................ ................................ .............................. 122 5 6 Congestion index ................................ ................................ .............................. 122 5 7 Population density ................................ ................................ ............................ 123 5 8 Single family housing stock ................................ ................................ .............. 123
10 5 9 Multi family housing stock ................................ ................................ ................ 124 5 10 Average number of rush hours per day. ................................ ........................... 124 5 11 Public transit miles. ................................ ................................ ........................... 125 5 12 People who commute by walking. ................................ ................................ .... 125 5 13 Zero car households ................................ ................................ ......................... 126 5 14 Heavy rail ridership patterns ................................ ................................ ............. 126 5 15 Light rail ridership patterns ................................ ................................ ............... 127 5 16 Commuter rail ridership patterns ................................ ................................ ...... 127 5 17 Bus ridership patterns ................................ ................................ ....................... 128 5 18 Visual indicator of study variable ratio s ................................ ............................ 129 6 1 Case study growth and congestion patterns ................................ ..................... 134 6 2 Case study housing development patterns.. ................................ ..................... 134 6 3 Case study commute patterns.. ................................ ................................ ........ 135
11 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BRT bus rapid t ransit Caltrans California Department of Transportation C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County CMAQ Congestion Management/ Air Quality Act CRA community r edevelop ment a gency DART Dallas Area Regional Transit DOT Department of Transportation HIP Housing Incentive Program LRT light rail t ransit MBTA Massa chusetts Bay Transportation Authority MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission MUNI Municipal Railway PDC Portland Development Commission TIF tax increment f inancing TIP Transportation Improvement Program TLC Transportation for Livable Communities TOD t ransit oriented d evelopment TriMet Tri County Metropolitan District of Oregon UGB urban growth b oundary U.S. United States of America VMT vehicle miles t raveled WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
12 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 TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDY POLICY ANALYSIS: A COMPARITVE STUDY OF PROGRAMS AND POLICIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES By Christen Hutton May 2011 Chair: Paul Zwick Co chair: Ilir Belj eri Major: Urban and Regional Planning The factors under which t ransit oriented d evelopment (TOD) projects flourish in the United States are indistinct Most TOD projects face inimitable challenges, as the developable circumstances vary greatly for each site specific project. The programs and policies of five highly capitalized TOD projects in this study, serve as a medium for elucidating the planning tools that catalyze TOD. These case studies evaluate an array of qualitative and quantitative variables to determine the physical, political, and sociocultural milieu that both hinders and engenders success. Bus and rail served TOD projects are in cluded in the case studies in order to add an additional layer of comparison. The study is based on the results of sixteen variable components. Some of the variables are examples of performance metrics of TOD such as public transit ridership, density, and multi family housing stock. Other variables are TOD catalysts such as congestion, daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and fuel costs. The study will conduct a thorough analysis of the sixteen indicator variables for five major U.S. urbanized areas:
13 (1) Boston, M assachusetts, (2) Dallas, T exas, (3) Portland, O regon, (4) San Francisco, C alifornia, and (5) Washington D.C. The analysis product will be a theorized summary of what policies and programs may be more effec tive in fostering TOD projects based on the measured criteria in regard to each individual case study The study concludes with the summari zed importance of TOD friendly policies such as urban growth boundaries, joint development partnerships, and coordination of local, regional, and state entities.
14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS Advocates of transit oriented development (TOD) claim it is the most efficient solution to accommodating all future urban growth. The same advocates generally refrain from acknowledging the genuine American appeal of single family detached homes in roomy, low crime suburban neighborhoods. Despite the historic al allure of the suburbs, the United Sates (U.S.) is experiencing a growing trend of more Americans choosing compact, multi family housing in close proximity to transit often referred to as TOD. Although it may take years, or perhaps decades for TOD to pen etrate the unremitting suburban American housing market, a significant amount of TOD planning and development initiatives are underway (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004) Among the intiatives is this study, which aims to identify what po licies and programs may perhaps be more effective in fostering TOD projects based on the measured criteria in regards to each individual case study. As America's sprawling suburbs mature, they are essentially becoming stand alone edge cities, which scrupul ously blanket a significant amount of the U.S. landscape (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004) The evolution of these sprawling suburbs present s unique planning, growth, and development challenges to preserve natural resource and agricultural land vital to sustaining future American generations. Consequently, after fifty years of relentless suburban development, many towns, cities, and regions have already depleted their ripe for development greenfield land, and are now beleaguered to find alternative development solut ions to accommodate future growth (Burchell, et al., 2002)
15 Recently, as more land consumptive suburban neighborhoods emerge causing developers to recede even further away from urban areas, consequential conflicts have arisen. Although suburban residents traditionally want to remain in the suburbs for their low crime rates and above average school districts, suburban road congestion is a mounting problem, further constricting access to urban amenities, goods, and services. Thes e amenities are rarely within walking distance of suburban neighborhoods because of the segregated, historical single use land use policies implemented by most local governments in the U.S. The repercussions of these aging, ubiquitous land development poli cies ha ve caused major growth management quandaries such as insurmountable traffic congestion, higher taxes to expand infrastructure, increased gas expenses, and escalating air and water pollution problems. In order for suburbs to achieve some level of sus tainability and congestion relief, they must evolve into something more than just isolated residential "bedroom communities" (Ditt mar & Ohland, 2004). The unintended consequences of suburban sprawl have catalyzed serious discussion and growing interest in TOD. TOD is typically defined as a mix of land uses, including high density commercial, office, and residential development, located within a five to ten minute walking distance or within approximately a quarter mile of a transit station. Despite the growt h mitigating potential of TOD, many key components must be in place for the alternative concept to flourish in the U.S. Possible hindrances include lack of frequent, easily accessible transit in urban areas, unsupportive real estate markets, obstructive de velopment policies, institutional barriers, and most Americans' content and complacent attitude toward the automobile. To overcome these obstacles,
16 collaboration and communication have proved imperative to plan and implement successful, thriving TOD projec ts. Transit authorities and local governments must work together on initiating and proposing viable projects to the public community, developers, and financial stakeholders (Cervero, et al., 2004; Belzer, et al., 2009; Burchell, et al., 2002) The most pertinent and promising indication TOD may soon be a viable option for more Americans are the robust federal investments currently being made in bus and passenger rail travel. These federal initiatives have moti vated local governments across the U.S. to make specific planning efforts to capitalize on the investments, amending dated suburban oriented land development patterns toward the shifted housing market demand for compact, urban housing in close proximity to frequent public transportation. The renewed interest in expanding bus and passenger rail transportation is promising, and essential for TOD, but the expensive capital infrastructure will take time, as federal funds are limited for transit projects that al ready have a 50 year waiting list (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004). Even with adequate transit, without carefully executed planning, TODs can become transit adjacent due to problematic zoning codes, lack of safe pedestrian access, and excessive parking requirement s that consume too much land, detracting opportunities for TOD near transit stations (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004). "Successful TOD needs to be mixed use, walkable, location efficient development that balances the need for sufficient density to support convenie nt transit service, with the scale of the adjacent community" (Autler, Dittmar, & Belzer, 2004, p. 4)
17 Local governments are instrumental in facilitating appropriate land development policies ripe for implanting TOD. Muni cipalities need to be proactive about their land use regulations and zoning ordinances, ensuring they are conducive TOD development policies and guidelines. "Without a concerted effort to develop standards and definitions, to create products and delivery s ystems, and to provide research support, technical assistance, and access to capital, TOD will remain just a promising idea" (Autler, Dittmar, & Belzer, 2004, p. 10) TOD is not necessarily a new concept in urban develop ment, however, the strategy of integrating it into existing urban fabric, and retrofitting our suburbs into vibrant TODs is
18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introductory Remarks Since post World War II (WWII) transit oriented development (TOD) is a relatively new development concept. While there are not precise instructions that specifically identify tools to implement TOD, there have been progressive initiatives by local, regional, and state governments that have enabled planners, developers, advocates, and local governments to learn from their mistakes, challenges, and accomplishments. This literature review will examine why and how TOD can play an integral role in creating sustainable communities, mitigatin g growth management problems future generations are certain to face, further articulating the benefits, criteria, challenges, and criticisms. 20th Century Land Development Patterns Sprawl In the early 1900s, the streetcar transit system widely served the residential suburbs outside of the urban employment centers, also known as the "streetcar suburbs". This was a notable precursor form of transit oriented development (TOD) but in the 1930s, streetcar transit systems became obsolete with mass production of the automobile. The automobile ultimately severed the once revered link between housing a nd mass transit, prompting post WWII developers to embrace the automobile as a medium to develop and manufacture the American Dream (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004). The pos t WWII era initialized major decentralization in U.S. cities, instigating destructive decline and blight, caused by the automotive exodous to sprawling detached single family housing and suburban strip malls (Brandes, 2010) A merican decentralized
19 growth has persisted through the decades and led to present day perils such as poor air quality, traffic congestion, loss of open space, storm water runoff pollution, depletion of agricultural land, loss of biodiversity habitats, and high personal transportation costs (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004) Decentralization rates were thirteen times higher than the population growth rate during the period of 1970 1990, a clear indication of ongoing inefficient land development practices occurring at that time. Moreover, although land consumption rates were generally three times faster than population growth in 1982 1997, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rates decreased in 1996 (Arrington & Cervero, TCRP Report 128 Effects of T OD on housing, parking, and travel, 2008) This may be a result of Americans adapting their suburban housing choices closer to employment and access to goods; however, as suburban sprawl development continues, so will its repercussions (Dittmar & Ohla nd, 2004). "For every 1 % increase in metropolitan land use, annual VMTs increased by at least 1.25 % (Bernstein, 2004, p. 223) Despite consumptive development patterns, household sizes in the U.S. have been on the decline since 1965, dropping from 3.3 persons to 2.6 as of 2000. However, despite declining household members, the average size of a home has increased from 1,450 to 2,1 00 square feet (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004) Spraw l development consumes 10 to 40 % more land than compact, dense development (Cervero, et al., 2004). These sprawling development patterns have led to tremendous amounts of low density development in the U.S. In most U.S. regions population densities have continued to decrease since the post WWII development boom. Even transit friendly cities with a long standing history of compact, high density development such as Boston have seen
20 population densities decrease du e to sprawling fringe suburban development (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) There are recent examples of sprawling developments that contain medium density mixed use development, but only as the ma rket progressively has allowed. Despite an increase of density within these suburban developments, the dispersed location of goods that require multiple car trips outweigh the land conserving attempts of a sprawling medium density development (Burchell, et al., 2002) If development patterns continue to decentralize and disperse growth, the U.S. will spend more than 190 billion dollars to extend water and sewer infrastructure to dispersed land development. If growth continues t o occur at the same consumptive rates, the U.S. will convert 18.8 million acres of land by 2025, most of which is agricultural land. On the other hand, contiguous, compact development has the ability to preserve 2.5 million acres of land. Additionally, 1.6 million more acres could remain undeveloped through policies that support strict urban service areas, keeping development contained to existing urban areas (Burchell, et al., 2002) Advocates of smart growth have an uphill battle to combat sprawling land development practices, as the majority of U.S. local government regulatory land development policies are Euclidean based, which encourage outward, horizontal growth, regardless of the negative consequences or ancillary costs (Berns tein, 2004) Euclidean zoning is the traditional land development zoning principle used since 1926 when the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the case Village of Euclid, Ohio vs. Amber Realty Co., where the courts ruled in favor of Euclid, mandating the se gregation
21 located next to noxious industrial land uses, which could harm residents an d unsettle communities (Jourdan, 2008) Nevertheless, because of that ruling creating smart growth mixed use communities has been very challenging in the strong shadow of traditional Euclidean zoning ( Belzer, et al., 2009) Although Euclidean zoning unintentionally catalyzed sprawl, the lack of coordination among adjacent local, regional, and state planning departments has led to an automated process of approving and standardizing the concept of di spersed development. Sprawl transpires mostly at regional levels, where adjacent local governments do not often consult or communicate development plans, goals, or objectives. Therefore, different rules and regulations are applied to adjacent communities, allowing for haphazard, piecemeal development to meander through a submittal process, almost always resulting in approval (Burchell, et al., 2002) To sustain future generations, there must be a fundamental change in how we, as a country, approach land development practices. Sprawl caters to a fictional scenario, where disposable land and unlimited resources are available anywhere, if there is developer interest. Planners, lanscape architects, architects, engineers, and politi cal accordingly, adhering to fundamental preservation and sustainable development principles. Housing The sprawling land development practices that originated in the 1960s were pr imarily using one housing prototype, a single family detached home. The ideology
22 behind the detached single family housing unit became inherently linked to the lawn ty pically one half to one acre of land. Typical single family housing units promote low density development by design. They are often horizontally spacious by nature, almost never exceeding two or three stories in building height. Given ample property boundaries, s ingle family housing is a perfect counterpart to the consumptive cycle of sprawl (Burchell, et al., 2002) The U.S. housing market has averaged 1.7 million new homes per year for the last several consecutive years. Only 20 % o f those completed units are multi family consisting of five or more dwelling units, consequently contributing to the saturated market of land consumptive single family housing. In the current market, the rate of single family housing production is greater than population growth rates (Renne, Voorhees, & Wells, 2005) "The marketplace is not producing the kinds of housing that can effectively house the population that needs it" (Bernstein, 2004, p 234) Further, these statistics are noted prior to 2005, exempting consideration for the economic housing crisis, which presumably leaves the housing stock with even fewer choices for multi family housing. In the 1990s, when comparing housing supply versus demand, one third of all U.S. counties had more housing than population growth, one third had more population growth than housing, and another one third had housing and population rates that w ere evenly distributed. The third that had more househol ds than available housing is some of the largest and densest cities in the country, and where most U.S. mass transit systems are located (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004) "This shows a very high and
23 underserved demand for transit serv ed communities and implied that, far from being a primary cause of gentrification and displacement, transit oriented communities are in demand and the market has yet to provide a product at sufficient scale to meet it" (Bern stein, 2004, p. 236) Contrastingly, if we continue to develop agricultural, ranch and forestlands, the price of housing will remain unaffordable for many as it costs approximately $50,000 more pe r dwelling unit to connect infrastructural needs such as water, electricity, and telecommunications (Burchell, et al., 2002) In some aspects, sprawling low density development is arguably responsible for increased cost of land, as land and resource supplies have been dramaticall y reduced. According to Reconnecting America, housing costs have risen sharply between 2000 and 2005, causing significant financial challenges for many U.S. households (2007). "America's population is projected to grow by 76 million persons between 2000 an d 2030, and at 2.5 persons per household the market will need to produce another 30 million homes to meet this need" (Bernstein, 2004, p. 240) If single family consumptive land development patterns continue as they did from 1982 1997, there is a high probability that approximately 50 million acres would be consumed to accommodate those 30 million homes (Burchell, et al., 2002) Additionally, single family homes still comprised for 61.7% of the U.S. housing market as of 2007 (United States Census Bureau, 2007) Congestion Costs Sprawling, decentralized development has led to major commuter congestion problems, proving to be extremely costly in the U.S. Costs asso ciated with congestion is a relatively new research genre, but is becoming a hot topic given some compelling
24 recent research findings. Over the last twenty years, congestion has increased exponentially, causing: (1) longer commute times (2) increased dema nd for more roads (3) poorer air quality leading to deteriorated health conditions (4) increased greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming (5) wasted gasoline and (6) wasted time. These negative congestion factors, especially commuting times, have led many Americans, as well as communities, to seek alternatives and generate new ways to improve their quality of life (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008) However, some cities and states have failed to realize or address the severity of congestion problems, continuing their daily automobile commute, perpetuating the congestion issue. In the 2005, the Texas Transportation Institute released an alarming report of congestion consequences, highlighting that congestion has increased in 85 U.S. metropolitan areas from 1982 to 2003. Specifically, peak period commutes take about 7% longer (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009; U.S. Department of Transportation 2005) Further, congestion is not only a peak hour commute problem, but in some cities and regions it only slightly dissipates in off peak commute times during the day, causing travel in these areas to be difficult throughout the entire workday. Add itionally, major congestion increases are also occurring on weekends around shopping centers, event venues, and recreational destinations (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005) The Federal Highway Administration has conduct ed an analysis report based on Texas Transportation Institute's findings about the high costs of congestion to identify mitigation strategies. Some proposed strategies include building new roads, widening existing roads to increase traffic capacity, regula ting traffic modes on specific
25 timetables, and the controversial notion of congestion pricing (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008) Congestion pricing is a regulatory toll fee taxed on traffic that travels through a speci fic zone, usually notorious for congestion. This congestion mitigation tactic has been successful in parts of the United Kingdom, Germany, and Stockholm (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005) facilities disco urages overuse during rush hours by motivating people to travel by other (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008, p. 1) However, there is a d istinct difference between enforcing congestion pricing on transit rich European countries in comparison to most of the U.S., as Europeans have mass public transportation alternatives to paying the congestion tax, whereas most Americans do not (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005) Congestion is a fundamental problem in the U.S., and cannot be solved by building new roads or expanding existing ones. The gas tax in the United States has not been increased since 1993; consequ ently, it continues to be subsidized by the U.S. government as the cost of oil rises (Gross, 2006) Raising the gas tax to correlate with current inflation rates and actual cost could be a major congestion mitigation strategy (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005) Congestion solutions or strategies most likely will be costly ones, but more importantly they must address retrofitting our living environments around our community's means and efficient infrastructure capacity.
26 Vehicle Miles Traveled The number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in a region directly affects congestion levels. The more miles aut omobiles travel, especially commuters, the higher congestion levels will be. Congestion cost the U.S. $78 billion in 2005, wasting fuel and traffic delay costs (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008) "For every 1 % increase in metropolitan lan d use, annu al VMTs increased by at least 1.25 % (Bernstein, 2004, p. 233) Low density, sprawling, Euclidean zoned land development patterns are responsible for the continuous increase of VMTs in most U.S. cities. Large suburban e mployment centers without access to transit are ripe for automotive commuting and congestion, and are often a major contributer to increased VMTs in a suburban region (Burchell, et al., 2002) The major increases in U.S. VMTs are not incurred by shopping or social trips, they are made by commuting trips. Recent data suggests commuters are willing to drive more miles and spend more time in traffic than ever before. This tolerance for congestion, despite its negative social and f inancial impacts, has led to a trending, incessant increase in VMTs in most U.S. cities (Arrington & Cervero, TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on housing, parking, and travel, 2008) Arrington and Cervero argue that VMT trends are relative to a housing transportation cost benefit analysis. For instance, an increase in housing costs near city centers will cause an increase in commuting from lower edge city, suburban housing costs. The trade off being the increased commuting time for decresed housing costs (Arrington & Cervero, TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on housing, parking, and travel, 2008) However, despite this empirical research conducted by Cervero and Arrington, the widest knowledge gap nee ding to be filled is how transit oriented development
27 (TOD) affects trip generation rates. The lack of this knowledge prevent s TOD advocates from demonstrating exactly how much VMTs are e ffectively reduced by TOD (Arrington & Cerve ro, Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit Oriented Housing, 2008) Transit Oriented Development Definition Transit oriented development (TOD) is usually defined as compact, high density mixed use development within a quarter mile walk of a transit station, prioritizes pedestrians and bicyclists while providing frequent, reliable, and accessible transportation service. TOD provides households and individuals with healthier, cleaner, and more afford able living choices, especially when compared to traditional sprawl development (Evans, Kuzmyak, Pratt, & Stryker, 2007) TOD promotes healthier living by its fundamental concept and design. On average, people who live or wor k in or near TOD walk and or bike 3.5 times more than people who do not live or work near a TOD (Cervero & Arrington, TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, 2008) Typically, TODs are designed to be inviting to cyclists and pedestr ians with generous bicycle lanes, wide sidewalks, highly visible crosswalks, narrow streets, and often have aesthetically pleasing streetscape elements such as landscaped medians, excellent lighting, and street furniture (Renne, Vo orhees, & Wells, 2005) TOD residents are far less likely to commute to work via an automobile when reliable public transportation is easily accesible by a short walk or bike ride, effectively removing more automobiles from roadways. Less automobile s on roadways means less pollution, cleaner air, and decreases automotive excretions found on roadways that
28 pollute natural water systems in stormwater runoffs (Arrington & Cervero, TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on housing, parki ng, and travel, 2008) Automobile independent living choices have proven to be cost effective alternatives for a wide variety of demographic population. The household cost of personal transportation was one dollar to every ten dollars in 1950, and ha s risen to one dollar every ten dollars as of 2000 (Littman, Transportation cost and benefit analysis: techniques, estimates, and implications, 2009) Today, personal transportation is the second highest expense for most Ameri can housholds and will continue to increase as peak oil is on this generation's horizon (Bernstein, 2004). Housing Public Transportation Connection The relationship between housing and transportation has recently become a frequent topic of discussion and debate among planners, architects, landscape transportation network usually drives growth, development patterns, and urban form (McDaniel & White, 1999). Suburban devel opment has been the primary residential development model for almost fifty years. During those fifty years, many roads have been paved, extended, and expanded to accommodate and connect edge suburban development to employment centers and other urban center s where goods and services are located. However, fifty years of building suburban sprawl development has led to residents fighting for space on many arterial roads and highways, as they are accruing high levels of congestion and commute hour gridlock consecutively each year. U.S. gas taxes are t he primary funding sources for building and maintaining roadways. Despite continuous
29 single family housing developments being built since the 1950s, the gas tax has not been raised or adjusted since 1993, resulting in the U.S. Department of Transportation to rely on federal funding for supplemental financing of road construction and maintenance (Gross, 2006). Without a gas tax increase, thus a new revenue increase, the Department of Transportation simply can not afford to widen and or expand even a small % age of roads that endure daily traffic congestion, leaving suburban residents spending increasingly more time on congested roadways (Burchell, et al., 2002) Congestion and random spikes in gas prices have led to people, espec ially new generations wanting to live in communities where housing is located near alternative publi c transportation options, or transit oriented development (TOD) (Cervero, et al., 2004). Because TOD housing decreases household vehicle ownership and over all vehicle miles traveled, fewer trips are made in urbanized TOD areas. TOD residents are twice as likely to use public transit as their primary transportation, and therefore not own a car (Cervero, Ferrell, & Murphy, Transit orie nted development and joint development in the United States: A literature review, 2002) Given the fundamental definition of TOD is housing and or employment located near transit access, vehicle miles traveled tend to be much lower in TOD districts an d neighborhoods. This is contrary to some theories that claim compact, dense development will cause more traffic and congestion regardless of access to transit (Cervero & Arrington, TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, 2008). The cost benefit analysis of housing and transportation highlights a couple of problems that in reality could become mitigation measures. Clearly, supply and demand play a major role in the housing transportation cost bebefit analysis. If there was an
30 ampl e supply of affordable compact housing near transit, then the demand would decrease, thus housing prices and commuting would decrease (Littman, Transit oriented development: Using public transit to create more accessible and livab le neighborhoods, 2010) If a transit oriented neighborhood doubled their densiti es, VMTs would be reduced by 12 % (Brandes, 2010). Transit served households with frequent service and adequate transit access spend approximately less than $5,500 per ye ar on transportation, while most automobile dependent households spend at least $8,500 on an average medium sized sedan plus $3,500 dollars per additional car, annually on transportation These costs include insurance, gas, maintenance, and vehicle costs and fin ancing (Litman, 2009). In order for transit served communities to function as intended, there must be a frequent l evel of transit service (short waiting times between transit availability) and cognizant placement of housing in close proximity to transit. The role of location efficiency regarding TOD real estate is imperative but does require supporting density (Littman, Raise my taxes, please! Evaluating houshold savings from high quality public transit service, 2010) Recent research has demonstrated that the primary benefit of having mass transit serve location efficient housing is "redu ced dependence on the automobile" (Bernstein, 2004, p. 237) Those households who live in a location ef ficient area served by transit can save an average of $400 per month by owning one car instead of two. "For each dou bling of density within communities and within metropolitan areas, annual vehicle miles t raveled are reduced by 20 to 40 % (Bernstein, 2004, p. 233)
31 From 1970 2000, transit ridership for work trips increased in transit oriented development zones, but has decreased in metro areas (Littman, Transit oriented development: Using public transit to create more accessible and livable neighborhoods, 2010) Transit service of ten minute headways is ideal to sustain a transit lifestyle, maintaining service that has competitive commute times when compared with automobiles. Transit service door to door must be more time efficient, or cost a significant ly lesser amount to be a viable option for car ownin g TOD households (Cervero & Arrington, Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit Oriented Housing, 2008) Further, it is critical to locate jobs and employment centers near transit to attract households to TOD. This is also necessary to acquire additional ridership through commuters, giving transit agencies more revenue to provide better, reliable service (Reconnecting America's Center for Transit Oriented Development, 2007) TOD commuters typically use transit two to five times more than other commuters in the region, with heavy rail systems consistently experiencing transit ridership growth associated with TOD (Cervero & Arrington, TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, 2008). Focusing housing and employment center development near transit is viable solution as it provides sustainable alternatives to the land and energy consumption practices associated with typical single family development (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004). Today, approximately six millio n U.S. households are located within a half mile of adequate transit access, enabling good access to jobs, goods, and services. Transit O riented D evelopment is projecting a
32 quarter of the housing market will demand housing near transit by 2030 (2007). The upcoming generations, consisting mostly of singles and childless couples, are projected to demand lifestyles where you can eat, sleep, and work in a neighborhood, any time of day or night, without needing an automobile (Ce rvero, et al., 2004). Transit Oriented Development Housing Markets Transit oriented development (TOD) is still a relatively new development product, proven capable of making a profit. This type of war iness or concern for building a widely untested and unproven development type such as TOD has resulted in limited planned and constructed TODs in the U.S (Belzer, Eaton, Fogarty, & Ohland, 2008) Further, the recent housing crisis that caused millions of foreclosures across the development product, effectively halting the construction industry in it s tracks. Given TOD is a relatively stagnant development concept in the current economic downturn, presently there is only a small supply of TOD housing inventory in the U.S. for Americans to choose (Belzer, et al., 2009) As previously mentioned, there is a cost benefit relationship with the current inventory of TODs in the U.S. Because of the small supply of TOD housing despite the demand continuing to rise, TOD housing is largely unaffordable for U.S. residents. As also d iscussed previously 16 million households will desire to live within a half mile of transit access, % (Belzer, Eaton, Fogarty, & Ohland, 2008, p. 2) This demand increase has the potential to drive
33 TOD housing further out of reach for many Americans if more TOD housing is not built in the coming decades (Reconnecting America, Center for Transit O riented Development, 2007) It is crucial for local governments to fos ter a wide variety of mixed income multi family housing associated with TODs. Without policies and regulations from local government development authorities mandating minimum affordable housing requirements, TOD has the potential to be unaffordable for maj orities of the population that need transit service to access goods, employment centers, and services (Zimmerman, Anderson, & Finkenbinder, 2009) Transit Oriented Development Economics For every dollar a working American fami ly saves on housing, it spends 77 cents more on transportation In fact, working class families earning less than $50,000 annually spend more on automobile transportation costs than housing in most U.S. metropolitian areas (Reconne cting America's Center for Transit Oriented Development, 2007) These statistics are problematic for Amer ica. Transit oriented development (TOD) has the potential to drastically reduce transportation cost burdens on housholds, particularily low income households, and provide more livability options across the country (Belzer, et al., 2009). While the traditional middle class benefits of living in single family sprawling suburbs is the savings from decreased housing costs, recent research suggests viol atile surges in oil prices have negated cost savings from suburban commnunities, financially straining a struggling major portion of the U.S. housing market. With sprawling suburbs blanketing a significant portion of the U.S. housing landscape, additional surges in oil
34 prices could financially dehabilitate many working class Americans (Dittmar & Ohland, 2004) TOD can alleviate these, and many other finacial woes associated with the costs of mobility. As previosly mentioned, TOD housholds can have one fewer car, potentially saving housholds over $300 per month, or $3,600 annually (Litman, 2009). Considering resi dents of cities with high quality transit pay an average of $119 more in taxes for access to the service, transportation options seemingly equals more disposable houshold income for transit users. This $3,600 per car annual cost to housholds is a conservat ive one. Each year as congestion rises, commute times increase, and sprawl development patterns persist, the cost of owning a car will rise dramatically, especially for long distance commuters (Littman, Transit oriented developmen t: Using public transit to create more accessible and livable neighborhoods, 2010) Additionally, TOD has the potential to save significant fees and construction costs in the planning and development stages. In many cities, impact fees are waived for TOD projects because they are usually compact development projects located in an urban area capable of accomodating additional utilitiy infrastructure. Moreover, given the lower car ownership rates, additional savings can be attained if the city has relax ed minimum parking standards for TOD projects, saving the developer millions of dollars in always passed down to the housing buyer or renter, which can be significant with pro TOD development regulation in place (Cervero, et al., 2004) Transit agencies can gain substantial economic benefits from TODs. Since TOD households are twice as likely to not own a car or at least one fewer car, transit
35 rid ership typi cally increases 20 to 40% when new development is placed near a station with frequent fixed guideway transit service (Cervero & Arrington, TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, 2008). Because there is a high demand for housing located near transit, but not an ample supply, TOD can promote economic development with construction and industry contracts when developers feel comfortable taking risks in the housing market after it heals from the recent economic crisis. Federa l Programs and Policies Since President Obama has taken office, investing in alternative modes of transportati on and promoting concepts of transit oriented development (TOD) is a high priority on his agenda. The president assembled like minded cabinet members, enacting the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 2009, which allocated billions of dollars into new and old public transit infrastructure projects. Since adopting the bill, the U.S. Department of Transportation has invested approximately 8.4 billion dollars to transit programs and infrastructure (United States Department of Transportation, 2010) Further, the Obama administration has created a new Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities, designed to act as an agency liaison or partner between the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs, Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Prot ection Agency, specifically to foster initiatives pertaining to community livability. The program is officially called The Partnership for Sustainable to sustainable housin g and transportation solutions by placing a prominent TOD advocate as the director of the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities. The
36 office s p rimary goal is to assist local governments in creating strong connections between housing and jobs throug h federal housing and transportation investments (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010) The Partnership for Sustainable Communities aims to achieve six main livability goals: 1) Provide more transportation choi ces 2) Promote equitable, affordable housing 3) Enhance economic competitiveness 4) Support existing communities 5) Coordinate and leverage policies and investment and 6) Value communities and neighborhoods. The partnership has fostered some of these goals through grant and assistance programs such as the DOT TIGER grants, HUD Sustainable Communities grants, and HUD Community Challenge grants, to name a few (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2010) The Federa l Transit Authority (FTA) has developed financial assistance programs for projects specially geared towards TOD. Recent federal legislation such as the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA 21) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (ISTEA) granted more flexibility in what types of transit planning and investments can be funded with federal dollars. Programs such as the New Joint Development Policy, Livable Communities, Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot P rogram (TCSP), New Starts (Section 5309), and Congestion Management/Air Quality Act (CMAQ) are qualified programs to assist with the planning and implementation of TOD projects (Cervero, Ferrell, & Murphy, Transit oriented developm ent and joint development in the United States: A literature review, 2002)
37 Barriers, Challenges, and Obstacles Despite all of the positive out comes and benefits transit oriented development (TOD) can bring towns, communities, and regions there are s till real adverse barriers, challenges, and obstacles TOD projects and advocates may endure. According to Cervero, et al., three major factors act as barriers to TOD: fiscal, physical, and political (2004) A common fiscal barrier to TOD is lender skepticism. TOD projects are not common development products and are often considered untested for investors, thus more risky, leaving TOD developers with few financing options. Another fiscal barrier to TOD is higher construction costs typically associate d with attached unit, dense nodal development. Multi story, multi unit buildings required more building foundation materials, specifically concrete and rebar, to accommodate multi additional bearing loads and weight. These costs can be esp ecially high when structured or underground parking is involved (Cervero, et al., 2004) Physical barriers to TOD is probably the most common challenge, as it is the dilemma of finding enough blighted or re developable land i n existing TOD ripe urban areas, as TODs are often land demanding projects (Belzer, et al., 2009) This can be an even larger dilemma if it involves also finding land needed for transit infrastructure, and s dependence on good access to public transportation. Because physical barriers can discourage developers from putting extra effort into finding land ripe for TOD redevelopment, some local governments such as San Francisco and Portland have TOD managers on staff to work directly with TOD developers, assisting
38 them in finding land that is zoned and priced for ripe TOD development saving a developer marketing research costs (Cervero, et al., 2004) A final common barrier to TO D is obtaining political consensus between a TOD developer and the local governments and their officials. Many residents who are faced with the possibility of a new multi story, dense development built in their neighborhood are usually very concerned about increased traffic congestion, property values, and crowded schools (Cervero, et al., 2004) Additionally, sometimes there can be political tension between transit agencies and local governments that can halt TOD projects in t heir tracks if unresolved. Finally, a barrier unique to TOD is the conflict between node and place regarding transit stations within TODs. On one hand, a transit station has an obligation to function as a potentially busy transportation node, having the c apacity to accommodate transferring passengers, cyclists, taxicabs, para transit vans, pedestrians, kiss and ride drop off areas, and parking (Arrington & Cervero, TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on housing, parking, and travel, 20 08) On the other hand, it is important for transit stations located in TODs to feel like a place, as it serves as a neighborhood for the surrounding residents. This type of friction has proved to be a challenging for TOD site planners and designers. There is no simple or easy solution to this dilemma, especially because every TOD is site specifi c. T hus, solutions must be executed to suit individual TOD conditions (Bernstein, 2004) The Case for T ransit Oriented Developmen t According to various recent post economic crisis housing market studies, residential properties accessible to goods, services, and employment centers via public
39 transportation are in high demand. Despite those reports, the amount of available housing acc essible by frequent transit service is minimal in the U.S. (Belzer, Eaton, Fogarty, & Ohland, 2008) Without some measure of reform to more compact, dense development patterns, agricultural and natural resource rich land will diminish at alarming rates effectively putting a greater strain on where a fast growing U.S. generation will obtain fresh food, clean breathing air, and water (Burchell, et al., 2002) Well planned transit oriented development (TOD) can greatly reduce the adverse impacts of existing sprawl development and guide the U.S. towards a sustainable future (Belzer, Eaton, Fogarty, & Ohland, 2008) Summary In conclusion, there is a great need to reform how land i n the U.S. is developed. In most cases, developers are not discouraged from wasteful land development practices that require road, sewer, and school infrastructure, frequently at the expense of local governments and taxpayers. This chapter outlined a body of evidence identifying the strong connections and implications land uses have on transportation demand and intensity. The arguments in favor of building compact, mixed use development around transit are difficult to ignore, as oil prices increase, a gricultural land decreases, and more water and clean air resources continue to be contaminated, arguably initialized
40 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Methodology Overview This study aims to evaluate and a ssess variable indicative criteria that will perhaps delineate what policies and programs are more likely to foster transit oriented development (TOD) in five different case studies A few notable TOD research authors have published this type of research a nalysis using similar variables, and concluding interesting theories about the effectiveness of individual TOD policies and initiatives. Other research analyzes TOD policies and programs at a site specific scale, but have conceded that since each TOD is ve ry independent, and varies greatly from one site to another; critics have deemed some of these studies as speculative and subjective (Renne, Voorhees, & Wells, 2005) Further, the existing research methods primarily studied transit ridership statistics and land values around transit stations, whereas this study investigates many more factors often related to TOD. Therefore, given the broad scope of TOD policies and programs in th e five different case studies, the study will analyze a broad scope of variable indicators in this analysis. Research Design The objective of this study is to demonstrate a hypothesized strategy of measuring the success of transit oriented development (TOD) programs and policies, thus measuring cause and effect indicators of TOD. The study comparative policy analysis using quantitative data criteria indicators, but will be analyzed qualitatively using before and after data. The case study criteria values, or indicators, will be aggregated, correlated, and compared among the respective cities, theoretically delineating what indicators are associated with what type of TOD policies
41 and programs have been implemented, concluding which policies and programs may be more effective than others. The variable da ta is measured over a seven year period, from 2000 to 2007. Method of Data Collection of the data is from the period of 2000 through 2007, ensuring the indicator data is the most comparable. The data is from several different sources; however, the data was collected carefully so that individual indicators for different cities are from the same source to avoid conflict in variable outputs from different sources for the same variable. Additionally, major sources of data originated from national official datab ases or well regarded research institutions such as the Texas Transportation Institute, U.S. Census, and the American Public Transportation Association. Method of Data Analysis For each case study, the research will outline the major programs and policies implemented prior to 2007, de signed to promote and foster transit oriented development (TOD) The study also includes graph s and chart s of the variable indicators that were reported for years 2000 and 2007 to analyze trends, patterns, and changes that may has considerable ranges in population, the analysis of trends and patterns in the indicator data is based on the percentage of change as opposed to sums of variable data. Th e analysis ranges for each variable are respective to the minimum and maximum ranges of each case study instead of a standard range for each variable in
42 each case study, allowing a greater comprehension of even the slightest change in noted patterns and tr ends. Types of Case Studies Selected for This Study Each case study was chosen based on a few standards necessary to conduct a reasonable comparative analysis of transit oriented development (TOD) programs and policies. First, each case study had to have a n established public transit system with extensive, frequent transit service, as transit is a fundamental component to any development defined as TOD. Secondly, each case study has expressed interest, and or attempted promote TOD on some municipal level th rough plans, policies, programs, or initiatives. The types of case studies include bus served and rail served TODs, outlining and comparing strategies between the two, delineating strengths and weaknesses of both. Finally, case studies were chose from diff erent regions, states, and coasts of the U.S. to discern unique patterns or trends and include the urbanized areas of Boston, M assachusetts ; Dallas, T exas ; Portland, O regon ; San Francisco, C alifornia ; and Washington D.C. Indicative Criteria Selected for T his Study The indicator variables selected for this study are all identified in the literature review as having some sort of relationship to transit oriented development (TOD) Some of the indicators may have stronger associations than others, but the stud y incorporates a wide variety of indicative criteria to achieve as much independence as possible. A few of the indicators are not applicable to every case study. For instance, one of the case studies only has bus transportation service; therefore, the ligh t rail ridership indicator will not apply to that case study. The missing indicative criteria are only in the ridership data
43 for which some case studies just have one or two modes of public transportation, and others have four modes. Indicator Variables Po pulation: Comparing population totals will determine whether the individual case studies have experienced population growth or decline. Urban area: Calculating the change of the urban growth area will establish an idea of how land consumptive the case stud y is, especially when compared to population growth rates and density. Population density: Identifying increased rates of population density can be an important indicator of increasing smart, compact growth ideal for TOD. Daily vehicle miles traveled (VMTs): Identifying whether VMTs have increased or decreased can be a major indication of whether a case study is endorsing or refraining from sprawl development, inferring how strong or weak connections between land use and transportation are. Annual publ ic transportation passenger miles: Comparing changes between annual public transportation passenger miles and ridership statistics will identify how well received transit is for each city. Number of rush hours per day on major roads: Determining an increas e or decrease of daily heavy traffic is key to identifying driving behavior changes. Annual fuel consumption: Comparing patterns of annual fuel consumption with daily VMTs can be indicative of land development patterns and practices. Annual congestion cost s: The Texas Transportation Institute has conducted research that calculates dollars wasted to traffic congestion for major U.S. urban areas. The measured changes would indicate increases or decreases in traffic congestion levels. Roadway congestion index: The Texas Transportation Institute has also formulated a method of measuring roadway congestion on an index scale, contributing supplementary conclusions about congestion level patterns for each case study. Zero car households: Evaluating changes in house holds with zero cars may indicate patterns of choice lifestyle changes. Multi Family Housing: Structures containing ten or more housing units to measure trends of multi family housing construction, demonstrating housing market shifts conducive to TOD.
44 Single Family Housing: Structures that are single family detached dwelling units, used to measure trends of single family housing construction, demonstrating housing market trends that affect TOD. Heavy rail ridership: Delineates increases or decreases in ridership for a few of the case studies that have heavy rail public transit available. Light rail ridership: Delineates increases or decreases in ridership for the case studies that have light rail public transit available. Commuter rail ridership: Delinea tes increases or decreases in ridership for a few of the case studies that have commuter rail public transit available. Bus ridership: Delineates increases or decreases in ridership for bus public transit. Limitations Since transit oriented developments (T OD) are usually site specific, it would have been beneficial to look at individual TOD projects within each case study city, mapping out information, patterns, and trends using Geographical Information Systems. However, that geographically referenced data is only located in U.S. Census block group tables, and currently only available in the 2000 Census Block Group Data Set and not for 2007 Therefore, this study evaluate s the variables from 2000 to 2007 to give an idea of trends, changes, and patterns sinc e many of the policies and programs were relatively recent, most stemming from late 1990s. Summary The results of this study will delineate patterns and trends in their respective case study cities, highlighting success and malfunctions of implemented prog rams and policies relevant to transit oriented development (TOD) The study will analyze and compare sixteen different variables for five different case studies, providing conclusive data for policy comparison. Some variables will be compared and analyzed more than others, but all of the data will be verified back to its respective city, assimilating it to
45 TOD policies and programs. The comparisons and conclusions drawn in this study are arguably theoretical in nature, but aim to delineate what policies and programs promote TOD based on the variable criteria analysis in this study.
46 CHAPTER 4 TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT CASE STUDIES Introductory Remarks Transit oriented d evelopment (TOD) in theory, is not a new concept. When mass distribution of the automobile, most cities were TODs, with dense apartment living quarters near goods, shops, services, and streets fi lled with pedestrians, bicycles, and streetcars. Today, TOD is defined as compact, high density mixed u se development within a quarter mile walk of a transit station, prioritizes pedestrians and bicyclists while providing frequent, reliable, and accessible transportation service. This chapter will examine policies and programs aimed at pr omoting and fostering TOD in five U.S. case study cities: Boston, Dallas, Po rtland, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. For comparison purposes, TOD programs and policies utilizing bus, passenger rail, or both, will be analyzed to hypothesize whether a particular transit mode affects the success of implementation strategies. Additionally, indicative variables will be evaluate d in conjunction with each city d programs to measure what policies and programs promote TOD more than others. The result of this chapter compared to the other respective case study analyses in the proceedi ng chapter. Boston Planning and Development Background Boston has a long history of t ransit oriented d evelopment (TOD) patterns, as early settlers built compact multifamily housing located near goods and employment. Nevertheless, like most American cities, Bos ton experienced a surge in post WWII
47 (Urban Land Institute Boston District Council, 2006) In the 1950s and 1960s, there was significant historical buil ding demolition occurring to accommodate highways and modern monolithic city architecture. This led citizens to voice strong concerns on preserving the traditional neighborhood character of the city, effectively halting construction projects in the early 1 970s. Facing the dilemma on how to preserve and modernize their city, government leaders decided to invest heavily in public transit by using Interstate highway funds to improve transit (Cervero, et al., 2004) Reinvesting in Boston's urban transit system catalyzed revitalization throughout the city. Since urban cores developed prematurely and unconsciously into optimal TOD s due to early settlers' dense, walkable and parking lot free neighborhoods a redeveloped and more effic ient transit system was crucial in revitalizing Boston's traditional urban environments. Moreover, despite rising U.S. automobile ownership rates, city officials minimized roadway expansion projects and parking lot construction to encourage commuters to us e the new and improved transit system (Cervero, et al., 2004) Further, in 1973, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) allowed the city to freeze parking requirements for new development, attempting to reduce air pollution This has resulted in extremely high parking costs for Boston's automobile owners, effectively reducing automobile transportation in the city. Consequently, the freeze increased development activity as developers have higher profit margins since parking c onstruction expenses are unnecessary (Cervero, et al., 2004)
48 Despite the concerted city preservation and revitalization efforts, along with the existing transit and pedestrian supportive development patterns, edge city subur ban sprawl occurred in the region anyway, and has caused increased traffic congestion and VMTs along with dwindling development densities and declining publi c transportation ridership ( Figure 4 1) (Urban Land Institute Boston Distri ct Council, 2006) In fact, from 2000 2007, urban land area increased by 19 % whereas popula tion growth only increased by 8 % ( Figure 4 1) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Despite an influx of su burban single family housing the last five decades, currently, compact multi family housing is t he stronger housing market ( Figure 4 2) (United States Census Bureau, 2000) According to Cevero, et al., investors have withdrawn from suburban housing and banal strip mall commercial development, instead looking to revitalize existing neighborhoods and create lasting, sustainable places (2004) Transit Oriented Development Policies and Program Initiatives The State of Massachusetts has acknowledged these problems, and has proposed transit oriented development (TOD) as a valuable mitigating tool in combating the physical effects of sprawl (State of Massachusetts) Table 4 1 lists and describes statewide policies and programs specifically designed to foster TOD, demonstrating Massachusetts commitment to statewide smart growth and development (Anderson & Forbes, 2011) Statewide programs such as The Com mercial Area Transit Node Housing Program aim to incentivize residential development located in neighborhood commercial areas in close proximity to public transit. The program can be utilized in
49 unison with affordable housing programs and grants, with a m aximum contribution limit of $50,000 per unit (Commercial Area Transit Node Housing Program Guidelines, 2006) Another notable is program Chapter 40R, specifically geared towards local municipalities, encouraging them to design ate areas for infill and redevelopment by offering major incentives to promote mixed use, and compact, affordable housing (Chapter 40R and 40S explained: reaping the benefits of compact development, 2004) Local TOD policies an d programs in Boston vary, but a notable one is Article 80 zoning code, which requires transportation mitigation plans for developments greater than 50,000 square feet. This encourages large developments to utilize the existing transit infrastructure. Othe r local strategies include subsidizing metro passes, bicycle storage, and shuttle busses to major transit stations. The city's commitment to TOD focused growth also exists at the neighborhood scale. Boston uses tax foreclosure properties to acquire land for TOD in underdeveloped or blighted communities. The city conducts any repairs, remediation, or demolition work, and sells the land under the condition it will contribute to TOD. For Boston, the transit investments proved to be the key ingredient to pre serving its unique and historically rich urban character of model TOD. From 2000 to 2007, transit ridership increas ed in all modes except bus ( Figure 4 3) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) As a result almost all of the city's urban cores are located within a quarter mile of a transit station and command some of the highest rents and property values in the U.S. (Cervero, et al., 2004) Silver Line Washington Street bus rap id t ransit The South End of Boston has historically been a low income neighborhood, but like many cities post WWII, experienced even more decline and degradation. The area
50 became economically stagnant in the late 1980s, so the Metropolitan Boston Transit A uthority (MBTA) removed the elevated orange rail line in 1987 due to extremely poor ridership numbers, and promised to eventually replace it with an a high frequency alternative (Darido, Schimek, & Schneck, 2005) Poor economic conditions persisted in the Washington Street Corridor, a historical downtown Boston thoroughfare, causing Boston's Waterfront Seaport District to accrue many vacant, crime ridden, and blighted properties in the 1990s. Finally, in 1997, the Mayor's task force report stated the main priority was to renovate the Washington Street Corridor with upgraded streetscapes and introduce Silver Line, a Bus Rapid Transit system (Jerram & Vincent, 2008) The MBTA chose a Bus Rapid Transit System over a light or heavy rail because The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) denied a New Starts application for light rail infrastructure funding, deeming it cost ineffective. As a result, city officials created Th e Washington Gateway Main Streets program in 1997 to encourage revitalization along the Washington Street Corridor, capitalizing on opportunities that the upgraded Silver Bus Rapid Transit Line would provide (Jerram & Vincent, 2008) The City of Boston and the MBTA designated a design committee that made decisions on proposed station locations, shelter designs, and urban design elements. The project's design and construction drawings were completed in early 2001, and constructio n started later that same year. The Silver BRT Lines were planned for three implementation phases as the first phase The Washington Street Silver Line, opened in July 2002 (Darido, Schimek, & Schneck, 2005)
51 The Washington Street Line was completed at gra de on a 2.4 mile revitalized streetscape of the Washington Street Corridor. The line connects Downtown Crossing rail station to Dudley Square, a major transfer bus station. It employs 60 f oo t compressed natural gas buses embellished with stylized silver gr aphics, distinguishing the fleet from MTBA's regular non rapid service bus fleet (Jerram & Vincent, 2008) The line also has fewer bus stops than a non rapid transit route, with some buses equipped with signal priority equipment that shorten route 5 % decline in bus ridership from 2000 2007 (Figure 4 3) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) these upgraded transit amenities dramatically increa sed Si lver BRT ridership, up 96 % on weekdays and 127 % on weekends (Darido, Schimek, & Schneck, 2005) Just as the Washington Gateway Main Streets Program hoped for, increased ridership in the South End sparked development interest. Between 1997 and 2004, the cor ridor has seen $250 million in new real estate construction and $93 million in rehabilitation, including 1,731 new or rehabilitated housing units, 128,000 square feet of new or renovated retail space, and $7 million in improvements to commercial spaces. Th is surge in develop ment activity resulted in a 247 % tax base increase (Darido, Schimek, & Schneck, 2005) Additionally, in 2005 many more projects were in the planning stages. Other notable renovations include an opera house, several historic houses, and hotels. Further, in 2005 the National Trust for Historic Preservation presented Washington Street with the Great American Main Street Award (Cervero, et al., 2004)
52 Silver Line Waterfront bus rapid t ransit With the success of the first phase of the Silver Line, higher expectations and greater investments were made in phase two, The Waterfront Silver BRT Line. In 1999, the Boston Redevelopment Authority adopted the South Boston Waterfront Public Realm Plan, and cited the Silver BRT Line as crucial to revitalizing the corridor. The Waterfront Line opened in 2004 and travels between the Downtown South Station along the Seaport District to Logan International Airport, and employs 32 dual mode diesel electric vehicles. Between 1998 a nd 2006, approximately 4 million square feet of new development occurred in the South Boston Waterfront Area. Moreover, an additional 9 million square feet of development was planned for the area as of 2007 (Chase, Gazillo, Schimek Smith, & Watkins, 2007) Major transportation infrastructure supporting the Waterfront Silver Line includes three underground stations and their tunnels, The Courthouse Station, The World Trade Center Stati on, and South Station, and the one mile Silver Line Tunnel, built exclusively for the Silver Line BRT fleet. The Courthouse Station and its tunnel was the most expensive to build on the Waterfront Silver Line, with capital costs of $110 million (Darido, Schimek, & Schneck, 2005) The Court house station was named for its adjacent close proximity to the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse. The site north of the Courthouse Station is Fan Pier, located on the Boston Harbor. Given its optimum location, Fan Pier is currently one of the largest develop ments in the Seaport District at with investments totaling $3 billion dollars. Upon completion, Fan Pier will consist of three office buildings, a luxury hotel, over 1 million square feet in luxury residences, more than 300,000 square feet of street level retail and restaurant space, a neighborhood park, a 6 acre marina, and a 65,000 square foot art museum (Jerram &
53 Vincent, 2008) Additionally, abutting the Fan Pier site is the 23 acre Seaport Square project, which is in the pla nning stages for a 20 block, 6.5 million square foot complex, with 2.3 million square feet of residential space, 1.4 million square feet of commercial space, 1.2 million square feet of retail and entertainment space, 600,000 square feet of designated hotel space, and 700,000 square feet of education and cultural space. Further, Seaport Square is also planning to implement streetscape improvements with wider sidewalks and landscaped medians (Chase, Gazillo, Schimek, Smith, & Watkins, 2007) The land surroun ding the Boston World Trade Center Station has seen significant development in the last decade. The most common use has been office, as commercial tenants want their employees to have easy access to transit. The three major adjacent developments are the Wo rld Trade Center Complex, Waterside Place, and Boston Convention and Exhibition Center (Chase, Gazillo, Schimek, Smith, & Watkins, 2007) The Boston Convention and Exhibit Center opened in 2004 as the largest convention center in the northeastern United S tates, boasting 526,000 square feet of exhibit space. Further, the World Trade Center Complex consists of three office buildings, the World Trade Center Boston, World Trade Center East, and the World Trade Center West, totaling approximately 1.9 million sq uare feet of office space, built for $385 million. Additionally, complimenting the office convention space, there is the flanking 426 room Seaport Hotel, built in 1998 for $120 million (Jerram & Vincent, 2008) Waterside Place i s another project adjacent to the World Trade Center station that is striving to add a retail and residential land use component to the area. The project
54 was originally going to have a high retail component, but due to the economic decline, the project has shifted to an increase of rental residential space instead. Construction is slated to begin in 2011 and include 234 rental apartment units, 72,000 square feet of retail space, and 14,000 square feet of office space for a cost of $132 million (Boston Redevelopment Authority, 2010) The MBTA implemented the Boston Silver Line to catalyze development along the bus routes to increase ridership and revitalize the surrounding neighborhoods, promoting transit oriented development (TOD ) in the South End Community. Despite extreme development infrastructure challenges, 3.9 million square feet of development activity had occurred within a quarter mile of Silver Line transit stations as of 2006, with projections of another 5 million by 201 0 (Chase, Gazillo, Schimek, Smith, & Watkins, 2007) Moreover, although bus ridership has declining numbers from 2000 to 2007, MBTA is projecting increased ridership with an increase of development activity, expecting to impro ve with a future economic recovery (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Dallas Planning and Development Background According to the literature, many policy makers in the city of Dallas, the surrounding region, and the State of Texas are slightly wary of transit oriented development (TOD) as a major development prototype or sustainable concept, as it is still a relative ly new development alternative especially in the U.S. Sunbelt region (Cervero, et al., 2004) The lack of TOD policies, programs, or guidelines for Dallas provides strong evidence that almost all of TOD success stories in Dall as can be
55 the research does contain one known program that is perhaps not specific to TOD, but certainly encourages it. The program is funded by the North Central Texas Council of Governments and is known as the Sustainable Development Funding Program for the Dallas and Ft. Worth areas, and serves as a platform for public private partnerships for transportation and infrastructure agreements (Sustainable Development Funding Program, 2011) The Dallas Ft. Worth area has experienced tremendous TOD growth in the last few decades. With population, congestion, and VMTs on the rise from 2000 to 2007 (Figure 4 4), a few Dall as suburban communities are looking for livability alternatives to avoid additional repercussions of these growing concerns and congestion costs growing 85 % in seven years ( Figure 4 4) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Inst itute, 2009) Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is the transportation primary agency that manages and provides light rail and bus transportation for the Dallas region. Looking to increase ridership, DART has conducted major efforts to seek partnerships with the public and private sector to promote TOD around their stations, mostly in the form of smart, compact multi family housing and complimentary commercial development (Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 2008) Similar to many U. S. cities, Dallas has declining population densities bu t an increasing population ( Figure 4 5), similar to other Sunbelt cities, so identifying opportunities for TOD was challenging from the beginning (Ohland, 2004) Despite r egional low intensity development, DART has embraced challenges associated with low density suburban TODs, as they are currently making some of the largest public transportation investments in North America (Dallas Area Rapid Trans it, 2008)
56 As of 2007, DART's rail systems catalyzed more than 4.26 billion dollars in new development. This was especially impressive as DART had only been offering passenger rail service since 1996. The early success of Dallas TOD was aggressively a dvertised, and confirmed by a University of North Texas real estate market research study in 1999. The study confirmed that properties within a quart er mile of DART stations had 39 % higher property values when compared to similar properties outside of the quarter mile radius. A 2003 follow up study found TOD properties had increased 53 % more than similar properties not served by rail (Ohland, 2004) Further, public transit miles and passenger rail ridership has increased drama tically ( Figure 4 6) (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) Since DART s passenger rail initiatives, Dallas has had the most TOD success with two specific projects: Mockingbird and Addison Circle transit stations (Cervero, et al., 2004) This success has prompted a widespread interest in TOD from other local Dallas area governments in the region including Carrolton, Plano, and Richardson (Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 2008) Transit Oriented Development Policies and Program Initiatives Carrolton Carrolton is a northern suburb city of Dallas that is characteristic of an edge city suburb, developing mostly from greenfield development and annexation of rural land. As the city continued to grow in the 1970s and 1980s, and greenfield land was becoming sparse, city officials realized the need more sustainable development patterns to accommodate future growth. Since DART was making major plann ing efforts at that time, Carrollton officials decided to plan with DART to promote more compact
57 development, using transit oriented development (TOD) as the model goal (Carrollton TOD History and Background, 2010; Cervero et al., 2004) The city began concerted efforts to develop new TOD comprehensive plan policies, design guidelines, zoning amendments, and policy language to compliment DART's rapid growth in the region. Efforts began with non stop express bus servic e to downtown Dallas in 1984. That same year, voters approved a one cent sales tax increase to fund additional transit opportunities. Since then Carrolton has continuously voted to increase taxes to fund better transit access and major DART capital improve ments (Carrollton TOD History and Background, 2010) First, the city developed the Old Downtown Carrolton Plan in 1988 to strategize ways to increase the local tax base and revitalize the downtown area, despite the lack of acc essible land for development ( Carrollton Transit Oriented Development, 2010) As DART continued to increase transit service in the area, Carrolton realized the potential of increasing densities around transit access points t o catalyze development opportunities (Cervero, et al., 2004) Carrolton streamlined additional TOD planning efforts including an updated Downtown Carrolton TOD Plan in 2002, a TOD Transportation and Parking Master Plan, a TOD Drainage Master Plan, and a TOD Infrastructure Master Plan (Carrollton TOD History and Background, 2010) The Federal Transit Agency rewarded DART's and Dallas' regional TOD initiatives, approving a $700 million Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) that would support a 21 mile northeast southeast connector line called the green line. Carrolton received approximately $360 million for their portion of
58 the green connector line, which opened in December 2010 (Carrollton TOD History and Background, 2010; Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 2008) The City also adopted a new Transit Center Zoning District Ordinance with extensive TOD design guidelines. These land development regulations were created to di ssolve tensions between a transit node and place where people live near transit often a contentious problem associated with TOD. The code employs specific language about building form and urban design guideline standards even emphasizing the importance of mixed use, as well as outlin ing strict standards for parking and drop off areas (Carrollton Transit Center Zoning District, 2005) Carrollton also updated their comprehensive plan, known as Carrollton by Design, specific ally to address the following TOD strategies: Promote pedestrian friendly environments Encourage diversely designed compact housing Provide safe and adequate access to transit stations Create and preserve open space throughout the downtown TOD area The p lan also proposes a multitude of parking mitigation strategies, design guidelines, and streetscape standards (Downtown Carrollton Transit Oriented Development Plan, 2008) DART joining into a partnership with the city to promote TOD by conducting all of the necessary preparatory work needed to extend the light rail system and construct three transit stations (Carrollton TOD History and Background, 201 0) According to a 2010 market study, Carrollton is projected to attract more than 5.9 million square feet of office space, approximately 24,000 residential units, and 4.5 million square feet of retail space in the coming decade
59 (Leland Consulting Group, 2010) likely to provide favorable conditions for future private and public investment in TOD. Plano Plano is a service based economy suburb north of downtown Dallas. As suburban sprawl took its course, campus style office complexes abruptly infiltrated the 72 square mile town in the 1980s, diminishing commercial and residential activity from the already struggling Downtown Plano. Community leaders wanted reorganize the influx of growth, capitalizing on redevelopment opportunities to create development patterns consistent New Urbanism and transit oriented development (TOD) guiding principles such as compac t, pedestrian friendly development (Cervero, et al., 2004) The focus was on revitalizing the downtown with a new zoning code that promoted mixed use, set parking maximums, updated architectural design guidelines, increased d ensity, and reduced setback requirements. On the other hand, officials wanted to conduct planning studies on way to spur downtown development, but not contribute more traffic congestion that already plagued the city at that time (T urner, 2006) In 1983, DART announced interest to provide light rail service to Plano. Given that service would not begin until 2010, Plano officials had ample time to plan with DART in capitalizing on this new growth opportunity (Cervero, et al., 2004) Initial efforts included $800,000 in streetscape and other aesthetic improvements in the downtown core (Ohland, 2004) The city proceeded to draft the 1991 Downtown Development Plan, adopting policies that recommended preserving and enhancing downtown to create a mixed use district, and develop primarily through infill and redevelopment projects (Turner, 2006)
60 To complement the new development plan, a new zoning code was adopted to amend the existing suburban friendly setbacks, permitting of heavy commercial uses, and generous parking requirements -all of which are problematic to smart, compact growth. The new zoning code proposed an 80 acre downtown core distri ct, with four story building heights, limited setbacks, and restrictive parking. The plan recommended additional streetscape enhancements including brick pavers, ornate lighting, and landscaping (Turner, 2006) In 1995, Plano acquired full time DART bus service, prompting a strategically placed "destination" platform for transit patrons within a quarter mile of the mixed use zoning district. This strategy optimized opportunities for ridership and downtown pedestrian traffic, a s the platform essentially became Plano's transit hub, known as Eastside Village (Cervero, et al., 2004) To ensure future downtown development was a complementary gesture to Phase I, the city drafted supplementary policies a nd concepts to the original 1991 Downtown Village was adopted in 1999 and emphasized how development should be specifically oriented, and easily accessible to the Trans it hub at Eastside Village (Turner, 2006) The transit hub at Eastside Village sparked private sector developer interest almost immediately. The city decided to contract with Robert Shaw, who specialized in large scale urban i nfill development projects. Phase I of Eastside Village contains 234 loft apartments and 15,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space located in three and four story buildings. Additionally the site has two performing arts centers, a
61 museum, and a p ark. While project planning was underway, Plano sought ways to expand it, continuing to capitaliz e on the DART platform hub (Cervero, et al., 2004) Eastside Village II plans were underway immediately after the positive market response to the first phase. The same developer purchased the 2 acre adjacent property from an old utility company, conveniently located beside an additional acre of vacant city owned land. Thus, there were 3 acres available for an Eastside Village expansion project. The second phase of Eastside Village, similar in size to the first phase, contains 229 loft apartments and 25,000 square feet of ground floor retail. The second phase was completed a year and a half after the first and both are at 98% ca pacity (Cervero, et al., 2004) The Eastside Village TOD projects doubled the size of the original downtown area and have been a catalyst for additional redevelopment efforts in the area (Ohland, 2004 ) The city has continued to implement streetscape improvements with new lighting, street furniture, and decorative pavers. Other promotional development tools used were a TIF district, a "neighborhood empowerment" zone that reduces impact fees, and a historic preservation tax abatement program. Plano's initiatives have paid off and have resulted in DART extending their red light rail line, providing light rail service to the city of Plano (Cervero, et al., 2004) Addison Circle Addison Circle is an interesting, untraditional transit oriented development (TOD) case study in Dallas, as it is only served by bus, not light rail. In the 1970s, the community of Addison was a popular restaurant and entertainment district, but al so was subject to degradation and economic decline due to decentralized suburbanization by the early 1990s. To curb further decline and a lacking identity, the town held visioning
62 exercises, "Vision 2020 to determine how and where to guide future growth. The residents insisted to aim for developing a dense urban neighborhood to attract DART transit services. The visionary concept was refined into policy language in Addison's comprehensive plan update in 1991, which led DART to construct an upscale bus tra nsit facility on the last large greenfield tract of land (Cervero, et al., 2004; Ohland, 2004) Since developer Robert Shaw of Columbus Realty Trust had built other successful TOD projects in the region, he was a prim e candidate for Addison to select for a public private partnership opportunity to develop the greenfield property into a project that would appease the vision Addison was seeking. Shaw hired RTKL architects and planners to assist the city in drafting a new "urban center" zoning district ordinance and progressive design guidelines adopted in 1995, and was very involved with public meetings conducting citizen input for the project. Addison entered into a joint development agreement with Shaw that required $9 million in public TIF financed infrastructure improvements including an art exhibit plaza, sidewalks, parks, streets, and finance the proposed development (Ohland, 2004; Cervero, et al., 2004) Addison Circle straddles a linear park and is located near multiple on site pocket parks, complementing the newly coded ornate European building forms, all of which are very pedestrian friendly The 80 acre project was built in three phases, and at completion in 2010, is expected to have 4,000 multi family residential units at 55 units per acre, 4 million square feet of office and commercial, 250,000 square feet of retail space, and a six level parking garage. Addison Circle has catalyzed additional adjacent
63 development projects, spurring additional economic growth in Addison. The success of Addison Circle can be attributed to the shared TOD vision between Robert Shaw, RTKL & Associates, and the town of Addison (Cervero, et al., 2004; Ohland, 2004) Mockingbird Station Mockingbird station is a mixed use urban center that has emerged as a model suburban transit oriented development (TOD) project, also serving as a bus and rail transit node. The project was a risk for developer Ken Hughes, considering there was nothing like it in Texas at the time. Additionally, private development dollars financed the project no public subsidies were used. The developer did no t campaign for public funding because he simply wanted the project to be straightforward, not delayed by public involvement red tape. Coincidently, the Mockingbird Station land was zoned mixed use, thus no land use change was needed for the project. Mock ingbird Station is comprised of 211 loft style apartments, 150,000 square feet of office space, a m ovie t heater, and 180,000 square feet of retail space. There are 1,440 parking spaces, most of which are located underground. Additionally, most of the build ings are adaptive reuses and retrofitted to for mixed use, common in TODs. The only flaws found in the research were Mockingbird's pedestrian connections to the project's surrounding context. However, this matter is currently being addressed with future in tentions to widen sidewalks and implement traffic calming strategies. DART is working with many suburban communities to orient transit service to planned infill and TOD projects. Many of these suburban cities and towns are the proactive players in implant ing strategies to attract TOD investment in their communities. DART has complemented their efforts with a TOD Guidelines manual that have specific urban and transportation design guidelines to support TOD (Cervero, et
64 al., 2004) Despite the widespread low density development trend prevalent across the southeast, a few Dallas communities have recognized the value capture opportunities associated with TOD, adopted plans and programs, and essentially becoming a model for other so utheastern suburbs in demonstrating what strategies can be utilized to execute and implement TOD. Portland Planning and Development Background Portland has had a longstanding ideology that development should occur around transit. The 2040 Growth Management Strategy (Region 2040) focuses on building up not out, and leverages this ideology with a fixed Urban Growth Boundary ( Table 4 2), which focus es growth in existing urban areas. The strategy requires local governments to limit parking and adopt conducive zoning and comprehensive plan changes that are consistent with the growth management strategy (Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives, 2010) By 2040, two thirds of jobs and 40 % of households are projected to be located near centers and corridors served by buses and light rail transit (Cervero, et al., 2004) These efforts are already paying off as the congestion index has actually decreased by 1 % ( Figure 4 7), and pop ulation density has increased 9 % ( Figure 4 8) from 2000 to 2007 (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Add (Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives, 2010) smart growth initiative can be observed when comparing io of population increase of 17 % to additional incorp orated urban land increase of only 7 % ( Figure 4 7) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009)
65 Using community reinvestment as a guiding principle in growth and development initiatives, in 2004 Portland opted t o build a major light rail line along corridors ripe for urban revitalization, instead of locating it within the right of ways adjacent to Interstate 5. The decision made intended to support quality development over speed efficiency, further emphasizing Po development (Arrington, Portland's TOD evolution: from planning to lifestyle, 2009) Almost every light rail station and corridor is a transit oriented development (TOD) because of Portland's strong commitment to smart growth and development. A major lesson to take from Portland's success with TOD is that planning is not enough; it must include specific strategies to implement TOD projects. Portland's transit authority, Tr iMet, and Portland's urban renewal agency, Metro (the regional government), and the Portland Development Commission (PDC) are the major policy making agencies regarding TOD projects in the region (Arrington, Portland's TOD evolutio n: from planning to lifestyle, 2009) Their main objectives are developing incentives to foster TOD, specifically encouraging projects that have higher densities, more amenities, less parking, and greater affordability (Arrington, Portland's TOD evolution: from planning to lifestyle, 2009; Cervero, et al., 2004) Additionally, TriMet has been fundamental to Portland's TOD success stories. In addition to sometimes being a direct participant in development, the agency has extensively funded, advocated, and educated about facilitating TOD through the region's vision of "growing up, not o ut" (Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives, 2010) TriMet has no special funding of for TOD and has to improvise with
66 creative way of financing projects. The agency has utilized TOD as a platform to be a suc cessful organization. Their TOD toolbox includes incentives such as: Selecting rail alignments with an eye towards TOD Modifying station locations to facilitate supportive development Funding local government planning to get supportive policies in place Writing down land costs to get better design, density, and affordability into TODs Turn park and rides into TODs Investing the savings from rail construction to create TODs These incentives were largely put in place to reduce the need of subsidizing TOD p rojects and to allow ample opportunity for the private sector to get involved (Arrington, Portland's TOD evolution: from planning to lifestyle, 2009) TriMet efforts have led to escalating rates of transit ridership that hav e even eclipse increasing population growth and VMTs ( Figure 4 7 and 4 9) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Transit Oriented Development Policies and Program Initiatives The 1972 D owntown Plan Like the other cities in this study, Portland experienced downtown decline and degradation in the 1950s, consisting mostly of railroad yards and industrial land uses located along the Willamette River. The city recognized the need for concerted planning e fforts to foster downtown reinvestment. The mayor appointed a citizen advisory committee to consultants and city staff in creating the 1972 Portland Downtown Plan. The plan recommended regulations that would preserve a significant portion of the waterfront for public use, and create tax incentives, subsidies, and density bonuses to incentive development in the downtown core (Cervero, et al., 2004; Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives, 2010) Other recommendations include creating major public places in the form of downtown squares and plazas. The most compelling
67 recommendations, especially considering the period in which the plan was created, were to discourage automobile use and called for major pu blic transportation infrastructure investments. Further, the proposed theme in the plan was for Portland to become a 24 hour downtown, with affordable housing and a generous amount of ground floor retail uses (Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives, 2010) Station area p lanning Portland Mall in 1978, providing frequent bu s service to most of downtown. Developing the mall solidified Po pedestrian friendly district by making restricting automobile access onto public transit only streets (History of the Portland mall, 2011) Portland's Eastside light r ail line was designed in the 1970s, yet the concept of transit oriented development (TOD) was not considered until station area plans opened for service in 1986. The city considered the TOD potential of the Eastside project when planning the Westside light rail project. The Westside station alignment locations were strategically placed in areas the city decided future urban development would be most suitable. Although the designated future development areas were literally vacant greenfields, the Westside li ght rail line attracted more than 7,000 transit supportive residential units by 1998. Portland officials have attributed this particular success example to careful station area planning. Core objectives of station area planning include the following (Arrin gton, 2009: 110) : Reinforcing the public's investment in light rail by ensuring (via re zoning) that only transit friendly development occurs near stations Recognizing that station areas are special places and the rest of the region is available for tradit ional development
68 Seizing the opportunity afforded by rail transit to promote TOD as part of a broader growth management strategy Re zoning the influence area around stations to allow only transit supportive uses Focusing public agency investment and planning efforts at stations with the greatest development opportunity Building a broad based core of support for TOD with elected officials, local government staff, land owners, and neighborhoods Setting up a self sustaining framework to promote TOD once the planning is complete Portland's elected officials, along with visionary guidance from Metro the region regulatory planning body, have been involved in fostering TOD since station area planning began for the Eastside project in 1980. Metro has three full time staff members currently dedicated to the Metro's TOD program, which are responsible for organizing and contracting future TOD projects that will contribute efforts to the Region 2040 vision (Arrington, Portland's TOD evol ution: from planning to lifestyle, 2009) Statewide p olicies and p rograms The state of Oregon has adopted many programs policies, and incentives ( Table 4 2) to encourage and foster smart growth principles that encompass planning tools utilized to im plement transit oriented development (TOD) projects. The first major initiative was Senate Bill 100, the Oregon Land Use Planning Program, which established a statewide partnership, leading local governments to define urban growth boundaries in which to re strict development, limiting sprawl and depletion of resources. The state went on to create more programs that incidentally promoted TOD, such as the TOD Program with a bian nual budget of 2.5 million dollars. The MTIP funds are mostly used for site acquisition, allowing the program to write down the land costs to
69 developers committed to building TOD projects on the site. (Arrington, Portland' s TOD evolution: from planning to lifestyle, 2009; Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives, 2010) Another important statewide planning tool is the Tr ansportation Planning Rule ( Table 4 2), which outlines goals and objectives to mak e stronger land use connections with transportation. However, the plan requires strategies to relinquish dependency of the automobiles, emphasizing the importance of public transportation to existing and new development. This plan also calls for target ach ievements in reducing VMTs, encouraging bicycle and pedestrian friendly environments, and producing transportation plans that outline roadway improvements for non automotive forms of transportation (Livable Portland: land use and tr ansportation initiatives, 2010) Additionally, The Transportation and Growth Mana gement Program ( Table 4 2) provides a wide variety of technical and financial assistance to local governments to create, adopt, amend, and refine plans to improve smart growth initiatives such through improving transportation plans, land development policies, and urban design standards (Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives, 2010) The state also created a tax exemption pro gram in 1995 ( Table 4 2) that offers incentives for compact, high density development. Finally, th e Vertical Housing Program ( Table 4 2) also offers incentives to developers to build high density residential development with major property tax breaks for a ten year period (Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives, 2010) Regional policies and p rograms The 2040 Growth Management St rategy was adopted in 1994 ( Table 4 3), and mandated growth be allocated, redistrib uted, and redeveloped in exiting urban
70 communities, or areas within the predefined UGB in close proximity to public transit. The governing body of the UGB is Metro, a regional elected official government with regulatory power regarding growth and developme nt in three counties and twenty five cities in the Portland region. One of the most successful programs in regard to implementing well received transit oriented development (TOD) TOD Implementation program ( Table 4 3). The TOD program w as created 1998 and has mastered the challenging task of crafting joint development agreements between developers and local governments to produce vibrant TOD communities (Cervero, et al., 2004) Through the TOD program, Metro has facilitated more than $300 million in development, including 2,100 residential units, 100,000 square feet of retail and 140,000 square feet of office space (Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives, 2010) Local Portland policies and p rograms transit oriented development (TOD) success story, The Pearl District, would not have been possible without local Portland TOD incentives and programs, despite aggressive regional and statewide success can be attributed to a pioneering Master Development Agreement between the city and a private developer (Cervero, et al., 2004) The developer owned a large amount of land in a contaminated industrial area, which straddled downtown and the Willamette River. For years, the area had been identified as having significant redevelopment potential, and could be a profound catalyst to down town redevelopment initiatives. The city created an urban renewal district that used Tax Increment Financing (TIF) ( Table 4 4) as a vehicle to fund site and infrastructure improvements, leveraging the developer to build at higher densities and
71 include affo rdable housing into the project (Cervero, et al., 2004; Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives, 2010) The Pearl District Confident in the transit supportive development trend by the early 1990s, P ortland officials began planning efforts for the Portland Streetcar, with the intention of revitalizing the Central City (Pearl District). Since its opening day in 2001, the Portland Streetcar has catalyzed over 3.4 billion dollars in new development, incl uding more than 10,212 residential units at 120 housing units per acre along the Pearl District route (Cervero, et al., 2004) transit oriented development (TOD) investment (Arrington, Portland's TOD evolution: from planning to lifestyle, 2009) In fact, from 2000 to 2007, multi family housing stock ha s increased by an astonishing 54 % with single family housing decreasing by 2 % ( Figure 4 8) (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) Once an industrial warehouse and rail yard district, the Pearl District now boasts Portland's densest residential neighborhoods, complemented by vibr ant mixed use development, parks, cafes, galleries, and restaurants. The success of the Pearl District project can be arguably attributed to the site of the project, as it was located where the initial construction of the Portland Streetcar was first began thus development speculation catalyzed redevelopment on a large scale (Arrington, Portland's TOD evolution: from planning to lifestyle, 2009) Additionally, revitalizing the Pearl District dramatically increase d public trans it ridership ( Figure 4 9) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) At completion, the city expects Pearl District to have 5,500 residential units, one million square feet of commercial and retail space, and to create 21,000 jobs. The
72 primary goals desired from the agreement were to promote transit use, increase density, create a vibrant district to attract and support new business, preserve historic buildings, and foster the arts (Cervero, et al., 2004; Arrington, Portland's TOD evolution: from planning to lifestyle, 2009) Cervero, et al., considers Portland to be the model TOD in the U.S., as the city has retrofitted the downtown and area suburbs with compact urban deve lopment connected by extensive public transit lines, truly enabling Portland residents to become automobile independent (2004) San Francisco Planning and Development Background Plagued with increasing traffic congestion, populat ion, sprawling development ( Figure 4 10), and unaffordable housing California has embraced transit oriented development (TOD) as a major mitigating, smart growth tool (Cervero, et al., 2004; Renne, 2008) The San Francisco Bay Area is developed at higher densities in general when co mpared to other urb anized regions in the U.S. ( Figure 4 10), however, it was not immune to the suburban sprawl phenomenon in the 1960s, and consequently has encountered many of the same difficulties accommodating growth (Dittmar & O hland, 2004) The state has invested $14 billion in public transportation in the last 25 years, investment in public transportation was primarily because of increas ing concern over air quality and traffic congestion, which can be observed with the increase of fuel sales and VMTs from 2000 2007 alone ( Figure 4 10) (Cervero, 1998) The San Francisco Bay Area currently boasts more than 40 different transit agencies that provide bus, light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, cable car, streetcar, and ferry public transit service. The
73 region had experienced ridership decline in the late 1980s and 1990s due to decentralization of urban areas, as people were being dispersed farther from transit stations and routes. However, as congestion increased in the last decade, overall trans it ridership has increased ( Figure 4 12), providing a sturdy platform for future TOD (Cervero, 1998; Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Transit Oriented Development Policies and Program Initiatives Statewide policies and p rograms investments. The Community Based Transportat ion Planning grant program ( Table 4 5) is spo nsored by the California Department of Transportation, and allocates up to $3 million annually to local governments, regional planning or transit agencies, and universities to create plans that will strengthen land use and transportation relationships (Statewide transit oriented development study: Factors for success in California, 2002; Anderson & Forbes, 2011) transit oriented development (TOD) strategies is the TOD Housing Progra m ( Table 4 5), sponsored by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. This program provides low interest loans for rental housing residential development for developers, and mortgage assistance for aspiring unit homeowners. The housi ng must be located within a half mile of an existing or proposed transit station. As of 2007, a total of $285 million in funding was available for three years (Anderson & Forbes, 2011; Transit oriented development housing program guidelines, 2007)
74 Another state TOD initiative, The 1994 California Transit Villag e Development Planning Act ( Table 4 5) had intentions to provide local governments with financial incentives to create plans that directed new development near t ransit stations, allowing density bonuses and expedited permit processes as major incentives. The Act was somewhat controversial in the California legislature, and did not ultimately obtain funding for distribution. In fact, since the bill was approved, no major TOD projects have (Cervero, 1998) Another notable TOD policy initiative is the Downtown Rebo und Planning Grant Program ( Table 4 5), which can be used for TOD, but i s also used for urban infill and adaptive reuse for high density housing projects as well. The California Department of Housing and Community Development sponsors the grant, and in recent years has not had available funding (Re nne, 2008) Regional policies and p rograms The Bay Area has been serious about public mass transit for decades. However, achieving con sensus among nine county and 100 city governments about transportation, growth management, and environmental quality has been challenging (Cervero, et al., 2004) The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the regional planning agency of the nine bay area counties including Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo Counties (Association of Bay Area governments overview) In 2000, ABAG facilitated a visioning process with other Bay Area governmental entities, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), to foster sustainable communities in the Bay Area. That planning initiative led to policies focused on promoting a better housing balance, open space preservation, and focus ing land development in existing urban areas in close proximity
75 to transit. ABAG's policies are more goal oriented as they are not a regulatory agency. ABAG was the principle regional transportation planning agency for the Bay Area until California State L egislature created the MTC in 1970, alleviating ABAG from project disbursement responsibilities (Cervero, et al., 2004) In 1988, the MTC founded the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program ( Table 4 6), committing funding to projects that had strong land use and transportation implications, "to strengthen the link between transportation, community goals, and land use" (Cervero, et al., 2004, p. 385) The program utilizes community based input to develop transportati on projects that strived to revitalize urban neighborhoods, commercial districts, downtown cores, as well as foster transit neighborhood corridors. Annual funding is approximately $27 million per year to assist in transit adjacent projects, specifically in fill oriented projects (San Francisco Bay Area transit oriented development study: Review of existing transit oriented policies, 2004) Additionally, the TLC program primarily disperses capital grants, planning grants, and the Housing Incentive Prog ram (HIP). The HIP program ( Table 4 6) was modeled after a San Mateo City/County Association of Government's (C/CAG) program, known as the TOD Incentive Program ( Table 4 6). The HIP program encourages municipalities to build new deve lopment near transit, offering $2000 for every bedroom within one third of a mile of transit, requiring a minimum density of 40 DU per acre. The C/CAG has had some success with the HIP, using it as a planning tool to incentivize TOD. Moreover, the size and scope of the development coincides with the grant money available to the projec t (Cervero, et al., 2004)
76 "TLC capital grants are an excellent example of directing transportation dollars to support smaller scale capital proje cts that can help promote transportation choices as well as support land use changes in the form of infill housing and transit oriented development" (San Francisco Bay Area transit oriented development study: Review of existing transit oriented policies, 2 004, p. 3) Despite some TOD success with the TLC program, project funding is limited, and more grants and financial incentives are needed to accommodate the transit investments and affordable housing challenges in the Bay Area (Cer vero, et al., 2004) Housing Incentive Program ( Table 4 6) strives to foster and promote high density housing projects with good access to transit services, facilitating better connections with land uses and trans portation. Although the title of the program seems housing oriented, the program actually rewards high density housing projects with funding for transportation projects instead. The grant will provide projects with transportation funding for up to $2000 pe r bedroom, with an extra $250 per affordable bedroom (Program guidelines for The Transit Oriented Development Housing Incentive Program, 2010) Transit Expansion Projects ( Table 4 6). This particular program uses urban form and development densities to determine funding needed. Each station must create a station area plan that outlines guidelines regarding density thresholds, parking, and housing, employment, and design standards. The primary focus of the program is to ensure each station is meeting a certain density threshold needed to support surrounding development and ridership. If the mandated conditions are met, the program has
77 approximately 11.8 billion dollars to expand transit to a proposed station (MTC Resolution 3434: Transit oriented development policy for regional transit expansion projects, 2005) Despite the many challenges associated with funding, there h as been successful implementation of TOD projects in the region. San Francisco is an ideal city to promote TOD considering the wide variety of transit modes available including bus, light rail, cable car, streetcar, heavy rail, commuter rail, and ferry ser vice. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) are the two major transit service providers to and from San Francisco (Cervero, et al., 2004) Bay Area Rapid Transit Agency The Bay Area Ra pid Transit Agency ( BART ) operates 104 mile heavy rail system that services 43 transit stations, mostly in San Francisco and Oakland (BART transit oriented development guidelines, 2003) Planners have made concerted efforts to include BART stations in tran sit oriented development (TOD) planning efforts with variable success. In 2003, BART developed Transit Oriented Development Guidelines to inform planners, local governments, elected officials, developers, and citizens about physical design criteria conduci ve to TOD, specifically around BART transit stations. The guidelines also outline suggested principles for transit station and parking design, prioritizing safety to bicyclists and pedestrians (Cervero, et al., 2004; BART t ransit oriented development guidelines, 2003) Parking requirements have significantly hindered BART's opportunities to foster well designed TOD projects (Cervero, et al., 2004; Arrington & Cervero, 2008) T he guidelines do not address how to phase existing parking into redevelopment opportunities. This is problematic because the cost of providing parking in a project is
78 extremely high, especially in San Francisco with expensive land costs. Further, BART has a replacement parking policy of one to one, adding an additional financial strain on developers that are seeking to redevelop TOD friendly station parking lots. Moreover, by providing free parking at stations, BART contributes to lowering the cost of perso nal transportation, effectively hampering efforts made towards promoting TOD. Thus, many BART parking lots that are highly suitable for TOD remain vacant (Cervero, et al., 2004) Despite some policies that prevent BART from achieving TOD, other endeavors have fostered new TOD growth in the Bay Area (Arrington & Cervero, 2008) BART has engaged in a few joint development agreements that have achieved win win outcomes with TOD projects. For ex ample, BART has a variety of joint development agreements ranging from ground leases on agency owned land swapping agreements, persuading development closer to transit stations (BART transit oriented development guidelines, 2003) BART finally acknowledged the positive potential of joint development agreements, realizing the high ridership and ground leasing possibilities associated with TOD. As a result, BART has campaigned for joint development opportunities with local and reg ional governments, relying heavily on community vision input. BART's decision to let communities take precedence when determining how and where TOD should be implemented catalyzed some of the most successful TOD projects in the country (Cervero, et al., 2004; Cervero, 1998) Washington D.C. Planning and Development Background Cervero, et al., r efers to Washington D.C. transit oriented development (TOD) as a model for the nation (2004). The Washington Metro rail system is the only U.S. transit
79 system built specifically to organize growth and curb congestion. The congestion problems that plagued Washington D.C. in the 1970s are unique in that congestion was mounting from the sprawling sub urban automobile commuters, but also within the District itself. In recent decades Washington D.C. has experienced heartier growth rates than most inner urban areas prompting the creation of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) in 1967 t o plan, manage, and implement a new heavy rail public transportation system to accommodate growth and attempt to alleviate some of the coupled automobile congestion (Cervero, et al., 2004; Leach, 2004) Today, WMATA i s the second largest public transportation agency in the country, providing transit to Washington D.C., Virginia, and Maryland, with a 103 mile, 86 station heavy passenger rail system (Cervero, et al., 2004) The heavy rail sys tem was constructed primarily to curb congestion and improve air quality. In the 1970s, WMATA pioneered and facilitated additional efforts by encouraging development near their stations, further increasing ridership and decreasing automobile congestion. Si nce WMATA was a multi jurisdictional transit agency, thus creating ways to foster development around their transit stations was challenging, especially considering the notion was mostly in the realm of land development not transportation. Regardless of obv ious obstacles and challenges, WMATA developed a program that facilitates TOD projects through joint development ventures, where private developers work with the catalyzed deve lopment along the prosperous Rosslyn Ballston corridor in the 1970s, and is a major reason WMATA has experienced continuous high ridership numbers (Cervero, et al., 2004)
80 Most TOD projects in the region were only possible thr ough joint development ventures, which have proven to be exemplary resource implementation tools for often complex TOD projects. WMATA defines joint development as a program that fosters TOD by marketing WMATA property interests in to developers with the o bjective of developing TOD projects. Additionally, rather than wait for TOD proposals, WMATA created a real estate development department to seek, orchestrate, and implement joint development partnerships as well as land acquisitions and holdings. WMATA de veloped basic TOD guidelines, aiming to increase revenue, attract additional ridership, and expand the local tax base (Cervero, et al., 2004) WMATA's investment in a major rail system was the catalyst for smart growth and rede velopment for the region and driven by the following principles: Public involvement in essential from the beginning A predictable development project review process is important for developers and the affected community Mix use development promotes a balanced use of the transportation system Density supports transit use Design is important; so are pedestrians Historic preservation maintains community character Economic diversity is important The region is still experiencing steady regional growth indi cated by increasing population, congestio n, and VMTs from 2000 2007 ( Figure 4 13). However, despite those increases, urban land area growth rates have not exceed ed population growth rates ( Figure 4 13), indicating population de nsities have not decreased ( F igure 4 14) like so many other parts of the country (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation
81 Institute, 2009) These moderate statistics could arguably be attributed to the visionary staff from WMATA, Arlington County, Montgo mery County, Virginia, and Maryland, as they realized the incredible potential of orchestrating development opportunities with uncomplicated access to an efficient mass transit system. The concerted efforts by WMATA and local area governments to encourage development near metro rail stations early on was crucial to the success of the thriving hi gh ridership TOD districts ( Figure 4 15) in D.C., Virginia, and Maryland today (Cervero, et al., 2004; Leach, 2004) Transit Or iented Development Policies and Program Initiatives Rosslyn Ball ston c orridor The earliest redevelopment effort was to revitalize the Rosslyn Ballston corridor, a 3 mile low density commercial strip in Arlington, VA that was also serving as a blighted comm uting thoroughfare into Washington, D.C. In the 1970s, the area lost more than one third of its population and many local businesses due to the sprawling suburbanization occurring in the region at that time. As early as the mid 1960s, local officials propo sed transit oriented development (TOD) as the vehicle to revitalize the declining suburban corridor, utilizing WMATA's plans to extend transit service to that area (Leach, 2004) After discussing many possible concepts to fuel a revitalization campaign for the Rosslyn Ballston corridor, the county coined the project the "bulls eye" plan, demonstrating the proposed intensity activity that would occur within a quarter mile of the five planned transit stations and be a fifteen minu te walk from one another. The idea was to increase building heights and development densities at each WMATA transit station and make appropriate hierarchical intensity transitions to and from adjacent low
82 density neighborhoods, reciprocating this intensity pattern at each station along the corridor (Cervero, et al., 2004; Leach, 2004) WMATA's Metrorail transit lines finally extended to the Rosslyn Ballston Corridor in the late 1970s, providing easy access to many part s of the D.C. region and Reagan International Airport. From 1972 2002 there was an 81 % increase of assessed land value and improvements including 11,000 residential units, 16 million square feet of office, 1 million square feet of retail, and 1,900 hotel rooms (Leach, 1994) As of 2003, approximately 1.1 million square feet of commercial development and 1,400 housing units were under construction. The progressive persistence of Arlington County officials to redevelop the R B corridor was instrumental in d issolving early, often fierce opposition. Today, Arlington County rarely faces community challenge and opposition because of their commitment to maintaining an open dialogue with the existing community about future development decisions. Further, the count y diligently seeks future joint development opportunities through a methodical analysis that delineates suitability specific to individual project portfolios. The success of the Rosslyn Ballston corridor is the product of a strong, progressive vision inte grated with long range planning. The immaculate attention to urban macro and micro scale at the station, site, sector, district, and corridor reflects the existing continuity planners were initially striving for. An important lesson learned in Arlington's case is planning cannot start too early. The same planning principles used for the corridor thirty years ago, are used today but are refined to progress with the built environment.
83 Arlington County County planners developed a methodical transit oriented development (TOD) site classification system to determine what projects were most ripe via t he market and public interest. Level 1 sites have significant private sector interest and will require little public sector intervention. Level two properties show some private sector interest, but carry constraints due to some hesitancy by the local jurisdiction to move forward or to site issues. Level 3 sites suffer from lack of private sector interest and require substantial public sector intervention over a long period of time (Cervero, et al., 2004) This classification system help ed clarify TOD suitability in terms of market feasibility to all parties involved in WMATA TOD partnerships, clarifying the level of risk for involved parti es. The transparency of WMATA's and Arlington County's joint development agreements give developers a certain sense of predictability, thus the most successful TOD project in the country was championed by the two entities. While successful development pro jects with high occupancy rates are optimum for economic growth, they can also produce challenges for equitable growth strategies. Arlington County's soaring property values have depleted affordable housing stock in the private market. In 1990, the county created incentives and facilitated partnerships with developers, non profits, and property owners to build and maintain the availability of affordable housing. Additionally, the county created the "Special Affordable Housing Protection District" (SAHPD) to maintain affordable housing through density bonus incentives and requiring one for one replacement of affordable units in the designated areas within the Metrorail corridors (Leach, 2004) The county also encouraged affordable housing through a program called Community Benefit Units or CBUs, which are housing units owned by nonprofits or
84 individuals but governed by county agreements that guarantee the units remains affordable up to 30 years. "By the end of 2001, 7.9 % of the 22, 708 housing units in the corridor were CBUs" (Leach, 2004, p. 135). The county has made concerted efforts to incentivize development of residential housing units since the 1970's. Since there continues to be an incoming supply of housing, attempting to mee t demand has helped to maintain the area's housing stock affordability. In fact, in the 1980s new office development surpassed rates of new residential development prompting the county to implement special zoning districts requiring developers to construct residential units before building the maximum allowable of office unit density. These improvised programs enabled Arlington County to capitalize on the constant growth and development, providing a true mixed use neighborhood with a rare equal ratio of res idential housing to retail and office commercial development (Leach, 2004) Although the county frequently prescribes specific guidelines to ensure optimum development potential, the early core planning guidelines and principles mostly remain the same. Early on, the county created a general land use plan (GLUP) and station area plans, determining where development should occur. After designating areas in the corridor for transit oriented growth setbacks, densities, and circulation were outlined to bolster the physical elements of the plan. Additionally, each station had an individual sector plan that addressed land use, zoning ordinances, streetscape standards, urban design, transportation, and open space guidelines wit hin a quarter mile of each station, ensuring unique urban form and efficient function of each station. This type of micro scale planning design at the macro scale of transit station planning led to successful completion of station "districts. Rosslyn, Bal lston, and Crystal City serve as business
85 centers; Court House has emerged as a governmental center; Pentagon City has become a regional shopping center; Clarendon functions as an urban village with shops and restaurants; and Virginia Square has a cultural and educational focus. The planning tools used to create the distinct transit station personalities were targeted infrastructure improvements, incentive zoning, development proffers, and permissive as of right zoning (Cerv ero, et al., 2004; Leach, 2004)
86 Table 4 1. Massachusetts transit oriented development policy and program tools Statewide Tools Description Commercial Area Transit Node Housing Program Sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Commu nity Development, this program provides financial assistance to rental housing projects located within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed transit station. MassWorks Transit Oriented Development Infrastructure and Housing Support Program Sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development, this program provides grants for pedestrian and bicycle, housing, and parking for mixed use projects that are located within a quarter mile from a transit station or ferry terminal. Cha pter 40R Housing and Smart Growth Incentives This state program allocates direct funding to cities that create zoning districts to specifically encourage compact housing near transit, requiring 20% be used for affordable housing. Chapter 40 S Smart Growth Cost Reimbursement Supplementary to Chapter 40R to ensure receiving municipalities can accommodate increases in growth and density that occur from the Chapter 40R program. Source. (Anderson & Forbes, 2011)
87 Table 4 2. Oregon transit oriented development policy and program tools Statewide Tools Description of Policies Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), 1979 A central tenet of Oregon's Land Use Planning Program. Ensures a 20 year land supply inside and prese rves rural areas outside the urban growth boundary. Portland's urban growth boundary includes 254,000 acres. Transportation Planning Rule, 1991 Requires metro areas to set targets and adopt actions to reduce reliance on the automobile. Directs them to implement land use c hanges to promote pedestrian friendly, compact, mixed use development. Transportation & Growth Management Program, 1993 Promotes high quality community planning by providing local government grants, Quick Response Teams, and Smart Development Code Assista nce. Over $6.7 million in grants from federal transportation funds were provided between 1993 2002. Transit Oriented Development Tax Exemption, 1995 Vertical Housing Program, 2001 Allows eligible projects to be exempt from residential property taxation for up to 10 years, The cities of Portland and Gresham have utilized this program. Encourages mixed use commercial/residential developments in areas designated by communities through a partial pro perty tax exemption, maximum 80 % exemption over 10 years. S ource. (Arrington, 2009)
88 Table 4 3 Regional Portland t ransit oriented d evelopment policy and program tools Regional Tools Description of Policies Regional Growth Management, 1994 2040 Growth Concept focuses growth on transit centers and corridors inside a tight urban growth boundary Local governments must comply with the regional plan requirements by adopting growth targets, parking maximums, minimum densities, and street connecti vity standards. TOD Implementation Program, 1998 Uses a combination of local and federal transportation funds to spur the construction of TOD. The level of involvement in 12 transit oriented developments has ranged from $50,000 to $2 million. The primary use of funds has b een for site acquisition and transit oriented development easements. Source. (Arrington, 2009) Table 4 4 Local Portland transit oriented development policy and program tools Local Tools Description of Policies Joint Development, 1997 TriMet has written down the value of land reflecting "highest and best transit use" to leverage three innovative infill projects along the Westside and Interstate LRT. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Westside Station Area Planning, 1993 1997 The city o f Portland has used TIF for transit oriented development in Urban Renewal districts to make public investments, increase density, and secure affordable housing. TriMet and Metro funded preparation and adoption of plans by loca l governments for the area within a half mile of stations. Plans included minimum densities, parking maximums, a design overlay for building orientation to transit, and prohibition of automobile oriented uses. Source. (Arrington, 2009; Cervero, et al., 2004)
89 Table 4 5 California t ransit oriented d evelopment policy and program tools Statewide Tools Description of Policies Community Based Transportation Planning Grant Program, California Department of Transportation Encourages local governments to make better connections between land use and transportation through planning grant assistance. California Transit Village Development Act, 1994 Legislation that allowed local governments to create transit village plans around rail stations to be qualified for grants. Transit Oriented Development Housing Program, California Department of Housing and Community Development Promotes transit oriented development by providing low interest loans towards affordable housing, mortgage homeowner assistance, and construction of infrastructure in close proximity to transit. Downtown Rebound Planning Grant Program, California Department of Housing and Community Developme nt Fund planning grants to local governments for adaptive reuse, or conversion of commercial and industrial space into residential units Source. (Anderson & Forbes, 2011; Renne, 2008; Statewide transit or iented development study: Factors for success in California, 2002)
90 Table 4 6 Bay Area t ransit oriented d evelopment policy and program tools Regional Tools Description of Policies Transportation for Livable Communities Program (TLC), Metropolitan Transportation Commission Provides funding for smart growth projects that link transportation closer to housing through capital grants, planning grants, and the Housing Incentive Program Housing Incentive Program (HIP), Metropolitan Transportation Commis sion Provides supplemental funding to the TLC Program for higher density developments and affordable housing units. Transit Oriented Development Incentive Program, City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Provides developers financial incentives to build high density ( at least 40 units per acre) transit oriented development housing projects by funding supporting infrastructure needs. Policy for Regional Transit Expansion Projects (Resolution 3434), Metropolitan Transportation Commission Mandates all transit stations have according station area plans that meet planned density thresholds to obtain funding for transit extension projects. Bay Area Transit O riented Affordable Housing Fund, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Funding for property acquisition for mixed income and affordable housing sites located near transit access. Source. (Anderson & Forbes, 2011; Renne, 2008; Statewide transit oriented development study: Factors for success in California, 2002; Cervero, et al., 2004; Program guidelines for The Transit Oriented Development Housing Incentive Program, 2010; San Francisco Ba y Area Property Aquisition Fund for equitable transit oriented development, 2011)
91 Figure 4 1. Boston growth and congestion patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to Transportation I nstitute, 2009. Figure 4 2. Bosto n housing development patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to Census summary file 4 Boston MA NH 2007, 2005 2007 American c ommunity survey 3 year estimates Boston MA NH RI
92 Figure 4 3. Boston ridership and commute patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to Census summary file 4 Boston MA NH Census summar y file 4 Boston MA NH 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates Boston MA NH RI d economic characteristics: 2005 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates Boston MA NH 2009; 2000 and 2007 fourth qua rter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011.
93 Figure 4 4. Dallas growth and congestion patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to Transportation Institute, 2009. Figure 4 5. Dallas housing development patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to Census summary file 4 Dallas Fort Worth Uni 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates Dallas Fort Worth Transportation Institute, 2009.
94 Figure 4 6. Dallas ridership and commute patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to Census summary file 4 Dallas Fort Worth Arlington, TX urban characteristics: 2000, Census summary file 4 Dallas Fort Worth Arlington, TX characteristics: 2005 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates Dallas Fort Worth 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates Dallas Fort Wo rth fourth quarter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011.
95 Figure 4 7. Portland growth and congestion patterns, percentage of change from 2000 Transportation Institute, 2009. Figure 4 8. Portland housing development patterns, percentage of cha nge from 2000 to Census summary file 4 Portland, OR 2007, 2005 2007 American commu nity survey 3 year estimates Portland, OR WA
96 Figure 4 9. Portland ridership and commute patterns, percentage of change from 2000 2000, Census summary file 4 Portland, OR 2000, Census summa ry file 4 Portland, OR 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates Portland, OR WA ed economic characteristics: 2005 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates Portland, OR 2009; 2000 and 2007 fourth qu arter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011.
97 Figure 4 10. San Francisco growth and congestion patterns, percentage of change from Trans portation Institute, 2009. Figure 4 11. San Francisco housing development patterns, percentage of change from 2000, Census summary file 4 San Francisco Oakland, CA urbanized a 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates San Francisco exas Transportation Institute, 2009.
98 Figure 4 12. San Francisco ridership and commute patterns, percentage of change from 2000, Census summary file 4 San Francisco Oakland, characteristics: 2000, Census summary file 4 San Francisco Oakland, CA characteristics: 2005 200 7, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates San Francisco 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates San Francisco Oakl and, quarter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011.
99 Figure 4 13. Washington, DC growth and congestion patterns, percentage of change Transportation Institute, 2009. Figure 4 14. Washington, DC housing development patterns, percentage of change characteristics: 2000, Census summary file 4 Washington, DC VA MD characteristics: 2005 2007, 2005 2007 Ameri can community survey 3 year estimates Washington, DC VA 2009.
100 Figure 4 15. Washington, DC ridership and commute patterns, percentage of change characteristics: 2000, Census summary file 4 Washington, DC VA MD economic characteristics: 2000, Cens us summary file 4 Washington, DC VA housing characteristics: 2005 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates Washington, DC VA Census B 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates Washington, DC VA MD 9; 2000 fourth quarter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011; 2007 fourth quarter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011.
101 CHAPTER 5 COMPARA TIVE POLICY ANALYSIS Results Congestion One could argue that the automobile has been the most influential invention in the last century, as the vast majority of the U.S. landscape is organized and compartmentalized around automobile access or roads. The concept of building dev elopment around the automobile was not threatening fifty years ago when oil was However, as the U.S. population increases, but U.S. land territory boundaries remain the s ame, unless major shifts are made towards smarter growth stifling congestion is a certainty. Certain U.S. cities are already experiencing alarming congestion levels that are difficult to remedy, despite efforts to build more roads or widen existing ones. Congestion not only causes wasted fuel and time in traffic, it also contributes to more vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) as commuters look for alternative routes that may be longer in distance, but contain lighter traffic flow, enabling a quicker commute. Tr ansit oriented development (TOD) has been a growth management strategy to specifically remedy congestion problems in China, Europe, and a few progressive cities in the U.S. In this study, congestion is considered a major indicator variable of TOD, as it ha s potential to act as a catalyst to developing alternative land development and transportation choices to improve the quality of life.
102 Population and urban land area g rowth Congestion is a manifestation of colliding circumstances. Theoretically, there is a n argument for incorporating land into urban service boundaries at the same, or even preferably a decreased rate as population growth for a particular location. Often, urban land area growth rates are greater than population growth rates, causing an uneven distribution of roadway resources that generally cause increased congestion. This study investigated urban land area and population growth to gain a greater understanding of All five case study cities experienced incre ased population, ranging from 8 % to 17 % i ncreases from 2000 to 2007 ( Figure 5 1). Portland had the highest p opulation growth increase of 17 % while Dallas, San Franci sco, and Washington D.C. had 11 % growth, and Boston increas ed by only 8 % (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Additionally, all five case study cities also experienced increases in urbanized land area, ranging from 9 % to 24 % i ncreases from 2000 to 2007 ( Figure 5 2). Dallas had the highest urban lan d area expansion increase of 24 % while Boston increased by 19 % San Francisco and Washington D.C. both had 9 % increases, and Portland was the smallest increase at only 7 % (Texas A&M University Texas Transpo rtation Institute, 2009) Vehicle miles traveled and fuel s ales Consumptive land development patterns scattered among a growing population will most likely increase VMTs, and fuel consumption to travel to and from randomly developed land uses. All fiv e case study cities experienced increased daily VMTs, ranging from 6 % to 15 % i ncreases from 2000 to 2007 ( Figure 5 3). Washington D.C.
103 had the highest VMT increase of 15 % while Portland and Boston both had 14 % in creases, leaving Dallas with 12 % and San Fr ancisco with only a 6 % increase (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) With an increase of VMTs in all of the case studies, a correlating increase in fuel consumption was observed for each case study rang ing from 19 % to 50 % i ncreases from 2000 to 2007 ( Figure 5 4). Dallas had the highest fuel consumpti on increase of an astounding 50 % while Boston increased by 33 % Washington D.C. increased by 30 % Po rtland by 20 % and San Francisco only increasing by 19 % (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Congestion costs and i ndexes This study evaluated the percentage of change in congestion costs and congestion indexes that were originally defined by the Texas Trans portation institute (TTI) in its annual urban mobility report. The TTI defines congestion costs as monetary costs associated with wasted time and fuel, while in traffic. The congestion index is a measure of vehicle travel density on major roadways in an ur ban area. This study measured congestion to make assimilations about whether increased congestion possibly prompts TOD transit oriented development (TOD) policies and programs, or if congestion decreases with public transit and TOD policies and programs. A ll five case study cities had significant congestion cost increases, ranging from 54 % to 85 % increases from 2000 to 2007 (Figure 5 5). Dallas had the highest congestion cost increase of 85 % ; Boston had a 67 % inc rease, Washington D.C. had a 66 % increase, an d Portlan d and San Francisco both had 54 % increases (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009)
104 Congestion indexes had variable results, with increases ranging up to 9 % and decreases down to 2 % from 2000 to 2007 ( Figure 5 6). Dallas experienced the highest congestion index increase at 9 % Washington D.C. had an increase of 7% San Francisco had only a 1 % increase, while Portland had a 1 % decrease and Boston had a 2 % decrease. Development Pattern s Single family housing was the other key ingredient needed, in addition to the automobile, to create the low density cookie cutte r sprawling suburbs in the post Word War II ( W WII ) development boom. Most post WWII suburban development consisted of single f amily homes on no less than an acre of land. This type of development was not considered wasteful or sprawling when it was built in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, land resources were seemingly plentiful, with no foreseeable consequences. Today local go vernments are struggling to accommodate growth as land resources have been depleted, and within most city boundaries, there is simply no more physical space to accommodate growth in low density single family housing (Burchell, et al ., 2002) A growing development trend and sustainable alternative to low density single family hou sing is building medium to high density multi family housing to accommodate more growth with less lan d. Full capacity, successful transit oriented devel opment (TOD) must have access to public transit and the density to support it. By achieving density, a TOD is optimizing conditions for expansion and redevelopment. Some TODs may be more employment or commercial oriented, but great TODs have usually contain a mix of land uses with a substantial amount of dense multi family housing to support all uses (Cervero, et al., 2004)
105 Population d ensity This study analyzed population density, single family, and multi family housing stock patterns to determine what type of residential development is being built in each case. Increasing population density and multi family housing stock provides more opportunities for smart growth and transit oriented development (TOD) Decreasing popul ation density and increasing single family housing stocks are problematic, and not conducive to TOD. Each case study varied with respect to their population densities, ranging from increases by 9 % and decreases down to 10 % from 2000 to 2007 ( Figure 5 7). P ortland had the highest population density increase of 9% both San Francisco and Washington D.C. had increases of 2%, while Boston decreased by 9 % and Dallas decreased by 10 % (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 20 09) Housing t ypes For the purposes of this study, single family housing was defined as detached one residential unit. Each case study had similar ranges of change in their single family housing stock supply, ranging from increases of 2 % and a decreas e of 2 % ( Figure 5 8). San Francisco had the highest and only increase at 2% Dallas had a decrease of 1 % with Boston, Portland, and Washingto n D.C. all having decreases of 2 % (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) For the purposes of this study, multi family housing was defined as having ten or more residential units per structure. Each case study greatly varied regarding changes in their multi family housing stock suppl y, ranging from increases of 54 % and a decrease of 1 % ( Figure 5 9). Portland had the greatest increase at 54 % Washington D.C. increased by 7 % Boston increased by 2 % while San Francisco experienced no
106 ch ange, and Dallas de creased by 1 % (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) Ridership In order for transit oriented development (TOD) to be a plausible development alternative to residential sprawl and the autom obile commute, there must be efficient public transportation systems that offer frequent and reliable service. The rising cost of budgets, arguably contributing to an increase of U.S. public transportation ridership for most travel modes. In fact, from 2000 to 2007, heavy rail ridershi p increased by 12 % light rail ridership increased by 47 % commuter rail ridership increased by 12 % and bus ridership increased by 6 % (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) Commuting p atterns Figure 5 10 depicts the percentage of change in the number of daily rush hours, or peak congestion hours, identifying intensities of daily automobile commuting for each case study. From 2000 to 2007, the changes in daily rush hours ranged from an increase of 5 % and a decrease of 3 % Washington D.C. had the highest increase of daily rush hours by 5 % Dallas increased by 3 % both Portland and San Francisco experienced no change and Boston had a decrease of 3 % (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Overall, ea ch case study had public transit miles increase from 2000 to 2007, ranging from 4 % to 36 % increases ( Figur e 5 11). Dallas had the highest increase at 36%; followed by Washington D.C. with a 28 % increase, Portland had a 14 % increase,
107 Boston had a 5 % increas e, and San Francisco had a 4 % increase (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Walking commute patterns of change from 2000 to 2007 varied, but had more increase than decrease among the case studies, rangin g from a 4 % increase to a 7 % decrease ( Figure 5 12). Boston had the highest inc rease of walking commuters at 4 % Washington D.C. had an increase of 3 % San Francisco had an increase of 2 % Portland experienced no change, and D allas had the only decrease of 7 % (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) Zero car households experienced decline in all of the case studies, decreases ranges from 1 % to 11 % from 2000 to 2007 ( Figure 5 13). Portland ha d the least amount of zero car household d ecline with a decrease of only 1 % Boston had a decrease of 6 % Washington D.C. had a 7 % decrease, San Francisco had a 8 % decrease, and Dallas had an 11 % decrease (United States C ensus Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) Public transit m odes Heavy rail public transit is an expensive capital investment and is not as common as light rail and commuter rail modes in the U.S. Only three out of the five case studies ha ve heavy rail systems for comparison from 2000 to 2007. Heavy rail ridership increased in all three cities, ranging from a 25 % increase to a 4 % increase ( Figure 5 14). Washington D.C. had the highest heav y rail ridership increase of 25 % San Francisco had an increase of 11 % and Boston had an increase of 4 % (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) Light rail public transportation is also an expensive capital investment, and only four out of the five case studies have light rail transit available. Overall, light rail
108 ridership increased among the case studies, ranging from a 59 % increase to a 7 % decr ease ( Figure 5 15). Portland had the highest increase of 59 % Dallas had an increase of 58 % Boston had an increase of 26 % and S an Francisco had a decrease of 7 % (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) Commuter rail is often used to connect inner city areas to more suburban parts of the same urbanized area. Commuter rail is available in four out of the five case studies, and had an overall increase of ridership from 2000 to 2007, ranging from an increase of 196 % to an increase of 6 % ( Figure 5 16). Dallas had the highest increase at 196 % Washin gton D.C. had an increase of 57 % San Francisco increased by 11 % and Boston had an increase of 6 % (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) Bus ridership had variable changes from 2000 to 2007, ranging from a 33 % increase to a 7 % decrease ( Figure 5 17). San Francisco had the highest increase of 33 % Portland had an increase of 2 % Boston had a decrease of 5 % and while both Dallas and Washington D.C. had a 7 % decrease in ridership (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) Analysis This study uses comparable data for sixteen different indicative variables, for five different urbanized city areas, that may hinder or engender efforts towards implementing transit oriented development (TOD) initiatives. The visual synthesis of variables to the ir respective case studies ( Figure 5 18) is compelling, as it clearly identifies some consistent patterns among the different cities. The chart acts as a visual ratio aid to discern the numerical data into patterns by the following method
109 test radius a wedge can have is 0, (the smallest value observed at that variable) and the largest radius a wedge can have is 1 (the largest value recorded for that variable). If the value X is observed at a particular variable, where the maximum value reco rded at the variable is MAX and the minimum recorded value at the variable is MIN, the radius associated with length X is length = (X MAX) / (MAX (Holt, 2010) Boston Despite historical development patterns that organic ally evolved into a cityscape of transit oriented development (TOD) Boston is struggling to cope with the consequences of edge city sprawling suburbs. With population, urbanized land area, VMTs, fuel consumption, and c ongestion costs increasing ( Figure 4 1) on one hand and on the other hand, population density and multi famil y housing stock are decreasing ( Figure 4 2); suburban development patterns have clearly affected the physical DNA of the region. The inner core of Boston was built out decades ago, n ow focusing on precious redevelopment opportunities, as land costs in Boston are some of the highest in the country (Cervero, et al., 2004) However, making convenient physical connections from redevelopment areas to inner Bost on and suburban fringes has proved to be an expensive and challenging effort. The Boston Silver Line BRT systems are good examples of challenging projects investment. From 2000 to 2007, public transit miles traveled increased by 5 % ( Figure 5 11), yet bus ridership decreased by 5 % ( Figure 5 17) over the same period (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) Further, popula tion growth only increased by 8 % ( Figure 5 1), but urba nized land area increased by 19 % ( Figure 5 2) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009)
110 The variable data analysis seemingly does not sup construct significant BRT served infrastructure for bus instead of rail, which has expe rienced increases in ridership, especially suburban serving light rail systems with a ridership increase of 26 % ( Figure 5 15) (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) However, the data does support several state program initiatives, created to stimulate compact, multi family residential develop ment near transit stations ( Table 4 1) potentially mitigating decre ases in population density ( Figure 5 7) and multi f amily housing construction ( Figure 5 9). ifying ways to absorb growth within the existing built out inner urban core. Unfortunately, accordingly to the variable data, edge city growth has grossly affected the Boston region, causing congestion and decreasing quality of life. To prepare for future growth, a built out Boston must seek redevelopment opportunities that already have access to transit, and further maximize those opportunities to the fullest extent possible. Dallas Using a Sunbelt city as a transit oriented development (TOD) subject case study would have been unlikely a decade ago, given the lack of efficient public transit systems in the southeastern U.S. But times have changed, as famous for sprawling Dallas has built 72 miles of light and commuter rail transit, providing a n alternative refuge from the significant increases in area congestion, fuel consumption, and VMTs ( Figure 4 4) (Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 2008; Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) In fact, fro m 2000 to 2007, regional public transit miles traveled increased by 36 % ( Figure 5 11), light rail ridership increased by 58 % ( Figure 5 15), and commuter
111 rail riders hip increased by a whopping 196 % ( Figure 5 16) (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011; Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) had the challenging task of designing, funding, and building a public transportation system that needed to connect the low density, sprawling suburbs, requiring an ambitious scope of extensive capital infrastructure to make adequate connections between expansive locations in Dallas. For example, populat ion growth only increased by 11 % ( Figure 5 1 ) from 2000 to 2007, but urba nized land area increased by 24 % ( Figure 5 2), consequently maintaining the most unsustainable development practices out of all five case studies (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 200 9) In addition, these types of land development patterns are problematic for pedestrians as walking commuters decreased by 7 % ( Figure 5 12) and zero car households decreased 11 % ( Figure 5 13) (United States Census Bu reau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) Further, these sprawling patterns are usually only conducive to single family residential development and strip mall commercial; yet conflictingly, single family housing stocks decreased by 1 % ( Figure 5 8). love for the automobile, the plans to build an expansive passenger rail system have already catalyzed development interest at most of the suburban rail stations, including locations that are still under construction and without transit service yet (Ohland, 2004) From the research and the indicator data, developers seem to be straying from the single family housing product and progressively investing in medium density multi family housing stock, a trend espec ially prevalent around transit
112 stations (Cervero, et al., 2004) Despite 10+ unit multi famil y housing stocks decreasing by 1 % ( Figure 5 9), multi family housing containing 3 9 units increased by 8 % from 2000 2007. The increase of medium multi family housing is potentially an outcome from and Carrolton (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) Interestingly enough, the most well known Dallas TOD project, Mockingbird Station was funded with almost all private sector investment, with little to no public input or local government planning or involvement (Ohland, 2004) There w ere some joint development arrangements between DART, but for the most part, developers carried a tremendous amount of financial burden and risk (Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 2008) On t governments that worked closely with TOD developers in adopting development plans (Cervero, et al., 2004) However, all of the Dallas case studies were built without government sponsored subsidies or loans, revealing real capabilities of private sector initiatives when coupled with public transportation (Cervero, et al., 2004) Portland Out of all the case studies, when considering the measured data in this study, Portland stands out as having the best policies, plans, and programs to foster transit oriented development (TOD) mo st likely due to st atewide (Table 4 2), region wide (Table 4 3), and local ( Table 4 ficant population increase ( Figure 5 1); urban land ar ea (Figure 5 2), fuel sales ( Figure 5 4), congestion costs ( Figure 5 5), and d aily automobile rush ho urs ( Figure 5 10) had only moderate
113 increases in comparison to the other case studies (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) The most impressive data ratio is the small 7 % incr ease of urbanized land area ( Figure 5 2) compared to the 17 % population growth ( Figure 5 1) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) This sustainable growth ratio is the desired outcome of the first major growth management strategy, th e urban growth boundary (UGB). By defining urban edges, and strictly adhering with minimal amendment, the Portland region is easily able to accommodate additional population growth on less land, more so than any other case study. Despite a population incre ase, the congestion index decreased ( Figure 5 6), which is a continued testimony to producing policies and programs (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Additionally, the thematic growt h management policy to grow vertically, not horizontally, has had a major impact on not only where, but what types of development are getting built. The guiding principal of vertica l growth has translated to a 58 % increase in multi family housin g stock ( Fi gure 5 9) and a 2 % decreas e of single family housing ( Figure 5 8) proving the strong validity of programs such as the 2001 Vertica l Housing Program ( Table 4 2) (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bure au, 2007) In spite of these efforts, the popularity of the automobile even penetrated Portland, as zero car households decreased by 1% ( Figure 5 13) (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2 007) locating development near transit to increase ridership (Cervero, et al., 2004)
114 Specifically, the agency has engaged in complex jo int development agreements ( Table 4 4), which are responsible for TOD projects like the successful Pearl District (Cervero, et al., 2004) creating incentives, and leveraging them as powerful TOD planning tools. Another TOD strategy has been the high quality, detail oriented station are planning, which has led successful TOD endeavors such as the Westsi de Station Area initiative ( Table 4 4), which assisted local governments with adopting stations plans. Perhaps these are some of the planning programs that have resulted in walking commuter sta tistics remaining the same ( Figure 5 12), but annual public transit miles increasing by 14 % ( Figure 5 11) (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007; Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Further, Portland has some of the highest public transit ridership numbers per capita in the U .S., with light rail ridership increasing by 59 % ( Figure 5 15) and bus ridership increasing by 2 % ( Figure 5 17) (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) Almost all of the measured indicator data criteria give praise to the smart growth principles that Portland has strictly followed. In this study, the Portland region conspicuously stands out among the other case studies as the best example of how TOD can a llow thriving, clean urban environments to harmoniously co exist with preserved natural lands while still accommodating growth in a smart, calculated manner. San Francisco Since California is one of the largest and most populated U.S. states, maintaining air quality and curbing traffic congestion have been valid struggles since the 1970s
115 (Cervero, 1998) Consequently, significant regional public transit investments were made in heavy and commuter rail, attempting to mitiga te some of the congestion problems and other related issues. Today, the Bay Area has more than 40 different transit agencies providing seven different modes of public transportation. The Bay area has also endured sprawl induced congestion, especially in th e 1980s and 1990s (Cervero, 1998; Cervero, et al., 2004) Perhaps those decades of congestion influenced increases in overall regional ridership statistics; with heavy rail incre asing by 11 % ( Figure 5 14), commute r rail increasing by 11 % ( Figure 5 16), bus ridership increasing by 33 % ( Figure 5 17), but with a slight decrease in light r ail ridership ( Figure 5 15) (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) Because of those transit investments, the Bay Area region has made progressive strides towards compartmentalizing growth, in notable efforts to foster sustainable development practices. San Francisco has similar data outcomes to Portland in r egards to con gestion costs (Figure 5 5), fuel sales ( Figure 5 4), and urban land area (Figure 5 2) to population growth r atios ( Figure 5 1), inferring San Francisco had achieved comparable results with smart growth and transit oriented development (TOD) friendly development policies (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) State and regional Bay Area ho using programs ( Table 4 5) have made a notable impact on fostering compact, residential development aroun d transit (Anderson & Forbes, 2011) enabling growth to be accommodated on minimal amounts of land, while recruiting automobile commuters off roads and onto public transit. Analyzing Bay Area housing trends is complicated, as a large portion of the housing stock consists of the Victorian influenced residential architecture, unique to San Francisco. This housing type
116 is categorized as attached single family unit row houses, yet can arguably be considered multi family housing. Al though the study variables identify San Francisco experiencing no chan ge in multi family housing ( Figure 5 9), the variables only measured single structures with ten or more units, not accounting for the prevalent attached row house units. The increase of compact, attached single family housing stock from 2000 to 2007 was 9 % (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) Looking at the increase of population density, and the population growth to urbanized land area ratio ( Figure 4 11); it is clear that the Bay Area is growing, but at higher densities, using less land resources (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) Washington D.C. Decentraliza tion problems that plagued much of the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s uniquely affected the metropolitan Washington D.C. as development dispersed, splotchy patches of inner urban remained, and eventually began filling in (Cerv ero, et al., 2004; Leach, 2004) This paradoxical growth trend caused major congestion problems for the region, greatly affecting millions of commuters in Washington, D.C., Virginia, and Maryland, and despite major mitigation efforts, still plagues th e region s congestion costs increased 66 % ( Figure 5 5), and the congestion index increased 7 % ( Figure 5 6) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) In the face of continu ous congestion issues, the region had made tremendous, if not model progress, towards developing sustainable growth patterns. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) initialized this by constructing a major heavy rail system that connect ed the employment centers in Washington D.C. to the
117 residential suburbs in Virginia and Maryland. Transit officials have since catalyzed ridership increases by promoting development near transit stations through joint development agreements, utilizing ince ntives to engage private developer interest. This strategy is still heavily used today, illuminating the grand possibilities of public private partnerships (Cervero, et al., 2004) The outcomes of those partnerships have contin ually increased ridership with annual public transit miles increasing by 28 % ( Figure 5 11). From 2000 2007, heavy rail ridership increased by 25 % ( Figure 5 14), commuter rail has increased 57 % ( Figure 5 16), howev er, bus ridership decreased by 7 % ( Figure 5 17) (American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives, 2011) The successful ridership can arguably be contributed to the model transit oriented development (TOD) Rosslyn Ballston Corridor project, wh ich WMATA fostered through relentless joint development efforts and thorough station area planning that emphasized friendly growth patterns with walking commuters increas ing by 3 % ( Figure 5 12) (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) For example, unlike most U.S. cities, the region has a higher rate of population growth than urbanized land area increas e, and an incr ease of population density ( Figure 4 14) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009) District and the Community Benef it Units promote and incentive high density, multi family residential housing located in Metrorail corridors (Leach, 2004) E xample s of measured results include single family housing st ock decreasing by 2 % ( Figure 5 8)
118 and mult i family housing increasing by 7 % ( Figure 5 9) (United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) These growth trends, coupled with the ridership success, has provided an entire region consisting of three U.S. states, housing, employment, and transportation choices that have the ability to greater improve the quality of lives for all types of family incomes. The region must continue to improve transit access and efficiency in orde r for traffic and congestion to subside. Clearly, the region is still struggling with the automobile when evaluating statistics such as ze ro car households decreased by 7 % ( Fig ure 5 13), VMTs increased by 15 % ( Figure 5 3), and daily rush hours increased by 5 % ( Figure 5 10) (Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute, 2009; United States Census Bureau, 2000; United States Census Bureau, 2007) Summary In summary, Portland was the stand out case study for adopting programs and policies that fostered and implemented transit oriented development (TOD) The eco friendly ur ban center, connected by transit systems that have modernized the city into a regional TOD. Most similar to Portland, San Francisco and Washington D.C. have also provided many housing and public transit options for their residents. Both regions face more c ongestion problems than Portland, but have the public transit infrastructure, programs, and policies to foster an abundance of future TOD. On the other hand, Boston lacks a regional vision that drives growth and development patterns. The public and privat e investments in the two Silver Line BRT systems have been substantial. However, nationwide declining bus ridership may prove
119 rail access. Moreover, Dallas has very pro blematic development patterns to successfully support passenger rail without the use of an automobile. The growth has haphazardly developed along the new passenger rail line and has had some success largely in part because of the massive amount of parking required at the stations.
120 Figure 5 1. Population growth percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. Adapted Figure 5 2. Urban land area percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. Adapted
121 Figure 5 3. Vehicle miles traveled percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. sportation Institute, 2009. Figure 5 4. Fuel sales percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. Adapted from
122 Figure 5 5. Congestion costs percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. N ote. Adapted Figure 5 6. Congestion index percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. Adapted
123 Figu re 5 7. Population density (people per square mile) percentage of change from Transportation Institute, 2009. Figure 5 8. Single family housing stock percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 Bureau, 2007.
124 Figure 5 9. Multi family housing stock percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. summary file 4 urbanized 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 Bureau, 2007. Figure 5 10. Average number of rush hours per day percen tage of change from 2000 to Transportation Institute, 2009.
125 Figure 5 11. Public transit miles percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. s Transportation Institute, 2009. Figure 5 12. People who commute by walking percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates urbaniz Bureau, 2007.
126 Figure 5 13. Zero car households percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. Bureau, 2000; 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 Bureau, 2007. Figure 5 14. Heavy rail ridership patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. No te. Adapted from 2000 fourth quarter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011; 2007 fourth quarter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011.
127 Figure 5 15. Light rail rid ership patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. Adapted from 2000 fourth quarter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011; 2007 fourth quarter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transp ortation Association, 2011. Figure 5 16. Commuter rail ridership patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. Adapted from 2000 fourth quarter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011; 2007 fourth quar ter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011.
128 Figure 5 17. Bus ridership patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. Note. Adapted from 2000 fourth quarter ridership report archives, by the American Publi c Transportation Association, 2011; 2007 fourth quarter ridership report archives, by the American Public Transportation Association, 2011.
129 Figure 5 18. Visual indicator of study variable ratios (except ridership variables). Note. Adapted from work of Nate Holt, statistician consultant, 2011.
130 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS Policy Overview oriented development (TOD), this study can offer few criticisms or recommendations. However, perhaps the region could continuously encourage high densities when given rare infill or redevelopment opportuniti es in the downtown urban core and intensely developed transit stations. The Portland region has done a superior job of fostering sustainable growth and development through TOD programs, policies and initiatives thus proving to be the model to follow based on the results in this study. For the regions of San Francisco and Washington D.C., where despite having adequate public transit, autom obile commuting congestion ( Figure 6 1) remains to be a major issue; perhaps implementing congestion tax policies throug h tolling high traffic roadways during commute rush hours could be a viable mitigation tool. This type of policy would increase public transit ridership, reduce air polluting traffic, and would dramatically increase the market for TOD. This type of policy recommendation would be controversial, however these two regions have made extraordinary efforts to combat sprawl, and improve air quality; and yet the unconscious reliance on the automobile continues to increase congestion, pollute air and water sources, encroach natural areas with roads, causing a variety of other environmental and social degradation problems. established public transportation system, a historical built out urban core combined with recent suburban edge city developm ent ha s inhibited good access to public transit, causing constricting connectivity. From the research, there does not seem to be enough coordination at the regional level. There are several
131 TOD programs and initiatives at the state level, as well as at the Metropolitan Boston Transportation Authority, but no coordinated regional or citywide efforts. To improve a Boston s of Boston) and the MBTA should implement a regional plan, where communities could provide input to avoid criticism or neighborhood opposition. Dallas is making extraordinary efforts to provide the physical framework for TOD to become a viable option with the construction of the 72 mile passenger rail network. However, despite increased ridership, if Dallas truly wants to curb congestion and reduce roadway capital spending used to connect the abundance of low density development in the region, they must be gin planning at the state, regional, and community level. Learning from Portland, there are many advantages to planning early. Dallas needs to decide where and how to grow through calculated planning efforts, instead of approving anything proposed develope rs at the expense of gaining minimal economic growth for piecemeal, unconnected development that often requires a costly extension of infrastructure. Policy Recommendations After researching and analyzing five different case study policies, programs, and i nitiatives specifically aimed to foster transit oriented development (TOD) this study concludes some policies are perhaps more strategic in nature than others. After synthesizing the variables by a coll ective case study analysis ( Figure 6 1; 6 2; 6 3), Po rtland arguably has the most TOD friendly measured results in growth and
132 Boundary, was instrumental in physically planning for growth, fostering the compact urban conditions that have allowed TOD to flourish in the region. Another power policy tool used to implement thriving TOD projects are joint development programs. Dallas, Washington DC, and Portland have had significant success utilizing joint development partnerships to facilitate TOD. Additionally, Washington DC, specifically WMATA, has marketed these partnerships by creating station area identities, or themes that cater to interested developers. This unique approach has worked well in providing developers pre determine d visions, which saves the developer design and visioning expenses. Pre determined station identities give developers a sense of security knowing they are building exactly what WMATA wants, minimizing the chance of conflict or discontent from the local gov ernments. Finally, concerted planning efforts at the local, regional, and state levels are imperative to set the policy stage for TOD implementation efforts. There must be site specific planning at the local level to identify the most suitable areas approp riate for TOD. At the regional level, transit agencies and regional planning councils or similar entities, must correlate regional development goals and objectives to those of surrounding local governments. Further, state planning or growth administrations must coordinate with regional planning entities and transit agencies to ensure that available funding and resources are utilized to the coordinated goals and objectives. This study has concluded that coordination is the most important tool used in all of the recommended policies as TOD is not a product of a single agency or even a departmental effort, but a collective, coordinated collaboration of individuals,
133 departments, and agencies trying to provide smarter opportunities for us to grow as a nation. Fu ture Research and Limitations The variable data used in this study was measured from 2000 to 2007. Given the current economic crisis, especially in housing, conducting the same type of research in the post economic crisis future may give more accurate resu lts. Further, when Census microscoped to study transit oriented developments (TOD) at the block, neighborhood, or community scale. The limitation of this study w as the broad scale in which the data variable s are measured. In order to obtain uniform information for the same period of time, the study had to use data at the urbanized scale. In some ways this was helpful, as many transit systems serve suburban areas, bu t categorize data for the urbanized area as a whole. However, the lack of available data at a fine grained scale to conduct a time period analysis, for often site specific TOD projects, imposes limits on the strength of the conclusions.
134 Figure 6 1. Case study growth and congestion patterns, percentage of change from Transportation Institute, 2009. Figure 6 2. Case study housing development patterns, percentage of change from 200 0 stics: 2005 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 States Census Bureau, 2007.
135 Figure 6 3. Case study commuting patterns, percentage of change from 2000 to 2007. 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 2007, 2005 2007 American community survey 3 Bureau, 2007.
136 LIST OF REFERENCES American Public Transportation Association ridership report archives. (2011). Retrieved N ovember 28, 2010, from American Public Transportation Association: h ttp://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/pages/ridershiparchives.aspx Anderson, A., & Forbes, S. (2 011). 2010 Inventory of TOD programs. Washington, D.C.: R econnecting America. Arrington, G. (2009). Portland's TOD evolution: F rom planning to lifestyle. In C. Curtis, J L. Renne, & L. Bertolini, Transit oriented development: M aking it happen (pp. 1 09 124 ). Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Arrington, G., & Cervero, R. (2008). TCRP Report 128 Effects of TOD on housing, p arking, and travel. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Washington, D.C.: Tr ansportation Research Board. Arrington, G., & Cervero, R. (2008). Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit Oriented H ousing. (G. L. Brosch, Ed.) Journal of Public Tranportation 11 (3), 1 16. Association of Bay Area governments overview (n.d.). Retrieved October 5, 2010, from A ssociation of Bay Ar ea governments : h ttp://www.abag.ca.gov/overview/overvi ew.pdf BART transit oriented development guidelines. (2003). Retrieved August 3, 2010, from B ay Area Rapid Transit: http://www.bart.gov/docs/planning/TOD_Guidlines.pdf Belzer, D., Blair, C. C., Brooks, A., Carlton, I., Fleissing, W. K., Pease, K., et al. (2009). F ostering Equitable and Sustainable Transit Oriented Development. Washington, D .C.: Reconnecting America Center for Transit oriented Development. Belzer, D., Eaton, N., Fogarty, N., & Ohland, G. (2008). Capturing the Value of Transit. Wa shington, D.C.: Reconnecting America Center for Transit O riented D evelopment. Bernstein, S. (2004). The New Transit Town: Great Places and Great Nodes That Work f or Everyone. In H. Dittmar, & G. Ohland (Eds.), The new transit town: best p p ractices in transit oriented development (pp. 232 246). Washington, D.C.: I sland Pr ess.
137 Boston Redevelopment Authority. (2010, August 18). Waterside Place to Bring New R esidential, Office & Retail to South Boston Waterfront Retrieved September 20, 2 010, from Boston Redevelopment Authority News: h ttp://bostonredevelopmentauthoritynews.blogspot.com/2010/08/waterside p lace to bring new.html Brandes, U. (2010). Land use and driving: The role compact development can play in r educing greenhouse gas emissions. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute. Burchell, R. W., Lowenstein, G., Dolphin, W. R., Galley, C. C., Downs, A., Seskin, S., et a l. (2002). TCRP Report 74 Costs of Sprawl 2000. Washington, D.C.: T ransportation Research Board. Carrollton Development. (2010, May 10). Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone. Retrieved A ugust 4, 2010, from Carrollton Development: h ttp:/carrolltontxdevelopment.com/index.aspx?page= 130 Carrollton TOD History and Background. (2010). Retrieved August 4, 2010, from Ca rrollton Development: h ttp://carrolltontxdevelopment.com/index.aspx?page=1323 Carrollton Transit Center Zoning District. (2005). Retrieved January 2, 2011, from City o f Carrollton: http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/index.aspx?page=72 Carrollton Transit O riented Development. (2010). Retrieved August 16, 2010, from City o f Carrollton: http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/index.aspx?page=42 Cervero, R. (1998). Transit villages in California: Progress, prospects, and policy r eforms. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. Cervero, R., Ferrell, C., & Murphy, S. (2002, October). Transit oriented development a nd joint development in the United States: A literature review. (T. C. Program, E d.) Research Results Digest Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., Tsai, Y., Arrington, G., et al. (2004). T CRP Report 102 Transit oriented development in the United States: e xperiences, challenges, and prospects. Transit Cooperative Research Program. W ashington, D .C.: Transportation Research Board.
138 Chapter 40R and 40S explained: reaping the benefits of compact development. (2004). R etrieved January 12, 2011, from State of Massachusetts: h ttp://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ehedterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1= C ommunity+D evelopment&L2=Community+Planning&sid=Ehed&b=terminalcont e nt&f=dhcd_cd _ch40r_ch40r&csid=Ehed C hase, D., Gazillo, S., Schimek, P., Smith, K., & Watkins, K. (2007, June 1). Silver Line W aterfront Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 2007 Project Evaluation. Retrieved July 9, 20 10, from Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration: h ttp://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FINALBOSTONBRTREPORT062507.pdf Commercial Area Transit Node Housing Program Guidelines. (2006, August). Retrieved J anuary 11, 2011, from State of Massachusetts: h ttp://www.mass.gov/Ehed/docs/dhcd/hd/catnhp/catnhpguidelines.pdf Dallas Area Rapid Transit. (2008). Transit O riented Development Guidelines. Retrieved O ctobe r 2, 2010, from DART: http://www.dart.org/economicdevelopment/DARTTODGuidelines2008.pdf Dallas Area Rapid Transit. (2008). Transit O riented Development Policy. Retrieved O ctober 10, 2010, from DART: h ttp://www.dart.org/economicdevelopment/DARTTODPolicy2008.pdf Darido, G., Schimek, P., & Schneck, D. (2005, September). Boston Silver Line W ashington Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Demonstration Project Evaluation. R etrieved July 7, 2010, from National Bus Rapid Institute: h ttp://www.nbrti.org/media/evaluations/Bo ston_Silver_Line_final_report.pdf Dittmar, H., & Ohland, G. (Eds.). (2004). The new transit town: B est practices in transit o riented development. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Downtown Carrollton Transit O riented Development Plan. (2008, February 5). Retrieved N ovember 20, 2010, from Carrollton TX Development: h ttp://carrolltontxdevelopment.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5 2 2 Evans, J. E., Kuzmyak, J. R., Pratt, R. H., & Stryker, A. (2007). TCRP r eport 95 t ransit o riented d evelopment: Traveler r esponse to t ransportation s ystem c hanges. T ransit Cooperative Research Program, Federal Transportation Administration. W ashington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Gross, D. (2006, October 8). Raise the gasoline tax? Funny, it doesn't sound r epublican. Retrieved December 18, 2010, from The New York Times: h ttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/yourmoney/08view.html
139 History of the Portland mall (2011). Retrieved 24 2011, January, from TriMet: h ttp://trimet.org/about/history/portlandmall.htm Holt, N. (2010, October 29). Statistical consultant. (C. Hutton, Interviewer) Jerram, L. C., & Vincent, W. (2008, April). Bus Rapid Transit and Transit O riented D evelopment: Case Studies on Transit O riented Development Around Bus Rapid T ransit Systems in North America and Austraila. Retrieved October 2, 2010, from B reakthrough Technologies Institute: h ttp://www.crcog.org/publications/TransportationDocs/NB HBusway/2010/BRT T OD Report.pdf Jourdan, D. (2008). URP 6131 Growth Management Powers I Course. Gainesville, FL: U niversity of Florida. Leach, D. (2004). The Arlington County case study: Rosslyn Ballston corridor. In H. D ittmar, & G. Ohland (Eds.), The new transit town: Best practices in transit o riented development (pp. 132 151). Washington D.C.: Island Press. Leland Consulting Group. (2010). Downtown Carrollton Market Analaysis and I mplementation Strategy. Retrieved January 9, 2011, from Carrolllton D evelopment: h ttp://carrolltontxdevelopment.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5 2 0 Littman, T. (2010). Raise my taxes, please! Evaluating houshold savings from high q uality public transit service. Victoria, B.C.: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Littman, T. (2010, November 28). Transit oriented development: Using public transit to c reate more accessible and livable neighborhoods. Retrieved January 4, 2011, f rom Victoria Transport Policy Institute: http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm Littman, T. (2009). Transportation cost and benefit analysis: techniques, estimates, and i mplications. Victoria, British Columbia: Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Livable Portland: land use and transportation initiatives. (2010). Retrieved December 2 8, 2010, from Trimet: http:// trimet.org/pdfs/publications/Livable Portland.pdf McDaniel, J. B., & White, S. M. (1999). The zoning and real estate implications of transit o riented development. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
140 MTC Resolution 3434: Transit oriented development policy for regional transit e xpansion projects. (2005, July 27). Retrieved January 23, 2011, from M etropolitain Transportation Commission: h ttp://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdf Ohland, G. (2004). The Dallas case study: Mockingbird Station and Addison Circle. In H Dittmar, & G. Ohland (Eds.), The new transit town: Best practices in transit o riented development (pp. 15 6 173). Washington D.C.: Island Press. Program guidelines for The Transit O riented Development Housing Incentive Program. ( 2010, October 15). Retrieved January 20, 2011, from City/County Association of G overnments of San Mateo County: h ttp://www.ccag.ca.gov/pdf/rfp/SM%20TOD%20Program/TOD%20Program%20 G uidelines%205th%20Cycle.pdf Reconnecting America, Center for Transit O riented De velopment. (2007, April). R ealizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit. R etrieved 2010 2, June, from Reconnecting America: http://www.ctod.org/portal/ sites/default/files/rtpfullreport.pdf Renne, J. L. (2008). Smart growth and transit oriented development at the state level: L essons from California, New Jersey, and Western Austrailia. Journal of Public T ransportation 11 p. 77 108. Renne, J. L., Voorhees, A. M., & Wells, J. S. (2005, February). Transit oriented d evelopment: developing a strategy to measure success. (N. C. Program, Ed.) R esearch Results Digest 294 1 28. San Francisco Bay Area Property Aquisition Fund for equitable t ransit oriented d evelopment. (2011). Retrieved from Great Communities: h ttp://greatcommunities.org/intranet/library/sites t ools/Bay_Area_TOD_Fun d_DrftRprt_SE11310.pdf San Francisco Bay Area transit oriented development study: Preliminary regional p olicies and incentives to encourage transit oriented development. (2005, April). R etrieved October 2, 2010, from Metropolitan Transportation Commission: h ttp://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/deliverables/5.pdf San Francisco Bay Area transit orie nted development study: Review of existing transit o riented policies. (2004, October). Retrieved October 16, 2010, from Metropolitan T ransportation Commission: h ttp://www.m tc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/deliverables/2.pdf
141 State of Massachusetts. (n.d.). Transit O riented Development Retrieved January 2, 2 011, from State of Massachusetts Smart Growth/Smart Eneragy Toolkit: h ttp://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/mod tod.html State of Massachussetts. (n.d.). Transit O riented Development Overlay District Model B ylaw. Retrieved January 2, 2011, from State of Massachussetts Smart G rowth/Smart Energy Toolkit Bylaw: h ttp://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/bylaws/TOD Bylaw.pdf Sustainable Development Funding Program. (2011). Retrieved January 2, 2011, from N orth Central Texas Council of Governments: h ttp://www.nctcog.dst.tx.us/trans/sustdev/landuse/funding/ Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute. (2009). 2009 U rban Mobility R R eport. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from Congestion Data for Your City: h ttp://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/ Trans Formation: Recreating transit oriented neighborhood centers in Washington D.C. (2002). Washington D.C.: DC Office of Planning. Transit oriented development housing program guidelines. (2007). Retrieved January 2 1, 2011, from California Department of Housing and Community Development: h ttp://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/tod/TOD_Housing_Program_Guidelines.pdf U.S. Department of Transportation. (2008, October). Congestion Pricing A Primer: O verview. Retrieved October 28, 2010, fr om Federal Highway Administration T olling and Pricing Program: h ttp://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08039/cp_prim1_00.htm U.S. Department of Transportation. (2 005, July). Traffic Congestion and Reliability: T rends and Advanced Strategies for Congestion Mitigation. Retrieved October 2 6, 2010, from Federal Highway Administration: h ttp://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/executive_summary.htm United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected economic characteristics: 2 000 Dallas Fort Worth Arlington, TX urbanized area. Retrieved December 5, 2 010, from Census summary file 4: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y& context=qt& r eg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP3:001& qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP3& d s_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U& CONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=true& a ll_geo_types=N& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=label& geo _id=40000US22042& s
142 United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected economic characteristics: 2 000 Portland, OR WA urbanized area. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from C ensus 2000 summary file 4: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/Q TTable?_bm=y& context=qt& r eg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP3:001& qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP3& d s_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U& CONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=true& a ll_geo_types=N& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US71317& search_results= United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected economic characteristics: 2 000 San Francisco Oakland, CA urbanized area. Retrieved December 3, 2010, f rom Census 2000 summary file 4: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y& context=qt& r eg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP 3:001& qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP3& d s_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U& CONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=true& a ll_geo_types=N& geo_id=40000US78904& search_results=40000US78904& f orma United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected economic characteristics: 2 0 00 Washington, DC VA MD urbanized area. Retrieved December 8, 2010, f rom Census 2000 summary file 4: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y& context=qt& r eg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP3:001& qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP3& d s_name=DEC_2000_S F4_U& CONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=true& a ll_geo_types=N& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=label& geo_id=40000US92242& s United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected economic characteristics: 2 000 Boston, MA NH RI urbanized area. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from C ensus 2000 summary file 4: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y& context=qt& r eg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP3:001& qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP3& d s_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U& CONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=t rue& a ll_geo_types=N& geo_id=40000US09271& search_results=40000US09271& f orma
143 United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected housing characteristics: 2000. R etrieved December 1, 2010, from Census 2000 summary file 4 Portland, OR W A urbanized area: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y& c ontext=qt& reg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4:001& q r_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4& ds_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U& C ONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=true& all_geo_types=N& g eo_id=40000US71317& search_results=40000US71317& forma United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected housing characteristics: 2000 B oston, MA NH RI urbanized area. Retrieved December 4, 2010, from Census 2 000 summary file 4: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y& c ontext=qt& reg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4:001& q r_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4& ds_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U& C ONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=true& all_geo_types=N& caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US09271& se arch_results= United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected housing characteristics: 2000 D allas Fort Worth Arlington, TX urbanized area. Retrieved December 2, 2010, f rom Census 2000 summary file 4: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/ servlet/QTTable?_bm=y& context=qt& r eg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4:001& qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4& d s_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U& CONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=true& a ll_geo_types=N& geo_id=label& geo_id=40000US22042& s earch_results=40000 United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected housing characteristics: 2000 S an Francisco Oakland, CA urbanized area. Retrieved December 2, 2010, from C ensus 2000 summary 4 file: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y& context=qt& r eg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4:001& qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4& d s_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U& CONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=true& a ll_geo_types=N& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US78904& se arch_results= United States Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of selected housing characteristics: 2000 W ashington, DC VA MD urbanized area. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from C ensus 2000 summary file 4: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTT able?_bm=y& context=qt& r eg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4:001& qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4& d s_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U& CONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=true& a ll_geo_types=N& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US92242& search_results=
144 United States Census Bureau. (2000). Pro file of selected housing characteristics: 2000 P ortland, OR WA urbanized area. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from Census 2 000 summary file 4: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y& c ontext=qt& reg=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4:001& q r_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_DP4& ds_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U& C ONTEXT=qt& tree_id=404& redoLog=true& all_geo_types=N& g eo_id=40000US71317& search_results=40000US71317& forma United States Census Bureau. (2007). Selected economic characteristics: 2005 2007 S an Franci sco Oakland, CA urbanized area. Retrieved December 6, 2010, from 2 005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& g eo_id=40000US78904& qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3& c ontext=adp& ds_name=& tree_id=3307& _lang=en& redoLog=false& format= United States Census Bu reau. (2007). Selected economic characteristics: 2005 2007 W ashington, DC VA MD. Retrieved December 8, 2010, from 2005 2007 A merican community survey 3 year estimates: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& context=adp& q r_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3& ds_name=ACS_2007 _3YR_G00_& t ree_id=3307& redoLog=true& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US92242& f ormat=& _lang=en United States Census Bureau. (2007). Selected economic characteristics: 2005 2007 B oston, MA NH RI urbanized area. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from 2005 2 007 American community survey 3 year estimates: h ttp://factfind er.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& g eo_id=40000US09271& qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3& c ontext=adp& ds_name=& tree_id=3307& _lang=en& redoLog=false& format= United States Census Bureau. (2007). Selected economic characteristics: 2005 2007 D allas Fort Worth Arlington, TX urbanized area. Retrieved December 1, 2010, f rom 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& g eo_id=40000US22042& qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3& c ontext=adp& ds_name=& tree_id=3307& _lang=en& redoLog=false& format=
145 United States Censu s Bureau. (2007). Selected economic characteristics: 2005 2007 P ortland, OR WA urbanized area. Retrieved December 4, 2010, from 2005 2007 A merican community survey 3 year estimates: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& g eo_id=40000US71317& qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR3& c ontext=adp& ds_name=& tree_id =3307& _lang=en& redoLog=false& format= United States Census Bureau. (2007). Selected housing characteristics: 2005 2007. R etrieved December 4, 2010, from 2005 2007 American community survey 3 y ear estimates Portland, OR WA urbanized area: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/s ervlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& context=adp& q r_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4& ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_& t ree_id=3307& redoLog=true& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US71317& f ormat=& _lang=en United States Census Bureau. (2007). Selected housing characteristics: 200 5 2007 D allas Fort Worth Arlington, TX urbanized area. Retrieved November 3, 2010, f rom 2005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& context=adp& q r_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4& ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_& t ree_id=3307& redoLog=false& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US22042& f ormat=& _lang=en United States Census Bureau. (2007). Selected housing characteristics: 2005 2007 S an Francisco Oakland, CA urbanized area. Retrieved December 6, 2010, from 2 005 2007 American communi ty survey 3 year estimates: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& context=adp& q r_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4& ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_& t ree_id=3307& redoLog=true& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US78904& f ormat=& _lang=en United States Census Bureau. (2007). Selected housing characteristics: 2005 2007 W ashington, DC VA MD urbanized area. Retrieved December 9, 2010, from 2 005 2007 American community survey 3 year estimates: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& context=adp& q r_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4& ds_name=ACS_2007 _3YR_G00_& t ree_id=3307& redoLog=true& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US92242& f ormat=& _lang=en
146 United States Census Bureau. (2007). Selected housing characteristics: 2005 2007 B oston, MA NH RI urbanized area. Retrieved December 3, 2010, from 2005 2 007 Am erican community survey 3 year estimates: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& context=adp& q r_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4& ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_& t ree_id=3307& redoLog=true& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US09271& f ormat=& _lang=en United States Census Bureau. (2007). Selected housing characteristics: 2005 2007 P ortland, OR WA urbanized area. Retrieved December 4, 2010, from 2005 2007 A merican community survey 3 year estimates: h ttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y& context=adp& q r_name=ACS_2007_3 YR_G00_DP3YR4& ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_& t ree_id=3307& redoLog=true& _caller=geoselect& geo_id=40000US71317& f ormat=& _lang=en United States Census Bureau. (2007). Selected housing characteristics: 2005 2007 U nited States. Retrieved October 3, 2010, from American community survey 3 y ear estimates: http://factfinder.census.gov/serv let/ADPTable?_bm=y& g eo_id=01000US& qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR4& d s_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_& _lang=en& redoLog=false& format= United States Department of Transportation. (2010). American Recovery and R einvestment Act of 2009 Agency and Programs Plans Up date. Retrieved D ecember 30, 2010, from United States Department of Transportation: h ttp://www.dot.gov/recovery/docs/performanceupdate.pdf United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2010, June). Partnership for S ustainable Communities: A Year of Progress Washington, D.C.: Office of S ustainable Communities. Urban Land Institute Boston District Council. (2006, May). On the Right Track Me eting G reater Boston's Transit and Land Use Challenges. Retrieved October 26, 2010, f rom Northeastern University: h ttp://www.northeastern .edu/dukakiscenter/publications/transportation/document s /On_the_Right_Track.pdf
147 Zimmerman, M., Anderson, A., & Finkenbinder, A. (2009, November 18). Realizing the p otential for sustainable and equitable TOD: R ecommendations to the i nteragency p artnership on sustainable communities. Retrieved July 3, 2010, f rom Reconnecting America: http://www.ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/RA_RealizingPotentia l_Sustainability _FINAL.pdf
148 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Christen Hutton is pursuing her Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Florida. She previously received a Professional Bachelor of Arts in Landscape Architecture, also at the University of Florida. Currently, Christen is working with the Florida Department of Community Affairs and Treasure Coast Regional Pl anning Council in developing a transit oriented d evelopment guidebook for Florida.