Winnipeg Handbook

Winnipeg
Transit-Oriented Development Handbook
City of Winnipeg
PBs PlaceMaking Group
Acknowledgements
Planning Executive Advisory Committee (PEAC):
Deepak Joshi
Barry Thorgrimson
Barry MacBride
Brad Sacher
Dave Wardrop
Clive Wightman
Chief Operating Officer

Director
Director
Director
Director
Director
Planning & Land Use Division:
Patti Regan
Manager, Planning & Land Use Division
PP&D
Project Manager:
David Marsh
Principal Planner Advanced Planning
PP&D
TOD Technical Advisory Committee:
Brett Shenback
Michael Robinson
James Veitch
Donna Beaton
Valdene Buckley
Lee Caldwell
Gary Holmes
Martin Grady
Bill Menzies
Bjorn Radstrom
David Hill
Diana Emerson
Kevin Nixon
Frank Mazur
Planner
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Park Strategic Planner
Senior Planner
Senior Urban Designer
Manager of Strategic Support Services
Administrator of Zoning & Permits Branch
Manager of Service Development
Transit Planner
Chief Operating Officer
Traffic Management Engineer
Active Transportation Coordinator
Development Engineer
PP&D
PP&D
PP&D
PP&D
PP&D
PP&D
PP&D
PP&D
Winnipeg Transit
Winnipeg Transit
Winnipeg Parking Authority
Public Works Department
Water & Waste Department
Parsons Brinckerhoff PlaceMaking Group:
GB Arrington
Keith Liden
Kimi Iboshi Sloop
Emily Hull
Jim Hencke
Tom Bennett
Project Manager
Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Urban Designer
Senior Urban Designer
Urban Designer

Cover image Source:

Date:
City of Winnipeg
2011
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer

Planning, Property, and Development Department (PP&D)
Water & Waste Department
Winnipeg Transit
Community Services Department
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.A. Introduction to TOD Handbook

1.B. Organization of Handbook
2
4
2. Overview of TOD
2.A. TOD Defined

2.B. Scale of TOD
2.C. Benefits of TOD
2.D. Making TOD Work
2.E. Locating Transit Stations
6
7
8
11
13
3. Principles
15
3.A. Core Principles of TOD
16
4. Implementing TOD
31
4.A. Considerations for Locating TOD

4.B. Station Area Plans
4.C. TOD Assessment Tool
4.D. Implementation Toolbox
4.E. Typologies
4.F. Urban Parks and Open Space
33
33
34
36
37
51
Endnotes
65
Resources
66
Introduction
1. Introduction
City of Winnipeg TOD Handbook
1.A. Introduction to TOD Handbook

The City of Winnipegs new planning framework anchored by OurWinnipeg and the Complete
Communities Direction Strategy is founded on environmental, social and economical solutions.
This framework will prioritize building complete communities and accommodating growth and change
in a sustainable way. This will be done by balancing growth in new and existing communities with
intensification in certain areas of the city namely, centres and corridors, major redevelopment sites,
and downtown.
Transit-oriented development (TOD) is a key component of this balanced approach. By enabling
density, mixed use, accessible urban design and sustainable transportation options, it:
contributes to the overall sustainability of the city,
provides a valued complement to existing land use patterns, and
offers a lifestyle option that appeals to many people.
The average household

spends 19% of its
household budget on
transportation. Those
with good access to
transit spend only 9% of
the household budget
on transportation.1
Introduction
Sense of Place
Each station area

in Winnipeg can
provide a sense of
place by creating
a unique character
and identity that
enables the citizens
of Winnipeg to have a
personal connection
and experience with
the place in their
daily lives and builds
a great community
recognized
throughout the
region.
A variety of sites can accommodate TOD, including, but not limited to, former industrial sites
(brownfields) and under-utilized commercial areas (greyfields). Of course, every site and situation is
different, and establishing TOD in Winnipeg brings unique climate challenges. However, there are
lessons learned from elsewhere that may hold value for those looking to create TOD here.
This handbook provides TOD background information gleaned from examples across North America
and around the world, expressed as best-practice TOD principles and real-world case studies. Section
4.0 includes several checklists of questions that may be helpful in evolving concepts for development
in Winnipeg.
As a starting point for dialogue between developers, the community and the City of Winnipeg, it is
hoped that the Transit-Oriented Development Handbook supports the building of partnerships and
positive relationships that lead to the implementation of successful TOD projects in Winnipeg.
1.B. Organization of Handbook

This TOD Handbook is a synthesis of best practice TOD principles to help policymakers, developers,
the Public Service, and members of the public in Winnipeg facilitate the broader implementation of
TOD. The handbook is organized into three main sections:
Overview of TOD. This section defines TOD, presents benefits and challenges of TOD and discusses
the relationship of the transit station to the surrounding land uses.
Core Principles of TOD. This section presents the six key elements every successful TOD should
include. Supporting each principle is a best practice case study.
Tools for Implementing TOD. This section builds on the core principles and presents tools that can
be used to make TOD a reality.
Overview to TOD
2. Overview of TOD

What Type of Transit

Supports TOD?
2.A. TOD Defined

TOD focuses compact growth within an easy walk of transit stations, bringing potential riders closer to
transit facilities, and promotes increased ridership by making riding transit that much easier. TOD can
be defined as:
Moderate to higher density compact mixed-use development, located within an easy five to
ten minute (approximately 400m to 800m) walk of a major transit stop. TOD involves high
quality urban development with a mix of residential, employment and shopping opportunities,
designed in a pedestrian oriented manner without excluding the automobile. TOD can be
new construction or redevelopment of one or more buildings whose design and orientation
facilitate the use of convenient and sustainable modes of transportation, including public
transit and Active Transportation.
A successful TOD will reinforce both the community and the transit system. Creating a mix of uses
within a TOD or easily accessible from a TOD promotes activity around the clock. This in turn promotes
the most efficient use of the transit system: travel in both directions, throughout the day. TODs
produce a variety of other benefits by encouraging walkable compact and infill development.
TOD presents a lifestyle option for citizens, and is another means of promoting Complete Communities.
In general, people living and working in TODs walk more, use transit more and own fewer cars than the
rest of the larger community. TOD households are twice as likely to not own a car, and own roughly half
as many cars as the average household. At an individual transit station, TOD can increase ridership
by 20 to 40 percent, and up to five percent overall at the regional level. People who live in a TOD are
five times more likely to commute by transit than other residents.2
Locating the right land uses adjacent to

transit is only part of making a successful
TOD. The ease of riding transit is also an
important component. Important attributes
that transit service must possess to
support TOD include:
Frequent service (every 10 minutes
or less during peak periods, every
20 minutes or less during off-peak
periods).
Service throughout the day, every
day of the week.
High quality transit stops or stations
that provide enhanced waiting
amenities for passengers.
The transit station can function
as a major stop for through transit
service and/or as a transit centre
for several transit routes that
terminate at the TOD.
The type of transit that serves the TOD is
less important than the service it provides.
Service can be provided by on-street
mainline routes on an adjacent Transit
Quality Corridor, by Bus Rapid Transit (BRT),
or Light Rail Transit (LRT).
Overview to TOD
80
0m
etr
es
40
0m
etr
es
18
0m
etr
es
2.B. Scale of TOD

TOD is the area within the first 400 to 800 metres (1/4 to 1/2 mile) of transit stations it is not one
project, but a compilation of projects. Individually, each project may serve one primary function but
as a whole, they create a place. Not all TODs function the same and not all are of the same size.
The size of the TOD is dependent on the general scale or intensity of development appropriate for
that station based on the function of the station and the accessibility of the TOD from the adjacent
neighbourhoods. The table below illustrates potential types of TODs that can be located along high
quality transit routes.
More detail, as well as best practice examples and questions to consider when determining the
appropriate size and location of a TOD are included in Chapter 4.
Highest Density at the Station

The immediate area around the station (core area) should
generally contain the greatest intensity and mix of uses.
TOD Zones:
Urban Centre
Urban Neighbourhood Town

Centre
Neighbourhood
Medium Density
Neighbourhood
Low Density
High Frequency Transit

Corridor
Residential
Retail
Class B Commercial
Residential
Neighourhood Retail
Local Office
Residential
Neighourhood Retail
Land Use Mix
Office Centre
Urban Entertainment
Multiple Family
Retail
Office Centre
Urban Entertainment
Multiple Family
Retail
Net Housing
Density*
124-371 units per

99-247 units per hectare
hectare
(40-100 units per acre)
86-247 units per hectare 49-124 units per

hectare
25-49 units per

hectare
Regional
Connectivity
High,
Hub of
regional system
Medium access to
downtown,
Sub regional hub
High access to
downtown,
Sub regional hub
Medium access to
suburban centre,
Access to downtown
Low
High access to downtown,
Frequencies
5 - 15 minutes
5 - 15 minutes
5 - 15 minutes
15 - 30 minutes
20 - 30 minutes
TOD TYPE
Office Centre
Urban Entertainment
Multiple Family
Retail
* Net densities, ie. the buildable area after the street right-of-way has been subtracted.
Sub regional hub
5 - 15 minutes
2.C. Benefits of TOD

Experience from other cities in North American has demonstrated that implementing TOD can have
significant benefits to individuals, communities and regions. Coordinated investment in transportation
and land use projects promotes many aspects of Complete Communities and improves the quality
of life for citizens by: offering and supporting a variety of lifestyle choices; providing opportunities for
people of all ages and abilities to live, work, shop, learn and play in close proximity to one another;
reducing the need for travel and creating shorter journeys; providing easier and safer access to
jobs, schools and services; supporting more efficient use of the land and existing infrastructure; and
maintaining the environmental benefits of compact development. The extent to which this progress
is made depends largely on the type and quality of transit service available as well as the primary
characteristics of the TOD.
Other
Expenses
59%
Transportation
9%
Transit Rich Neighbourhood
Best practices in North America have identified the following benefits from TOD at the personal,
community and regional levels:
Other
Expenses
49%
Personal Benefits
Increased mobility choices. By creating activity nodes linked by transit, TOD provides much
needed mobility options, including options for young people, the elderly and people who do not
own cars or prefer not to use a car for the trip.
Increased disposable household income. Housing and transportation are the first and second
largest household expenses, respectively. TOD can effectively increase disposable income by
reducing the need for more than one car and reducing driving costs. Research from the US
shows that residents in transit rich neighbourhoods spend 16% less on transportation than those
living in exurban neighbourhoods according to a recent study by the Center for Transit-Oriented
Development.3
Increased health benefits. TOD promotes a healthy lifestyle by making it convenient to walk and by
providing the infrastructure that supports walking and biking. According to recent studies, people
who live in neighbourhoods within an easy walk of shops and businesses are seven per cent less
likely to be obese.4
Transit Rich Neighbourhoods

allows for 16% more savings.
Housing
32%
Housing
32%
Transportation
19%
Average US Family
Other
Expenses
43%
Housing
32%
Transportation
25%
Exurban Neighbourhood
Overview to TOD
Community Benefits
Increased public safety. By creating active places that are busy through the day and evening and
providing eyes on the street, TOD can help increase safety for pedestrians, transit users, and
many others.
In each year since

2005 Emerging
Trends in Real
Estate rated TOD
as the top real
estate prospect for
the future. They
noted mixed-use,
high quality urban
environments
appreciate faster
in up-markets and
hold their value in
down-markets.
Part of a balanced approach to accommodating growth. TOD directs higher density

development to appropriate areas near transit stations, thereby reducing pressure to build higher
density development within existing mature neighbourhoods.
A component of compact, sustainable urban form. TOD often uses infill, greyfield and brownfield
sites to redevelop and intensify existing urban areas. Because TOD consumes less land, farmland
and open space can be protected.
Enhanced local economic development. TOD is increasingly used as a tool to help revitalize
neighbourhood main streets and mature neighbourhoods, and to enhance tax revenues.
Sustainable Infrastructure. Depending on local circumstances, TOD can help reduce new
infrastructure costs (such as for water, sanitary sewer, and roads) to local governments and
property owners by up to 25 percent through more compact and infill development. While upfront
infrastructure improvements may be necessary to support additional density, other improvements
to extend services to the urban fringe may not be needed, reducing infrastructure cost over time.5
Increased land values. Locations next to transit can enjoy increases in land values by as much as
50 percent in comparison to locations away from transit stops. During the 2008-2009 economic
downturn, neighbourhoods closer to city centres have held their value unlike suburban areas
which have lost value. Consumer preference will continue to be for mixed-use infill TOD around
high quality transit.6
Regional Benefits
Increased transit ridership. TOD provides transportation options, improves the efficiency and
effectiveness of transit service investments by increasing the use of transit near stations by 20 to
40 percent, and up to five percent overall at the regional level.7
Reduced rates of vehicle kilometres traveled (VKT). Vehicle travel has been increasing faster
than population growth in many jurisdictions. TOD can lower annual household rates of driving by
20-40 percent for those living, working and/or shopping within transit station areas.8
Reduced air pollution and energy consumption rates. By providing safe and easy pedestrian and
cyclist access to transit, TOD can lower rates of air pollution and energy consumption. TOD can
also reduce rates of greenhouse gas emissions by 2.27 to 3.35 tonnes (2.5 to 3.7 tons) per year
per household.9
Greater affordable options for housing. TOD can add to the supply of housing that is considered
affordable by providing lower-cost and accessible housing, and by reducing household
transportation expenditures. In 2008, households could have saved an average of $9,499 US if
they used transit instead of driving.10
Greater housing choice. As the Baby Boomer generation moves to the empty-nest phase of life
and the traditional nuclear family shrinks as a percent of all households, the demand for smaller
homes has increased. TOD promotes a variety of housing types, providing increased housing
choice and opportunities for people to age in place.11
10
Overview to TOD
Is Cold Weather a
Barrier to TOD?
The short answer is no - TOD always
needs to adapt to climate. Examples
abound in many climates: in the rain
(Portland and Vancouver BC); in the
heat (Miami and Phoenix); or in the
snow (Chicago and Ottawa).
The design of TOD requires land uses
to be in close proximity to each other
increasing the feasibility of using
transit. In Calgary, a recent study found
that the walking distances to transit
increase in the winter, likely due to
people wanting to avoid the messy and
potentially dangerous roads caused by
snow and ice.12
Whether it be rain, snow or heat,
the climate in a particular location
must be considered in the design of
TOD. Places with extreme weather
often have more weather-protected
connections from the transit station to
adjoining land uses to allow people to
stay indoors. They also provide transit
shelters that protect people from the
elements.
11
2.D. Making TOD Work

Although the benefits of TOD are great, many communities experience challenges the first time they
try to implement TOD. Winnipeg will likely experience challenges similar to those experienced by other
communities. Being aware of the typical challenges to successful TOD implementation can inform
collaborative discussions and assist Winnipeg to frame a pro-active strategy for implementation that
addresses the potential challenges before they become road blocks.
Typical challenges faced by cities implementing TOD for the first time fall into three broad categories:
1. Communal Lack of Experience with TOD. As with any new venture, those without first-hand
experience tend to proceed with caution when it comes to developing TOD. In most places, the
elected officials, city staff, developers and local constituents follow the same learning curve to
understand the benefits of TOD and how to make it successful. Each group must support and
encourage each other and understand each others concerns through the process of making TOD
a reality. One of the key factors in implementing TOD is seeing the big picture, how each transit
station and TOD is unique and different than the others, and how each TOD should complement,
and not compete, with each other. Creating station area plans also help to keep the big picture
in focus by clearly identifying the function, purpose, and vision for each transit station area.
Keeping the big picture in perspective is important to address NIMBY (Not in My Backyard)
sentiments. In order to overcome the challenge of a communal lack of experience, educating
elected officials, city staff, developers, and local constituents as to the benefits of TOD and how it
can improve the quality of life has proven to be a successful approach in other communities.
2. Regulatory Constraints. Throughout North America, existing local zoning by-laws and urban
design standards tend to touch on the characteristics that support TOD, but do not go far enough
to fully allow and encourage densities and pedestrian-orientated design that supports transit and
walkable places. For example, land use policies and zoning regulations often do not address the
presence of transit, tend to favour low-density, auto-oriented uses, and use terms such as may
instead of shall. An analysis of existing policy and planning efforts to determine how they can
support or hinder TOD type development can help define the local government action plan and
strategy for TOD implementation.
In addition to by-law and policy language, it is important that city policies and plans related to longterm infrastructure and land use, transportation, and parks plans be consistant and coordinated
to facilitate the implementation of TOD. A lack of integration and coordination of these planning &
infrastructure efforts may potentially increase the cost of development and may be a challenge to
successfully implementing TOD.
3. Market Constraints. TODs throughout North America have historically performed well in the
marketplace. Where absorption rates are more moderate, however, some cities are noticing that
they may only be able to absorb one or two projects at a time and care must be taken to avoid a
flood of the market. Another challenge to developing TOD is the availability of developable land
along the key transit corridors or around transit stations. Land may not be available due to the
fragmentation of land holdings or may be currently underutilized by older, less intense land uses.
For example, the ability to develop land may be hindered if there are multiple land owners of small
parcels that require development agreements or the purchase of land in order to secure a large
enough parcel to make development financially viable.

Greyfield sites, such as older commercial areas, are developed sites that are underutilized and
may be ripe for major redevelopment. Greyfield development may be the key parcel in a TOD and
should be redeveloped first, which may or may not coincide with the most financially feasible time
to redevelop. A market analysis and leadership at the political level is critical to creating a strategy
and partnerships that facilitates TOD redevelopment in a manner that is supported by the market.
12
Overview to TOD
2.E. Locating Transit Stations

Proper station location is critical to the success of ridership.
Visibility, access, and way-finding helps transit users get to
and from desired destinations.
To work well, transit facilities and surrounding development must be designed with an eye to each
other. Unfortunately conventional transit design can separate transit from the community it is
intended to serve. Simply having transit and development adjacent to each other is not enough. For
transit facilities, they should be designed to be welcoming to the public and be well connected with the
surrounding community. This transit facility design perspective is often referred to as DevelopmentOriented Transit (DOT).
Well planned and designed transit facilities can be instrumental in positively shaping a communitys
future. They can set the stage by being a catalyst for implementing the communitys vision and
creating economic value. Fitting transit into the community sometimes may require breaking the
mold of generally accepted transit design. A DOT design perspective seeks to enhance transit system
operation, passenger requirements, community fit and future development opportunities. It assumes
that it is possible to meet user requirements and maintain cost-effective service while capturing
synergies with station areas that exhibit TOD potential, encouraging environmentally friendly practices,
and creating lively community spaces to visit and not just travel through.
For information on the citys planned transit & transportation system, see the Sustainable
Transportation Direction Strategy, and Transportation Master Plan.
13
Characteristics of Development Oriented Transit

Visible to transit riders. Transit patrons need to be able to see where they are going. A clear
line of sight to the station from adjacent streets and land uses allows transit patrons an easy
way to orient themselves and recognize where they are. Landmarks, vistas, and focal points
are key visual orientation devices; they can be used to show the way, emphasize the hierarchy
of space, or welcome transit patrons to the station entrance. The station canopy provides an
excellent opportunity to exploit as a landmark.
Accessibility between station and destination. The relationship between existing
community elements (buildings, streets, sidewalks) and the new transit infrastructure should
be assessed as part of the design process to determine if a linked series of spaces, visual
cues, and available routes make it easy to access the station. Direct, attractive connections
designed according to universally accessible design standards without barriers or dead
ends should be provided.
Connected to allow system transfers. Transit patrons will need to be able to conveniently
transfer between different modes of transportation. Clear, direct routes for pedestrians are
essential, but bus facilities should not overwhelm or dominate station areas since a high
quality pedestrian experience is also an essential urban design objective.
Active uses that promote ridership. A range of uses, conveniently located close to the
station entrance, will promote activity within the station area. Higher intensity development
(such as office and/or residential towers), with active ground floor uses (such as shops
and/or restaurants), sensitively clustered within a short walk of station entries will assist in
promoting transit ridership and the creation of 18 hour places.
14
Principles of TOD
3. Principles
15
3.A. Core Principles of TOD

Planning and implementation of a successful TOD involves many small decisions to assure
development is consistent with TOD principles. Some of the key principles needed to create a
successful TOD are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Medium to high density development that is greater than the community average.
A mix of uses.
Compact, high quality pedestrian-oriented environment.
An active defined centre.
Innovative parking strategies.
Public leadership.
The principles directly influence the land use, circulation, urban form and overall performance of a
place. It is not enough for development to be near transit; it needs to be shaped by transit to be a
TOD. TOD is more than an individual parcel or development project. TOD includes the entire area
surrounding transit, between 400 to 800 metres (1/4 -1/2 mile) from the transit stop. Each TOD may
look different and have a different function, but each successful TOD will have applied these six core
principles in a manner unique to the place.
16
Principles of TOD
Principle #1: Medium to High Density Development

Greater than the Community Average
Density matters in TOD. Density is all about scale, with the goal being to create a compact walkable district. Density within TODs raise the bar and achieve
a higher net average resulting in greater ridership, both within the TOD district and within a 5 minute walk of transit.
Principle Characteristics:
Highest densities immediately around the transit station, tapering down to transition density at the
edges of the TOD following the core-centre-edge concept.
Density at levels to support high quality transit. The general rule of thumb is that doubling density
equates to a 60 percent increase in transit trips.
15 - 17 dwelling units per hectare [du/ha] (6-7 dwelling units per acre [du/ac])
on net average for a street bus line
22 - 62 du/ha (9-25 du/ac) on net average for rapid transit
Site design for major projects should allow for intensification of densities over time.
Minimum density should be a high percentage of the density maximum (e.g. minimum density is
80% of maximum density).
Retail and office uses located closest to the transit station.
17
Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Case Study

The Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor is arguably the best TOD success story in the United States. Located
directly across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., Arlington County has become an increasingly
popular place to live, work, and shop due in part to high-density development along the RosslynBallston corridor. Before development began, Arlington County adopted a General Land Use Plan to
concentrate dense, mixed-use development. More detailed sector plans which specify land use and
zoning as well as urban design, transportation, and open space guidelines for the area 400 metres
( mile) from each of the five stations in the corridor, ensure a distinct sense of community at each
station.
Arlington County, Virginia

Statistics
Site Size: 518 hectares (1280 acres)
Land uses: 5 Metro stations with over 1.9
million sq. m. (21 million sq. ft.) of office,
retail, and commercial space; more than
3,000 hotel rooms; and almost 25,000
residences
Transit Elements: rail, buses
In addition to the county-wide and station-area plans, specific enabling zoning by-law language
regarding density and setback configurations, circulation systems, and zoning classifications were
changed. Developments that complied with these classifications could proceed through an expedited
review process. The ability of complying developers to create TODs as-of-right was particularly
important, for it meant that they could line up capital, secure loans, incur up-front costs, and phase in
construction without the fear of local government changing its mind.
Today, the roughly two square-mile Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor has mixed-use, infill development focused
at five Metro stations, and density tapers down to residential neighbourhoods. As of 2004, the corridor
had over 1.9 million sq. m. (21 million sq. ft.) of office, retail, and commercial space; more than 3,000
hotel rooms; and almost 25,000 residences, creating vibrant urban villages where people live, shop,
work, and play using transit, pedestrian walkways, bicycles, or cars. The stations along the corridor
have captured 26% of the residents and 37% of the jobs on just 8% of the Countys land area. The
station area boasts one of the highest percentages of transit use in the Washington D.C. region with
39% of residents commuting to work on transit.
Key Points:
Planning followed the text book - TOD plans were done early, providing clear direction and
incentives.
The corridor is well located, lying just across the river from Washington D.C.
There was a well orchestrated collaboration between the political leaders and neighbourhoods.
18
Principles of TOD
Principle #2: A Mix of Uses

Creating a mix of land uses provides diversity and variety, encouraging people to walk to meet their needs regardless of how they arrive at the TOD.
The key is to locate the various compatible uses close together, making them easily accessible to each other in order to improve walkability
Active first floor uses oriented to serve pedestrians along key street edges.
A mix of uses including residential, commercial, service, employment, and public uses.
Vertical and horizontal mixed-use.
Land uses that emphasize pedestrians and de-emphasize motorists within 400 metres (1/4 mile)
of transit.
Discourage the introduction of new auto-oriented uses nearest to transit.
A mix of uses consistent with the character, needs, opportunities, and constraints of the area.
19
Ottawa Case Study

Ottawas 31 km bus rapid transit route is one of the worlds most effective bus transit systems. A key
to its success is the decision to treat the stations as significant, substantial places. The citys official
plan and the transportation master plan include policies that regulate transit-supportive land uses,
such as locating mixed-use centres at rapid transit stations so the city is able to impose requirements
on TOD by imposing requirements on mixed-use centres.
City of Ottawa Website
More than one quarter of the 28 transitway stations are physically integrated with adjacent
development creating a place. The most significant example is at St. Laurent Shopping Centre, where
the owners donated the land (in return for relief on parking requirements) and a bi-level station, linked
directly to the mall, was created. Approximately 30 percent of St. Laurent patrons now come by bus.
Ottawa, Ontario
Key Site Statistics
Site Size: 31km corridor. TOD Stations
include Tunneys Pasture, Westboro,
Mackenzie King, Laurier and Campus
Land Uses: Primary employment centres,
regional shopping centres
Transit elements: Bus Rapid Transit
The transitway has been one of the key components of making public transit an important part of
everyday life in Ottawa. Enclosed walkways and heated shelters meant that to transfer between buses
in February no longer risked being a bitter, uncomfortable ordeal. Ottawas transitway benefited from
provincial funding; without the 75 percent contribution to capital cost from Ontario it never would have
been built.
The integration of stations with adjacent land use and the provision of innovative services to take
advantage of the facility has meant that:
more than 50 percent of all people entering downtown do so by bus.
the suburban St. Laurent Shopping Centre features a remarkable 30 percent transit mode
share for shoppers.
3,200 residential units and 440,000 sq. m. of institutional and commercial space was built
near transitway stations in the eight years prior to 1996.
bus is the fastest mode available between the airport and downtown.
Key Points:
Ongoing commitment to an Official Plan that emphasizes transit as well as the important landuse/transportation interaction.
The ease of using the system and the comfort provided by the amenities at the stations are key
factors in achieving high transit ridership during cold weather.
Province-city partnership to secure funding facilitated implementation.
20
Principles of TOD
Principle #3: Compact, High Quality Pedestrian

Oriented Environment
Vibrant communities, with or without transit, are convenient and comfortable places for pedestrians. Subtle factors, focused on a pleasant environment for
the pedestrian, encourage people to walk. Streets can be calmed by reducing traffic speeds to make them inviting for walking.
Blocks sized for a 5-minute walk. A suggested maximum of 122 metres (400 feet), or a
circumference of 488 metres (1,600 feet).
Entrances oriented to be easily accessible from the public sidewalk.
Interconnected multi-modal streets and pedestrian paths connecting to the street system.
Streets designed to calm traffic.
Centrally located, secure and convenient bicycle parking.
Wide sidewalks. The more dense the development, the wider the sidewalk. In residential
neighbourhoods, the suggested width should be 3 - 3.75 metres, from the face of curb to back of
sidewalk (10 - 12 feet). Mixed-use main streets should be 4.25 -5.5 metres (14-18 feet). High
density urban centres should be 5 7 metres (16 - 24 feet).
Lanes, as appropriate, for dedicated service and delivery access point for commercial businesses.
Street trees to soften the urban environment by blending natural features with built features.
Pedestrian-scale lighting to enhance visibility and safety.
High quality architectural design and detail conveying a sense of place and relating to the street
and the pedestrian environment, including active first floor storefront with windows, awnings,
architectural features, lighting and landscaping.
21
Eastside Village Case Study

Helping anchor the rebirth of downtown Plano, Eastside Village is a $17.7 million (US) high-density
mixed-use project fronting directly onto Dallas Area Rapid Transits (DART) light rail station plaza. The
1.5 hectares (3.6-acres) 22,750 sq. m. (245,000 sq. ft.) project features 234 apartment units and
1,400 sq. m. (15,000 sq. ft.) of ground floor retail. The three and four storey building wraps around
3-sides of a 5-storey 351 space parking structure.
Eastside Village was the first major step to achieve the Citys vision to Transform downtown into a
compact, mixed-use, urban centre consistent with the principles of new urbanism and transit oriented
design to enhance the communitys quality of life and provide a model for sustainable development
within a maturing suburban city.
Plano, Texas
Key Site Statistics
The City of Plano provided the leadership to make the project happen. They advocated for the station
location, saw opportunity to marry development with the DART LRT platform, assembled the site,
offered it for development, leased the land to Amicus Partners, paid for public infrastructure and
streetscape improvements, increased the allowable density from 56 to 140 du/ha (40 to 100 du/ac),
and waived fees.
Site Size: 1.5 hectares (3.6 acres) site
Key Points:
TOD zoning: base zoning of 56 du/ha

(40 du/ac), developer initiated planning
process resulting in a density increase to
140 du/ha (100 du/ac)
A strong and effective partnership between the city and the developer delivered the project.
The City displayed a willingness to support increased density to enable the project to be financially
feasible.
Land uses: 234 residential units, 1,400

sq. m. (15,000 sq. ft.) of retail, 5-storey
351-space structure,
and 47 surface spaces
Transit elements: LRT station, 4 bus lines
22
Principles of TOD
Principle #4: An Active Defined Centre

Transit is particularly successful in communities and neighbourhoods that have defined centres, creating an 18-hour place by offering multiple attractions
and reasons for pedestrians to frequent the area throughout the day and evening. Having a dense mix of uses near transit is important to creating a centre,
but it must also have a sense of place and community so that people choose to gather there.
A sense of vitality, a people place with a compact urban form that is oriented toward walking and
a mix of uses.
Responsive to the fundamentals of market supply and demand (i.e., provide the products and
services that are desired and needed in the local community).
Highest density of buildings nearest the transit station, following the core-centre-edge concept.
Different locations within a centre with different functions, such as residential, retail, employment,
civic, cultural and recreation.
Employment uses closest to the transit station. For every 30 metres (100 feet) from the station,
the share of office workers using transit drops by about one percent.
Buildings are typically taller than the surrounding area, oriented close to the street with window
displays and main entrances.
23
Bloomington Central Case Study

Located south of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, the Bloomington Central Station Area
is a destination station with the ten hotels, the Mall of America, a new IKEA store, Health Partners
headquarters and restaurants, offices and other uses in the area not to mention the Minnesota Valley
National Wildlife Refuge.
The TOD surrounding the station is currently going through a massive redevelopment and expansion.
Much of the redevelopment is occurring on land that is underutilized as surface parking. The first
phase of redevelopment includes two 17-storey condominium towers and underground parking. Phase
II includes: 830 for-sale townhome and condominium units at a density of 126 du/ha (90 du/ac);
a Central Park between the station and a new hotel; an extensive system of pedestrian trails and
walkways.
Bloomington, Minnesota
Key Site Statistics
Site Size: 17.4 hectares (43 acres)
Land Uses: 1,100 housing units, 9,000
jobs, 350 room hotel, 185,800 sq. m. (2
m. sq. ft.) office, 0.6 hectare (1.59 acre)
park.
The redevelopment will provide better connectivity and a mix of uses to support the light rail
investment and should generate substantial transit ridership. The housing units will be within a walk
of the transit station, reducing the need for an automobile. In response to the high density, the Central
Park will create a plaza and a gathering place that ties the various uses together and provides visual
relief from the towers.
Key Points:
TOD resulted from adaptive reuse of existing office complex to create a mixed-use town centre.
TOD is strategically located near airport, Mall of America, light rail station and open space.
The underground parking and 0.6 hectares (1.59 acres) park adjacent to the station creates a
quality public realm.
Transit elements: light rail, park and ride,

bus
24
Principles of TOD
Principle #5: Innovative Parking Strategies

Parking to reflect the impact of transit is one of the most challenging aspects of any TOD. By creating a more managed parking supply, and moving parking
from surface parking lots to on-street parking and parking structures, residents, shoppers and employees are encouraged to use transit to get to the TOD
and walk within the TOD. Parking in a TOD should consider four fundamental components: size, location, design and management.
Parking provided on an area basis (i.e., shared uses) rather than building by building.
Reduced parking requirements through zoning by-laws, such as parking maximums.
Parking facilities located behind buildings, in parking structures with ground floor retail, and
screened from adjacent land uses.
On-street parking on all streets except limited access arterials.
Parking design integrated with the development to relate to the streetscape and circulation routes.
Paid parking or time-limited free parking.
25
Ohlone-Chynoweth Case Study

Located on Guadalupe light rail transit line in San Jose, Ohlone-Chynoweth Commons is a medium
density mixed-use TOD. The projects housing, retail and community facilities were developed on an
under-used light rail park-and-ride lot. For this project, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) issued a
request for proposal seeking a developer for the 2.9 hectare (7.3 acre) site. The former 1,100-space
park-and-ride now includes: 240 park-and-ride spaces, 195 units of affordable housing, 400 sq. m.
(4,400 sq. ft.) of retail and a day care centre.
At 38 du/ha (27 du/ac), the residential density of Ohlone-Chynoweth Commons is relatively high
compared to the predominantly single family neighbourhood surrounding it.
San Jose, California

Key Site Statistics
Site Size: 2.9 hectares (7.3 acres) site
TOD zoning: Planned Unit Development
with project specific zoning, required 2
spaces per unit
Land uses: 18,300 sq. m. (197,000 sq.
ft.) with 195 units, 400 sq. m. (4,400 sq.
ft.) retail
Ohlone-Chynoweth is a rare example of where a park and ride has been converted to TOD without
replacement of the commuter parking in structures or on another site. The developer, Eden Housing
has a 75 year lease for the site from VTA. Ohlone-Chynoweth Commons provides affordable housing
for families earning between 30% and 60% of the area median income in a community where an
average market-rate two bedroom apartment is renting for as much as $1,600 (US) a month. The City
has aggressively sought to locate housing next to transit. Since 1990 over 20,000 units of housing
have been built or approved next to transit in San Jose.
Key Points:
There was a lack of institutional knowledge on how to develop TOD that made implementation
difficult.
The orientation of retail spaces toward transit rather than the street resulted in problematic sites.
An expedited review process helped to advance the project, but did not overcome homeowner
concerns about traffic and density.
Transit elements: LRT station, 3 bus

routes, 240 space park-and-ride
26
Principles of TOD
Principle #6: Public Leadership

Historically, TOD revitalization supports the strategy that the public sector must take the primary leadership role and the initiative before the private
sector is willing to commit time and money. Public leadership is needed as a station area is being developed, as well as throughout the life span of the
station area. A collaborative and enabling orientation, and use of new and innovative tools to complement and enhance planning efforts are important
for successful implementation.
Political will aligned with the TOD objectives.
New and modified policies and by-law language to achieve the TOD goals.
Continued collaborative relationships with developers to encourage and facilitate TOD.
Corridor strategies to identify priorities, and linkages between station areas & surrounding
context.
Station area plans and improvements incorporated into the Citys capital improvements budget.
Necessary staff and capital resources dedicated to carry out implementation.
Commitment to innovative development, a flexible approach, and removal of challenges to
development.
27
Downtown Arlington Heights Case Study
City of Arlington Heights
The village of Arlington Heights, west of Chicago, on Metras Union Pacific Northwest Line, has seized
upon TOD as an integral component of the citys award-winning strategy to revitalize its historic
downtown. The village has created a virtually new town centre that includes a new Metra station, a
performing arts centre, high-density housing, commercial uses, and public parking decks. In 1980, 350
residents lived in the downtown in 150 units. By 2000, the numbers had jumped to 2,200 residents and
1,500 units. Since 1997, public investment of $27 million (US) has leveraged some $225 million (US) in
private investment.
Arlington Heights, Illinois

Key Site Statistics
Site Size: 55 blocks
Land Uses: 1,500 residential units,
14,500 sq. m. (157,000 sq. ft.) retail,
performing arts facility and 2,180 parking
spaces.
Critical to downtown redevelopment was the $4.7-million (US) construction and relocation of a Metra
station in 2000. By moving the station one block west and the platforms two blocks west, rail transit is
closer to the downtown core, and a large gap between the north and south sides of the tracks has been
filled. The relocated site has substantially improved north/south access to the station, made all the more
attractive by the addition of parks and public art next to the rail platform. The village-owned station itself
is abuzz with activity, with a McDonalds restaurant, a bakery cafe, and a Gateway Newsstand. Funds
for the station refurbishment were provided by six agencies, including Metra, Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT), and the village (which used Tax Increment Financing funds). This project received
a distinction award from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) for Central Business
District (CBD) train-station design.
Key Points:
There was a community vision to remake the suburban town as an urban place by focusing on TOD.
Factors for success included the clear vision, a willingness to commit public resources, and strong
and consistent leadership.
Transit elements: Commuter rail
28
Principles of TOD
Fruitvale Transit Village Case Study

In 1991, when Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) proposed a new parking structure at the Fruitvale Transit
Station where an existing surface parking lot stood, the community rebelled and opted to create its
own plan. Although neighbourhood residents recognized the need for parking, they disagreed with the
location and design of the structure. The residents wanted a place that would link the local economy
to transit, thereby increasing pedestrian and bicycle traffic and revitalizing the neighbourhood.
With the leadership of an active community group called the Unity Council, the community created
an alternative plan for the site that created a mixed-use village with local retail shops, a community
centre, library, housing, and new structured parking. BART accepted the idea and decided to work
with the community to construct their vision.
Oakland, California
Key Site Statistics
Site Size: 2.39 hectares (5.9 acres)
Land Uses: 47 housing units, 10,600 sq
m (114,000 sq ft) of community service
and office space, 3,700 sq m (40,000 sq
ft) of retail, 150 space car park garage.
Transit elements: BART rail, 500-space
car park structure, local and regional bus
lines
29
Today, Fruitvale Transit Village is a 2.39 hectares (5.9 acres) transit village with an active, retail-lined
pedestrian connector between the BART station and the neighbourhoods primary retail artery. There
are 47 mixed-income housing units, 10,600 sq. m. (114,000 sq. ft.) of community service and office
space, and 3,700 sq. m. (40,000 sq. ft.) of retail.
The project was designed by and for the neighbourhood surrounding the station. As a result, there are
several social service facilities including a health clinic, library, senior centre, and child development
centre. Of the 47 rental units in the Village, 10 are designated affordable. In addition, a block or two
off the Village, there is a 68-unit senior housing project and a planned 500 unit facility in phase II of
the Village plan. Phase II includes constructing 500-600 housing units on BARTs surface parking lots
and the two blocks adjacent to Fruitvale Transit Village.
Key Points:
Implementation was hampered by the complexity of the project.
The placement of the transit facilities away from the TOD did not result in the hoped for synergy
between the two.
The project has helped revitalize the community.
Most people do not feel

comfortable walking in a wideopen area with busy traffic passing
closely by. Pedestrians are drawn to
streets and paths with a feeling of
intimacy and enclosure. This feeling
can be created by locating buildings
close to the sidewalk, by lining the
street with trees, and by buffering
the sidewalk with planting strips or
parked cars. People on foot enjoy
small details, such as displays in
shop windows, street level lighting,
and signs, and public art and
displays.
- Creating Transit Station Communities
in the Central Puget Sound Region A
Transit-Oriented Development Workbook
30
Implementation of TOD
4. Implementing
TOD
31
Successful implementation of TOD projects in Winnipeg will result from strong collaboration between
public and private stakeholders. Implementing TOD is similar to any other long-range planning
project: it starts with a vision and requires clear direction and tools for implementation. It also takes
time TODs are not developed overnight and involve careful planning and discussion. This Handbook
provides a starting point for conversations to encourage and enable TOD as a building block to support
the building of complete communities that accommodate growth and change in a sustainable way.
While there are many implementation strategies that can be applied to move TOD forward in Winnipeg,
five overarching strategies have been identified for further discussion:

Considerations for Locating TOD

TOD Station Area Plans
TOD Assessment Tool
Implementation Toolbox
Typologies
30 percent of
current housing
demand is for
dense, walkable,
mixed-use
communities -less than 2% of
housing is in
this category. 13
32
4.A. Considerations for Locating TOD

When determining the most appropriate location for a new walkable community that supports transit,
the size of the TOD as well as the specific location need to be considered. The following list is intended
to provide questions for thought when considering the placement of new walkable communities within
400 to 800 metres of the transit station:
TOD housing
generates 50%
less traffic than
conventional
housing (3.55
daily auto trips
per unit versus
6.67)14
What is the function of the station in relation to the other stations on the transit line (i.e., is it a
Central Business District, end-of-line station, etc.)?
How does that function support the increased density and a walkable community?
What land uses, beyond the proposed station area, exist to support the higher density mix of
uses?
Does a higher density mix of uses complement or compete with other land uses within walking
distance?
Are there key opportunities for redevelopment around the proposed station?
What is the market for increased development in the area?
Does the existing street network support a walkable community?
Are there major physical barriers that hinder access to and within the area, including to and
from the proposed transit station?
4.B. Station Area Plans

A Station Area Plan can provide the vision and guidance for building a walkable community. It
should be created early in the planning process and set a clear vision, with guidelines, roles and
responsibilities for implementation. The elements of the Station Area Plan should include:

33
Community vision.
Land use, including mix and intensity.
Transportation, including circulation and parking.
Urban parks and open spaces.
Urban design, including guidelines.
By-law amendments to support the Station Area Plan.
Implementation strategy, including roles and responsibilities for implementation.
4.C. TOD Assessment Tool

When reviewing a potential project within a TOD, it should be assessed against the TOD Station Area
Plan to ensure consistency. The following tool is intended to guide communities in reviewing proposed
projects, and as a basis for constructive dialogue.
Within an easy walk of a major transit stop [e.g., 400 to 800 metres (1/4 -1/2 mile)], consider the
following:
Land Use
Are key sites designated for transit-friendly uses and densities (walkable, mixed-use, not
dominated by activities with significant automobile use) ?
Are transit-friendly land uses permitted outright, not requiring special approval?
Are higher densities allowed near transit?
Are multiple compatible uses permitted within buildings near transit?
Are the first floor uses active and pedestrian-oriented?
Is a mix of uses generating pedestrian traffic concentrated within walking distance of transit?
Are auto-oriented uses discouraged near transit?
Is it prezoned for TOD?
34
Site & Building Design

Are buildings and primary entrances sited and oriented to be easily accessible from the street?
Do the designs of buildings and the spaces around them allow direct pedestrian movement
between transit, mixed land uses, and surrounding areas?
Does the sites design allow for the intensification of densities over time?
Do buildings incorporate architectural features that convey a sense of place and relate to the
street and the pedestrian environment?
Are amenities, such as storefront windows, awnings, architectural features, lighting, seating,
and landscaping, provided to help create a comfortable pedestrian environment along and
between buildings?
Are there sidewalks along the site frontage? Do they connect to sidewalks and streets on
adjacent and nearby properties?
Are there trees sheltering streets and sidewalks? Pedestrian-scale lighting? Places for people
to sit and mingle?
Are buildings and parks used to provide a focal point or anchor the area?
Street Patterns & Parking

Are parking requirements reduced in close proximity to transit, compared to the norm?
In high density areas, is structured parking encouraged over surface parking?
Is the parking located to the rear or to the side of the buildings?
Is secure and convenient bicycle parking available?
Are street patterns based on an interconnected system that simplifies access for all modes?
Are pedestrian routes buffered from fast-moving traffic and parking areas?
Is some short-term parking allowed in front of street-fronting retail?
35
4.D. Implementation Toolbox

Implementation of TOD in Winnipeg will be supported by new and innovative tools, created as part
of OurWinnipeg and Complete Communities Direction Strategy. These tools, which will be further
detailed through the development of an Implementation Toolbox will include some proven existing
planning and sustainability tools but also include new and innovate tools such as partnerships and
demonstration projects. Examples include:
Planning
This includes a variety of planning tools, ranging from statutory plans with their own localized
policies guiding an areas growth, to non-statutory concept plans also able to guide an areas
growth. The TOD Handbook itself is an example of a planning tool.
In the future, the development of a Planning Handbook that guides the selective use of the wide
array of available planning tools will support and enable TOD in Winnipeg.
TOD households
are twice as likely
not to own a car
as comparable
households.15
Capital Budget/Infrastructure Alignment

Alignment of capital budget forecasts with growth-related infrastructure requirements to further
expedite planned development and provide more certainty for private investment
Incentive Tools
Incentive tools (non-fiscal and fiscal) where there is a supportive economic argument
Leadership, Partnership, and Sponsorship

Community partnerships and sponsorships to increase capacity toward common, mutually
beneficial objectives
Demonstration Projects
Identification of and support to development projects that demonstrate the policies and objectives
of Complete Communities
36
4.E. Typologies
Built Environment
Not every TOD is the same. The TOD principles and tools are applied in different ways depending on
the function and form of the land uses and transportation network. Typologies can add definition
to the type of TOD that is appropriate. The following six typologies apply a different scale and mix
of uses, ranging from high densities with a significant mix of uses to low density, predominately
residential uses and corridor development.
Urban Centre. Urban centres have the highest density and greatest mix of uses within a TOD,
located nearest the transit station.
Urban Neighbourhood. The next ring of development, urban neighbourhoods have the same land
uses as the urban centre, but at a slightly lower density.
Town Centre High Density. High Density Town Centres serve as a transition between the higher
density urban centres and neighbourhoods and the lower density, primarily residential uses.
These are generally aligned with the Regional and Community Mixed Use Centres, and Major
Redevelopment Sites identified in the Complete Communities Direction Strategy.
Neighbourhood Medium Density. Primarily residential, with some neighbourhood serving retail
and local office uses, medium density suburban development scales down the density in a TOD to
begin the transition to the adjacent, non-TOD land uses.
37
Neighbourhood Low Density. The low density neighbourhood land use type provides a transition
to the adjacent non-TOD land uses. The residential and neighbourhood retail land uses are likely
the same as those located outside the TOD.
High Frequency Transit Corridor. The high frequency transit corridor has supporting land uses
that are linear in nature rather than extending out from the core. The highest density is located
along the corridor, and density is scaled back in the blocks behind the corridor. These are
generally located along Regional Mixed Use Corridors and Winnipeg Transits designated Transit
Quality Corridors as identified in the Sustainable Transportation Direction Strategy and the
Transportation Master Plan.
The following pages present the application of the specific built environment. Design and character
details vary for each TOD typology.
TOD Zones:
Urban Centre
Urban Neighbourhood Town

Centre
Neighbourhood
Medium Density
Neighbourhood
Low Density

Corridor
Residential
Retail
Class B Commercial
Residential
Neighourhood Retail
Local Office
Residential
Neighourhood Retail
Land Use Mix
Office Centre
Urban Entertainment
Multiple Family
Retail
Office Centre
Urban Entertainment
Multiple Family
Retail
Net Housing
Density*
124-371 units per

hectare
86-247 units per hectare 49-124 units per

hectare
25-49 units per

hectare
Regional
Connectivity
High,
Hub of
regional system
Medium access to
downtown,
Sub regional hub
High access to
downtown,
Sub regional hub
Medium access to
suburban centre,
Access to downtown
Low
High access to downtown,
Frequencies
5 - 15 minutes
5 - 15 minutes
5 - 15 minutes
15 - 30 minutes
20 - 30 minutes
TOD TYPE
Office Centre
Urban Entertainment
Multiple Family
Retail
Sub regional hub
5 - 15 minutes
* Net densities, ie. the buildable area after the street right-of-way has been subtracted.
38
Urban Centre
Density
High density: Distinctively designed

high density buildings near station
serve as identifying features, and
contribute to the quality of the city
skyline.
A mix of uses: Horizontal and vertical

mix of uses that include office or
residential above retail spaces with
continuous facades that align to the
build-to-line.
Active defined centre: Taller buildings

extend above streetwall (i.e. buildings
that frame pedestrian zone), but
do not impede the comfortable
pedestrian scale it defines.
Innovative parking strategies:

Structured parking integrated into
development. Parking ratio minimums
based on proximity to station.
124 - 371 units per net hectare (50

-150 units per net acre) enabled by:
Height: 4 - 30 storey buildings.
Site Coverage: 90% min. - 100%
max.
Pedestrian Environment
5 -7 metres (14 -18 feet) wide

sidewalks (typ.), convenient
connections, and other amenities.
Land Use Mix

Employment: Office centre, retail,
commercial, urban entertainment,
and civic/cultural uses. Regionaloriented, destination-retail
opportunity; need for local-serving
and community serving retail.
Residential: Mixed-use, multi-family
housing with ground floor retail or
office use required. High to Mid-rise
residential with minimum ground
floor height of 4.8 metres (16).
Transit Frequency
5- 15 minutes.
39
Compact, high quality, pedestrianoriented environment: Highly active

and clear pedestrian paths are
defined by street amenities and
transparency of building frontages.
Walk
10 min.
in.
5m
Walk
2
T
Urban parks and open space:

Programmed environments with
pedestrian amenities that encourage
community interaction and gathering
places for large groups.
3
5
6
Development Intensity Relationships
Transit Station
Highest
Medium
Lower
Open
Space
Urban Parks /and
Open
Space
Priority Active Edges
Conceptual diagram for City of Denver, Colorado
40
Urban Neighbourhood
High density: Predominantly

residential district with a diversity in
housing types. Good access to other
regional and subregional centres.
A mix of uses: Horizontal and vertical

mixed-use helps create an 18 hour
activity zone. Retail spaces should
articulate corners to help define a
comfortable pedestrian zone.
Active defined centre: Public amenities

creates a dynamic area for a variety
of users. Art installations, farmers
market and programmed events
activate these spaces all year around.
Innovative parking strategies: Onstreet parking, minimum surface

parking, and some structured parking
integrated into development.
Density
99 - 247 units per net hectare (40 100 units per net acre) enabled by:
Height: 3 - 12 storey buildings
Site Coverage: 80% min.- 90% max.
4.25 - 5.5 metres (14 - 18 feet)

wide sidewalks (typ.), convenient
Land Use Mix

Employment: Office centre,
retail, commercial, and urban
entertainment. Primarily localserving retail; need for some
community-serving retail.
Residential: Mid-rise residential,
condos, ground-related units, and
mixed-use structures, with ground
floor retail or office use required.
Minimum ground floor height of 4.8
metres (16).
Transit Frequency
5-15 minutes.
41
Compact, high quality, pedestrianoriented environment: Pedestrian

connections mid-block offer a safer
pedestrian/bike circulation and create
smaller walkable blocks.
lk
10 min. Wa
k
. Wal
5 min
3
T

Landscaped areas offer visual relief
in higher density neighbourhoods.
Public space can be used as green
infrastructure solutions.
2
1
4
5
Transit Station
Highest
Medium
Lower
Open
Space
Urban Parks /and
Open
Space
42
Town Centre
Moderate- high Density: Transition

scale of density to fit into existing
community. Include destination retail
with housing.
A mix of uses: Mostly residential with

local-supporting commercial and
employment uses. Articulate building
facades to create interest. Architecture
should reflect existing environment.
Active defined centre: Calm streets by

using a variety of paving and making
the streets smaller to create a place
for people that is not dominated by
vehicles.
Innovative parking strategies: Some

structured parking integrated into
development, on-street parking, and
surface parking. Surface parking
occurs behind development.
Density
86 - 247 units per net hectare ( 35 100 units per net acre) enabled by:
Height: 2 - 20 storey buildings
4.25 - 5.5 metres (14 - 18 feet)

Land Use Mix

Employment: Regional- serving
destination retail opportunity; need
for local-serving and communityserving retail.
Residential: Mid-rise to low density
residential. Mixed-use structures
with a minimum ground floor height
of 4.8 metres (16). Multi-family in
some areas; with the majority being
single family, duplexes, accessory
dwelling units, and ground-related
units.
Transit Frequency
5-15 minutes.
43
Compact, high quality, pedestrianoriented environment: Amenities

such as lighting, signage, and street
trees frame the pedestrian zone and
separate vehicular traffic.
10 min.
Walk
5 min.
Walk
2
4
1

Programmed spaces for active and
passive uses. May have recreation
fields, town plazas, or neighbourhood
parks.
6
Transit Station
Highest
Medium
Lower
Open
Space
Urban Parks /and
Open
Space
Conceptual diagram for New Carolton, Prince Georges County
44
Neighbourhood
Medium Density
Medium density: Residential district

organized around transit station.
Convenience retail (e.g. coffee shops,
dry cleaners, etc.) located on ground
floor.
A mix of uses: Integrate moderate

density housing and supporting localserving retail with limited vertical
mixed-use.
Active defined centre: Active edges

create a 12 hour activity zone. Central
gathering space with pedestrian
amenities.
Innovative parking strategies: Onstreet parking, parallel or angled.

Surface parking should be placed
behind development, accessed by
driveway or secondary local road.
Density
Site coverage: 70% min.- 80% max.
3 - 3.75 metres (10 -12 feet)

Land Use Mix
Employment: Neighbourhood retail

and local office.
of 3.7 metres (12). Limited multifamily, with the majority of residential
being single family, duplexes,
accessory dwelling units, and groundrelated units.
Transit Frequency
15 - 30 minutes.
45
Compact, high quality, pedestrianoriented environment: Use

landscaping, paving and street
furniture to create a comfortable
pedestrian zone.
5 min. Walk
6
4

Programmed spaces for active and
passive uses. Spaces in between
developments can be an opportunity
for public or private open space.
Transit Station
Highest
Medium
Lower
Open
Space
Urban Parks /and
Open
Space
Conceptual diagram for City of Arvada, Colorado
46
Neighbourhood
Low Density
Low density: Neighbourhoods offer a

variety of housing stock that are single
family attached or detached, with
moderate multi-family housing units.
A mix of uses: Primarily residential

with periodic small-scale local retail
uses.
Active defined centre: Community

centres, schools, and recreation
facilities help to stimulate a pro-active
neighbourhood.
Innovative parking strategies: Angled

or parallel on-street parking can help
mitigate over-flow from parking in the
neighbourhood. Create clear paths
to and from retail and residential
development.
Density
25 - 49 units per net hectare (10 - 20

units per net acre) enabled by:
Height: 1-3 storey buildings; and
3 - 3.75 metres (10 - 12 feet)

Land Use Mix
Employment: Neighbourhood retail

Residential: Single family houses
duplexes, and accessory dwelling
units.
Transit Frequency
20 - 30 minutes.
47
Compact, high quality, pedestrianoriented environment: Lighting,

paving, and secondary access from
main road offer safer places for
pedestrians.
5 min.
Walk
6
3
1
2
Urban parks and open space: Larger

scale public space can offer a variety
of uses within a centralized location.
Recreation fields, community gardens,
picnic amenities, etc.
Transit Station
Highest
Medium
Lower
Open
Space
Urban Parks /and
Open
Space
Conceptual diagram for City of Arvada, Colorado
48

Corridor
Medium density: Corridor has a local

focus of economic and community
activity without a distinct centre.
A mix of uses : Moderate density with

ground floor mixed-use. Primarily
local-serving retail with some
opportunity for community serving
retail.
Active defined centre: A corridor can

have several centres, usually occurring
near intersections with active retail
frontages.
Innovative parking strategies: Onstreet parking can help delineate the

pedestrian zone from high capacity
transit zone. Safe pedestrian crossings
are a priority.
Density
Site coverage: 70% min.- 80% max.
3 - 3.75 metres (10 - 12 feet)

Land Use Mix
Employment: Neighbourhood retail,

and local office.
of 3.7 metres (12). Limited multifamily, single family, duplexes,
accessory dwelling units, and
ground-related units.
Transit Frequency
5-15 minutes
49
Compact, high quality, pedestrianoriented environment: Clear sight lines,

lighting, and pedestrian amenities are
essential for comfortable transit stops.
Urban parks and open space: Small

public spaces along the corridor
are opportunities for seating, art
installations, and refuge from the
bustling street.
6
1
T
Transit Station
Highest
3
T
Medium
Lower
Quality Streetscape
50
4.F. Urban Parks and Open Space

To support TODs typically higher densities, a variety of parks and public open spaces should be
integrated into walkable station areas to provide a balance between what is built and what is green.
Park design and location should take advantage of existing vegetation and other natural resources of
the area. Combined with well designed, multi-modal streets, these parks and open spaces help form a
station area public realm areas that are open and accessible to all.
TOD parks and open spaces can be small in size, such as a plaza or square, and do not necessarily
need to include programmed athletic facilities. A small green lawn with benches can provide a place
to relax, enjoy the outdoors, or throw a Frisbee. Typically ten to fifteen percent of land within the TOD
should be dedicated to parks and open space. There are four factors for park/open space location
and program that should be considered:
1. Walkshed provide parks and open spaces within a 5 minute walk of residents
2. Adjacent land uses maximize the relationship between adjacent land uses and provide a
range of formal and informal gathering places.
3. Ownership distribute parks and open spaces throughout the TOD
4. Adjacent streets consider parks as part of the comprehensive traffic calming approach.
The park prototypes on the following pages provide further detail as to the different types of parks that
are appropriate in a TOD.
The City is also currently developing a Parks, Places and Open Spaces Management Plan, as outlined
in Section 07 Parks, Places and Open Spaces of the Complete Communities Direction Strategy.
51

Urban parks and open space within a TOD reinforce
connectivity and safely brings transit users to and from the
transit station and the desired destination.
Existing
Neighbourhood
Urban
Neighbourhood
Urban Parks and Open Space Zones:

PARK AND OPEN SPACE
TYPE
Urban Centre
Urban
Neighbourhood
Town
Centre
Neighbourhood
Medium density
Neighbourhood
Low density
High Frequency
Transit Corridor
Redevelopment of an area should consider a variety of

scales and programs for urban parks and open space
appropriate to built typology.
Transit / Town Plaza

Pocket Park
Neighbourhood Park
Private/Public Open Space
Landscape Buffer
Sustainable Green Streets
Stormwater Facility
5 min.
Walk
Open Space
Naturalized/ Programed
Greenway
Community Park
Regional Park
Connectivity
Sports Park
PLACES
=
VALUE
Typical
Sometimes
Rarely
52
Transit/Town Plaza
Description:
Transit /Town Plazas are public

spaces set aside for civic purposes.
These public spaces are often
landmarks, transit station entries,
and gathering places for people.
They are usually located at the
intersection of important streets or
other significant locations. Plazas
are enclosed by streets and active
building frontages. These plazas
are the highest quality public
spaces with special attention to
pedestrian amenities, accessibility,
and adjacency to commercial or
civic uses. They balance paving and
planting, and are well lit at night.
53
Attributes:

Size approximately .2 - .8 hectares (.5 - 2 acres).

Service area with a maximum 400 metre (1/4 mile) radius.
Located in primarily urban areas with commercial and civic uses.
Street access on at least three sides, preferably four sides.
Not more than 50% of the site should have a slope greater than 4%.
Takes advantage of proximity to transit.
Signage and wayfinding should be included into plaza design.
Pocket Park
Description:
Pocket parks address limited,

isolated or specialized recreational
needs at small sites in heavily
developed areas and at sites with
unique recreational opportunities.
These parks serve the immediate
neighbourhood.
Attributes:

Size approximately under .2 hectare (.5 acre).

Service area with a maximum 400 - 800 metre (1/4 - 1/2 mile) radius.
Located in primarily commercial, civic or residential areas.
Street access on at least one side.
Site has less than a 4% slope.
54
Neighbourhood Park
Description:
Naturalistic or formal landscaped

public space, active, and passive
recreation, play equipment, and
seating. Provides neighbourhood
facilities within a 5-10 minute walk
of home.
55
Attributes:

Size approximately .2 - 4 hectares (5 - 10 acres).

Service area with a maximum 400 - 800 metre (1/4-1/2 mile) radius.
Surrounding land uses are variable.
Street access on at least two sides, preferably four sides.
Private/Public Open
Space
Description:
Private and open spaces that

offer aesthetic relief in higher
density TODs. These spaces can
be internal courtyards, pedestrian
ways or plazas that not only serve
the occupants but the general
public as well. These spaces can
be maintained by the City or by the
adjacent development.
Attributes:

Size approximately under .2 hectare (.5 acre).

Service area with a maximum 400 - 800 metre (1/4 -1/2 mile) radius.
Located in primarily commercial, civic or residential areas.
Street access on at least one side.
Site has less than a 4% slope.
56
Landscape Buffer
Description:
Native or ornamental plantings

that help buffer incompatible
land uses. Lanscaped buffers
contribute aesthetically , defuse
noxious noise, and can address
saftey concerns. Plantings should
also be used to soften hard edges
along parking lots, driveways,
highways and railways.
57
Attributes:

Varies in size.
Located near incompatible uses, barriers, and infrastucture.
Green Streets
Description:
Wide sidewalks with public

amenities and pedestrian
demarcation to create walkable
streets connecting the transit
station to the surrounding land
uses. Green streets incorporate
elements to improve water quality
at the site specific and regional
scale by adding natural filtration
and vegetation to the design.
Attributes:
Varies in size.
Service area is generally linear and incorporated into the pedestrian
network within the 800 metre (1/2 mile) radius.
See also the Sustainable Water & Waste Direction Strategy.
58
Stormwater Garden
Facility
Description:
Natural or landscaped areas that

are used to manage drainage.
Can be day-lighted streams
previously piped; incorporated into
new development infrastructure;
or used to buffer noxious uses
from development.
Attributes:

Varies in size.
Public or limited access from adjacent uses.
See also the Sustainable Water & Waste Direction Strategy.

59
Natural Open Space/

Preserves
Description:
Natural and landscaped public

space, typically passive recreation:
native plantings, habitat refuge,
and water retention facilities.
Some low-impact recreation
uses are appropriate, such as
seating, biking, and walking trails
or dog runs. These parks provide
buffering and visual relief.
Attributes:

Varies in size.
Located in primarily residential areas.
Street access on at least two sides.
60
Greenway
Description:
Natural or limited landscaping.

Typically smaller than a
neighbourhood park. Bordered at
least 50% by streets or other public
ways, at least 6 metres (20 feet)
wide.
61
Attributes:
Varies in size.
Service area is generally linear within the 800 metre (1/2 mile) radius and
links other urban parks or open space.
Community Park
Description:
Provide for active and passive

recreational needs of several
neighbourhoods, allowing for group
activities and other recreational
opportunities not feasible or
desirable at the neighbourhood
park level.
Attributes:

Size approximately 8 - 20 hectares (20 to 50 acres).

Service area with a 800 (1/2 mile) to 4.8 km (3 mile) radius.
Adjacent to an arterial or collector street.
62
Regional Park
Description:
Large urban parks provide a

city-wide recreation resource.
The size and location provide a
unique natural environment and
contains a wide range of recreation
opportunities.
Attributes:

63
Size approximately 20 hectares (50 acres) to 30+ hectares (75+ acres).

Service area is city-wide.
Street access for visitors and residents may require several access points.
Usually developed in relation to a natural water feature.
Sports Park
Description:
Provide for ball fields and active

recreational needs of several
neighborhoods, allowing for group
activities and other recreational
opportunities not feasible or
desirable at the neighbourhood
park level.
Attributes:

Size approximately 16+ hectares (40+ acres).

Service area is community and city-wide.
Street access on at least two sides, preferably four sides. Adjacent to an
arterial or collector street.
64
Endnotes
Endnotes
1. Livable Communities Act of 2009, Senate Bill 1619. Introduced in United States Senate,
August 8, 2009.
2. Arrington, G.B., and Robert Cervero. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking and Travel. Transit
Cooperative Research Program Report 128, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington D.C., 2008.
3. Reconnecting Americas Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Five Years of Progress.
2009.
4. Frank , Lawrence, Martin Andresen, and Tom Schmid. Obesity Relationships with Community
Design, Physical Activity and Time Spent in Cars, American Journal of Preventative Medicine.
Volume 27, Issue 2, pp. 87-96.
5. Cervero, Robert, et.al. Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences,
Challenges, and Prospects. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 102 Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2004.
6. Reconnecting Americas Center for Transit-Oriented Development. TOD 101: Why TransitOriented Development And Why Now? 2007.
7. Arrington.
8. Ibid.
9. Parsons Brinckerhoff. Factors for Success in Californias Transit-Oriented Development.
Sacramento: California Department of Transportation, Statewide Transit-Oriented Development
Study. 2002
10. Reconnecting Americas Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Five Years of Progress
11. Myers, Dowell, and Elizabeth Gearin. Current Preferences and Future Demand for Denser
Residential Environments, Housing Policy Debate. Volume 12, Issue 4, pp. 633-659.
12. OSullivan, Sean, and John Morrall. Walking Distances to and from Light-Rail Transit Stations,
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1538,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 1996, pp. 19-26.
13. United States, Livable Communities Act of 2009.
14. Arrington.
15. Ibid.
65
Resources
Weblinks
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/tod
Center for Transit Oriented Development
http://www.railvolution.com/
Rail~Volution resources link includes dozens of TOD PowerPoints
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_102.pdf TCRP 102
Transit-Oriented Development In The United States: Experiences, Challenges, and
Prospects. Transit Cooperative Research Program
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_128.pdf TCRP 128
Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel
http://www.uli.org/ResearchAndPublications/Reports/~/media/Documents/
ResearchAndPublications/Reports/TenPrinciples/TP_DevTransit.ashx
ULI 10 Principles for Development Around Transit
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/belzertod.pdf Transit-Oriented Development: Moving
From Rhetoric To Reality, Dena Belzer and Gerald Autler, Brookings Institution Center on Urban and
Metropolitan Policy
66
Endnotes
Journals, Books, and Publications

Arlington County, Development in Metro Corridors 2000, Department of Community Planning
Housing and Development, Planning Division, Arlington County, VA.
Arrington, G.B. Light Rail and the American City: State-of-the-Practice for Transit-Oriented
Development. Washington D.C. Transportation Research Circular E-C058, 2003
Arrington, G.B., and Robert Cervero. Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking and Travel. Transit
Cooperative Research Program Report 128, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington D.C., 2008.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Urban Land Institute. July 2009.
Cervero, Robert, et.al. Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges,
and Prospects. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 102 Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2004.
Dittmar, Hank and Ohland, Gloria. The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented
Development. Island Press. Washington, D.C. 2004
Frank, Lawrence, Martin Andresen, and Tom Schmid. Obesity Relationships with Community Design,
Physical Activity and Time Spent in Cars, American Journal of Preventative Medicine. Volume 27,
Issue 2, pp. 87-96.
Livable Communities Act of 2009, Senate Bill 1619. Introduced in United States Senate, August 8,
2009.
Myers, Dowell, and Elizabeth Gearin. Current Preferences and Future Demand for Denser Residential
Environments, Housing Policy Debate. Volume 12, Issue 4, pp. 633-659.
OSullivan, Sean, and John Morrall. Walking Distances to and from Light-Rail Transit Stations,
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1538,
67
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 1996, pp. 19-26.
Parsons Brinckerhoff. Factors for Success in Californias Transit-Oriented Development. Sacramento:
California Department of Transportation, Statewide Transit-Oriented Development Study. 2002
Parsons Brinckerhoff. North Fifth Street Transit-Supportive Concept Plan. City of North Las Vegas:
Planning and Zoning Department, Transit Oriented Development Strategy. 2006
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2009 Urban Land Institute. October 2008.
Puget Sound Regional Council, Creating Transit Station Communities in the Central Puget Sound
Region - A Transit-Oriented Development Workbook, June 1999.
Reconnecting Americas Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Five Years of Progress. 2009.
Reconnecting Americas Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Hidden in Plain Sight: Capturing the
Demand for Housing Near Transit. September 2004.
Reconnecting Americas Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Realizing the Potential: Expanding
Housing Opportunities Near Transit. April 2007.
Reconnecting Americas Center for Transit-Oriented Development. TOD 101: Why Transit-Oriented
Development And Why Now? 2007.
Reconnecting Americas Center for Transit-Oriented Development. TOD 202: Station Area Planning:
How to Make Great Transit-Oriented Places. February 2008.
Venner, Marie and Liisa Ecola. Financing Transit-Oriented Development: Understanding and
Overcoming Obstacles, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1996, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2007,
pp. 17-24.
68

Winnipeg Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Winnipeg Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Winnipeg Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Winnipeg

Transit-Oriented Development Handbook

PBs PlaceMaking Group

Planning Executive Advisory Committee (PEAC):

Chief Operating Officer

Planning & Land Use Division:

Manager, Planning & Land Use Division

Principal Planner Advanced Planning

TOD Technical Advisory Committee:

Parsons Brinckerhoff PlaceMaking Group:

PBs PlaceMaking Group

Cover image Source:

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer

1.A. Introduction to TOD Handbook

2.A. TOD Defined

3.A. Core Principles of TOD

4.A. Considerations for Locating TOD

City of Winnipeg TOD Handbook

1.A. Introduction to TOD Handbook

The average household

Each station area

City of Winnipeg TOD Handbook

1.B. Organization of Handbook

City of Winnipeg TOD Handbook

What Type of Transit

2.A. TOD Defined

Locating the right land uses adjacent to

2.B. Scale of TOD

Highest Density at the Station

Urban Neighbourhood Town

High Frequency Transit

Land Use Mix

124-371 units per

86-247 units per hectare 49-124 units per

25-49 units per

62-148 units per hectare

High access to downtown,

(25-60 units per acre)

Sub regional hub

City of Winnipeg TOD Handbook

2.C. Benefits of TOD

Transit Rich Neighbourhood

Transit Rich Neighbourhoods

In each year since

Part of a balanced approach to accommodating growth. TOD directs higher density

City of Winnipeg TOD Handbook

2.D. Making TOD Work

City of Winnipeg TOD Handbook

2.E. Locating Transit Stations

City of Winnipeg TOD Handbook

Characteristics of Development Oriented Transit

City of Winnipeg TOD Handbook

3.A. Core Principles of TOD

Principle #1: Medium to High Density Development

City of Winnipeg TOD Handbook

Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Case Study

Arlington County, Virginia

Principle #2: A Mix of Uses