The National Academies Press

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/23360 SHARE

   
Transit-Oriented Development in the United States:

Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects (2004)
DETAILS
524 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-08795-7 | DOI 10.17226/23360
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2004.

Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges,
and Prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/23360.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
TCRP REPORT 102

Transit-Oriented
Development in the
United States:
Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects
ROBERT CERVERO
STEVEN MURPHY
CHRISTOPHER FERRELL
NATASHA GOGUTS
YU-HSIN TSAI
Institute of Urban and Regional Development
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, CA
G. B. ARRINGTON
JOHN BOROSKI
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
Portland, OR
JANET SMITH-HEIMER
RON GOLEM
PAUL PENINGER
ERIC NAKAJIMA
ENER CHUI
Bay Area Economics
Berkeley, CA
ROBERT DUNPHY
MEL MYERS
SHANNON MCKAY
NICOLE WITENSTEIN
Urban Land Institute
Washington, DC
S UBJECT A REAS
Planning and Administration • Public Transit
Research Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in Cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

WASHINGTON, D.C.
2004
www.TRB.org
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 102
The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, Project H-27 FY 2001
environmental, and energy objectives place demands on public ISSN 1073-4872
transit systems. Current systems, some of which are old and in need ISBN 0-309-08795-3
of upgrading, must expand service area, increase service frequency, Library of Congress Control Number 2004107489
and improve efficiency to serve these demands. Research is
© 2004 Transportation Research Board
necessary to solve operating problems, to adapt appropriate new
technologies from other industries, and to introduce innovations into Price $45.00
the transit industry. The Transit Cooperative Research Program
(TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by which the transit
industry can develop innovative near-term solutions to meet
demands placed on it.
The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special
Report 213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions,
published in 1987 and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass
Transportation Administration—now the Federal Transit Admin-
istration (FTA). A report by the American Public Transportation NOTICE
Association (APTA), Transportation 2000, also recognized the need The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the Transit Cooperative
for local, problem-solving research. TCRP, modeled after the Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the
longstanding and successful National Cooperative Highway approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such
Research Program, undertakes research and other technical activities approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the project concerned is
in response to the needs of transit service providers. The scope of appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National
TCRP includes a variety of transit research fields including plan- Research Council.
ning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, operations, human The members of the technical advisory panel selected to monitor this project and
resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative practices. to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with
TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The
Proposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency
authorized as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation that performed the research, and while they have been accepted as appropriate
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum by the technical panel, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation
agreement outlining TCRP operating procedures was executed by Research Board, the National Research Council, the Transit Development
the three cooperating organizations: FTA, The National Academies, Corporation, or the Federal Transit Administration of the U.S. Department of
acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and Transportation.
the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical panel
educational and research organization established by APTA. according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation
TDC is responsible for forming the independent governing board, Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National
designated as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Research Council.
Committee.
Research problem statements for TCRP are solicited periodically
but may be submitted to TRB by anyone at any time. It is the
responsibility of the TOPS Committee to formulate the research
program by identifying the highest priority projects. As part of the
evaluation, the TOPS Committee defines funding levels and
expected products. Special Notice
Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel,
appointed by the Transportation Research Board. The panels prepare The Transportation Research Board of The National Academies, the National
project statements (requests for proposals), select contractors, and Research Council, the Transit Development Corporation, and the Federal Transit
provide technical guidance and counsel throughout the life of the Administration (sponsor of the Transit Cooperative Research Program) do not
project. The process for developing research problem statements and endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
solely because they are considered essential to the clarity and completeness of the
selecting research agencies has been used by TRB in managing
project reporting.
cooperative research programs since 1962. As in other TRB activ-
ities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without compensation.
Because research cannot have the desired impact if products fail Published reports of the
to reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on
disseminating TCRP results to the intended end users of the TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
research: transit agencies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB are available from:
provides a series of research reports, syntheses of transit practice,
and other supporting material developed by TCRP research. APTA Transportation Research Board
Business Office
will arrange for workshops, training aids, field visits, and other
500 Fifth Street, NW
activities to ensure that results are implemented by urban and rural
Washington, DC 20001
transit industry practitioners.
The TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can and can be ordered through the Internet at
cooperatively address common operational problems. The TCRP http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
results support and complement other ongoing transit research and
training programs. Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol-
ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology
and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in
1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni-
cal matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration
and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for
advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs
aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve-
ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the
services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining
to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of
Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative,
to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate
the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and
advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad-
emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and
the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair,
respectively, of the National Research Council.
The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote
innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting,
the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and
practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical
excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research
results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage more
than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and
private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is
supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of
the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the
development of transportation. www.TRB.org
www.national-academies.org

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 102

ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
CHRISTOPHER W. JENKS, TCRP Manager
GWEN CHISHOLM, Senior Program Officer
EILEEN P. DELANEY, Managing Editor
ELLEN M. CHAFEE, Assistant Editor
BETH HATCH, Assistant Editor
PROJECT PANEL H-27

Field of Policy and Planning
RICHARD G. BICKEL, JR., Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA (Chair)
EDWARD A. BEIMBORN, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee Center for Urban Transportation Studies
TODD HEMINGSON, VIA Metropolitan Transit, San Antonio, TX
WILLIAM JONES, CityLink Investment Corporation, San Diego, CA
JACK KANAREK, New Jersey Transit Authority
JACK LIMBER, San Diego Metropolitan Transit
ANASTASIA LOUKAITOUS-SIDERIS, University of California—Los Angeles
JEFF ORDWAY, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
DOUG GERLEMAN, FTA Liaison Representative
PAUL MARX, FTA Liaison Representative
EFFIE STALLSMITH, FTA Liaison Representative
RICHARD WEAVER, APTA Liaison Representative
PETER SHAW, TRB Liaison Representative
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many individuals and organizations—too many to list individu- rell and Yu-Hsin Tsai were co-authors of Chapter 19 and con-
ally—contributed to this study. In particular, those taking the time to tributed to Chapter 4; and Natasha Goguts co-authored Chapters 11
complete surveys, sit through interviews, and support the case-study and 18 and contributed to Chapter 8. Chris Amado of Berkeley’s
work provided insights and information that were invaluable to the Institute of Urban and Regional Development helped with prepar-
completion of this work. The TCRP H-27 panel also provided ongoing the manuscript.
ing guidance and direction that was pivotal to conducting the research. G. B. Arrington and John Boroski of Parsons, Brinckerhoff,
Robert Cervero, Professor of City and Regional Planning at the Quade & Douglas, Inc., were the principal authors of case studies
University of California at Berkeley, was the Principal Investigator in Chapters 14, 15, and 17. From Bay Area Economics, Janet Smith-
of the project, designing and directing all phases of the research. He Heimer, Ron Golem, Paul Peninger, Eric Nakajima, and Ener Chui
wrote the Summary; Chapters 1 through 9; Chapters 11, 20, and 21; were the principal authors of Chapter 13 and contributed to Chap-
co-authored Chapters 12, 18, and 19; and edited and contributed to ters 5, 10, and 12. From the Urban Land Institute, Robert Dunphy
all other chapters. Graduate research assistants from the University co-authored Chapter 12 and contributed to Chapter 10, Mel Myers
of California at Berkeley contributed as follows: Steven Murphy and Shannon McKay contributed to Chapter 10, and Nicole Witen-
authored Chapter 16 and contributed to Chapter 5; Christopher Fer- stein contributed to Chapter 12.

TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experi-

FOREWORD ences, Challenges, and Prospects provides a comprehensive assessment of the state of
By Gwen Chisholm the practice and the benefits of transit-oriented development (TOD) and joint develop-
Staff Officer ment throughout the United States. This report will be helpful to transit agencies,
Transportation Research the development community, and local decision makers considering TOD.
Board
Focusing development around transit facilities has become a significant way to

improve accessibility, support community and regional goals of enhancing the quality
of life, and support the financial success of transit investment. The experiences of a new
generation of transit systems highlight the powerful role that transit investments play in
channeling urban development. Benefits attributable to transit-oriented development
(TOD) initiatives include improved air quality, preservation of open space, pedestrian-
friendly environments, increased ridership and revenue, reduction of urban sprawl, and
reorientation of urban development patterns around both rail and bus transit facilities.
Today, many transit systems and communities across the country are participating
in TOD programs. TOD participants range from small local and intercity bus systems
with community-related services to large local and intercity rail systems with numerous
projects. Increasingly, transit agencies are looking at programs and analyzing real-estate
competitiveness to solicit developer interest. This report defines TOD and joint devel-
opment and offers insight into the various aspects of implementing TOD, including
political and institutional factors; planning and land-use strategies, benefits, and impacts;
fiscal considerations and partnerships; and design challenges and considerations.
Robert Cervero, of the Institute of Urban and Regional Development at the Uni-
versity of California at Berkeley, was the report’s principal author. To achieve the proj-
ect’s objective of summarizing the state of the practice of TOD, the research team per-
formed a literature review, conducted a comprehensive survey, performed interviews,
and conducted 10 case studies. The 10 case studies (Boston, New Jersey, the Washing-
ton [D.C.] Metropolitan Area, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Colorado, Portland, the San
Francisco Bay Area, and Southern California) covered a range of TOD designs and
practices.
The report focuses on TOD and joint development and practice; the level of col-
laboration between various partners (e.g., the development community, financial part-
ners, planning and land-use agencies, and government entities); the impacts of TOD and
joint development on land values; the potential benefits of TOD; and successful design
principles and characteristics.
A companion publication to this report, TCRP Research Results Digest 52: Transit-
Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature
Review, reviews pertinent literature and research findings related to TOD and joint
development. It contains a bibliography annotated by subject area.

CONTENTS S-1 SUMMARY

1 PART 1: TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY
3 CHAPTER 1 Transit-Oriented Development: An Overview
Introduction, 3
Study Approach, 4
What Is TOD?, 5
Joint Development: What Is It?, 8
Goals and Objectives, 9
Summary, 11
Notes, 11
13 CHAPTER 2 The Breadth and Scope of U.S. TOD and Joint Development
TOD Activities, 13
Joint Development Projects, 18
Summary, 35
Notes, 35
37 PART 2: THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT
39 CHAPTER 3 The TOD Institutional Landscape in the United States
Institutional Setting, 39
Transit-Agency Organizational Context, 39
Other Organizational and Legislative Contexts, 43
Cooperation and Collaboration, 51
Regulatory Environment, 54
Summary, 58
Notes, 59
61 CHAPTER 4 TOD Implementation Tools
Getting the Job Done, 61
TOD Visioning and Planning, 61
TOD Zoning, 63
Implementation Tools and Ratings, 71
Help from Above, 75
Funding TOD: Public Perspective, 76
Summary, 81
Notes, 82
83 CHAPTER 5 Building and Bankrolling TOD: A Private-Sector Perspective
TOD and the Private Sector, 83
The Market for TOD, 84
The Decision to Develop, 86
Private Financing, 89
Availability and Terms of Finance, 92
Summary and Lessons, 96
Notes, 97
99 CHAPTER 6 Barriers to TOD: What They Are
and How to Overcome Them
Types of Barriers, 99
Fiscal Barriers, 99
Political Barriers, 102
Organizational Barriers, 102
Barriers Unique to TOD, 103
Public-Sector Perspective on TOD Barriers, 109
Overcoming Barriers: The Development Community’s Perspective, 110
Summary and Lessons, 114
Notes, 115
117 PART 3: THE IMPACTS OF TOD
119 CHAPTER 7 Benefits of TOD
TOD’s Range of Benefits, 119
Primary Benefits, 122
Secondary Benefits, 125

Debates, 131
Perceptions of Benefits, 133
Conclusion, 134
Notes, 135
139 CHAPTER 8 Evidence on Ridership Impacts
TOD and Ridership, 139
Reviewing the Evidence, 140
Self-Selection and Rail Commuting, 144
Transit Joint Development and Ridership, 146
TOD-Ridership Case Study: San Francisco Bay Area, 147
TOD-Ridership Case Study: Arlington County, Virginia, 152
Conclusions, 156
Notes, 157
161 CHAPTER 9 Real-Estate Market Impacts of TOD
TOD and Real-Estate Markets, 161
Evidence on Market Performance, 162
The Importance of Business Cycles, System Maturation, and Timing, 166
Leveraging Transit’s Added Value Through Proactive Planning:
The San Diego Experience, 168
Transit’s Added Value and Public Policies, 173
Summary and Conclusion, 176
Notes, 177
181 PART 4: CASE STUDIES
183 CHAPTER 10 TOD in Boston: An Old Story with a New Emphasis
Boston Recovers Its Traditional Neighborhood Roots, 183
Boston’s TOD Toolbox, 186
MBTA, Joint Development, and TOD, 189
The Boston Economy and the Real-Estate Market, 191
Easy Transit Connections, Tough Development Sites, 191
Main Street and TOD, 196
South Station: Development Around Commuter Rail, 197
South Boston Waterfront: The Future Transit Neighborhood, 198
Lessons Learned, 202
Notes, 205
207 CHAPTER 11 New Jersey’s Transit Villages: From Refurbished Rail Towns
to Ferry-Oriented Development
New Jersey’s Market for TOD, 207
Other Factors Stimulating TOD, 208
The Transit Village Initiative, 212
Transit Villages in Traditional Rail Towns, 213
Ferry-Oriented Development, 220
Re-urbanization in Jersey City, 222
Transit Joint Development, 225
Conclusions and Lessons, 225
Notes, 226
229 CHAPTER 12 Washington, D.C.: Model for the Nation
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
A Joint Development Pioneer, 229
Arlington County, Virginia: Three Decades of TOD Success, 235
Transit and Economic Development in Washington, D.C., 249
Montgomery County, Maryland’s Mature Business Districts, 251
Rail to Dulles, 254
TODs and Real-Estate Market Performance, 257
Notes, 260
263 CHAPTER 13 TOD and Joint Development in the Sunbelt:
Miami-Dade County
TOD in Florida, 263
Transit Planning and Joint Development in Miami-Dade County, 264

TAD at Brickell, 271

Overtown: TOD and Inner-City Revitalization, 272
Future Plans and Activities, 276
Conclusions and Lessons Learned, 276
Notes, 277
279 CHAPTER 14 Chicago’s Transit Villages: Back to the Future for Historic
Commuter-Rail Towns
Greater Chicago Is Sprawling Out and Growing In, 281
Chicago’s Multi-Layered Institutional Landscape, 281
TOD Implementation Tools, 283
TOD in Commuter-Rail Communities, 285
TOD Shaping New Commuter-Rail Lines, 292
The Future of TOD in Metropolitan Chicago, 293
Notes, 297
299 CHAPTER 15 Dallas: Using TOD to Create Place and Value
in a Sprawling Metroplex
Regional TOD Players and Tools, 299
TOD in Light-Rail Communities, 301
The Future of TOD in Dallas, 316
Notes, 318
321 CHAPTER 16 TOD in the Mountain West: Colorado
Introduction, 321
Transit-Oriented Redevelopment in Metropolitan Denver, 322
Bus-Based TOD in Boulder, 338
Resort-Based TOD in the Roaring Fork Valley, 345
Notes, 351
355 CHAPTER 17 Portland’s TODs: Building Community on a Regional Scale
The Regional Policy Framework for TOD, 355
Evolution in Transit to Encourage TOD, 357
TOD in Portland, 359
The Future of TOD, 377
Notes, 379
383 CHAPTER 18 The San Francisco Bay Area: The Challenge of Creating
a Transit-Oriented Metropolis
Regional Initiatives, 383
Transit Agencies, 388
BART Joint Development and Outreach, 393
Fruitvale BART Station: Fulfilling a Community’s Vision, 394
Local Government Initiatives, 397
For-Profit Developers, 399
Nonprofit Affordable-Housing Developers, 402
Advocacy Groups, 404
Notes, 409
411 CHAPTER 19 Southern California: From TODs to a Region of Villages
Southern California’s Market for TOD, 411
Other Factors Stimulating TOD, 412
Policy Context, 413
Challenges to TOD in Southern California, 416
Financing Tools and Obstacles, 421
TOD Cases, 423
Joint Development and BRT—Los Angeles, 430
San Diego’s TOD Tools, 435
Impacts of TOD, 435
Monetary Benefits of Joint Development in Los Angeles, 436

Conclusions and Suggestions, 437

Notes, 440
443 PART 5: LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS
445 CHAPTER 20 Research Findings and Policy Lessons
Current TOD Practices, 445
TOD’s Multitude of Stakeholders, 446
Points of Agreement and Disagreement, 448
Benefits of TOD, 453
Recurring Themes and Lessons, 455
Lessons Through Case Studies, 463
469 CHAPTER 21 Policy Reflections and Future Research Directions
Policy Reflections, 469
Future Research Directions, 471
Notes, 474
475 BIBLIOGRAPHY
479 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
A-1 APPENDIX A: Transit Agency Survey
B-1 APPENDIX B: Developer Interview Protocol
C-1 APPENDIX C: Lender Interview Protocol

SUMMARY
Transit-Oriented Development around heavy-, light-, and commuter-rail

in the United States stations. While typically nodal in form,
TOD corridors have taken or are
Transit-oriented development (TOD) has beginning to take shape; examples
attracted interest as a tool for promoting include the Rosslyn-Ballston axis in
smart growth, leveraging economic Arlington County, Virginia, and the
development, and catering to shifting Vermont/Western district in Los
market demands and lifestyle Angeles’s Hollywood area. In addition,
preferences. This study, based on a over 100 joint development projects
combination of stakeholder survey today exist on, above, or adjacent to
responses, interviews, and in-depth case U.S. transit-agency property. The
studies, paints a national portrait of most common joint development
contemporary TOD practice in the arrangements are ground leases and
United States. operation-cost sharing. Most often,
joint development occurs at rail stations
TOD is viewed and defined differently surrounded by a mix of office,
throughout the country, with its most commercial, and institutional land uses.
common traits being compact, mixed- However, examples of public-private
use development near transit facilities joint ventures can be found among bus-
and high-quality walking environments. only systems as well, normally in the
Joint development is a form of TOD that form of joint intermodal transfer and
is often project specific, taking place on, commercial-retail space at central-city
above, or adjacent to transit-agency bus terminals.
property. The results of a national survey
suggest that the principal aim of TOD Institutional Landscapes
and joint development is to boost
ridership and, thereby, boost revenue Many voices shape the practice of TOD
income. Community economic in contemporary urban America. A
development and broader smart-growth multi-layered, sometimes complex
agendas are secondary objectives. institutional and political environment
has evolved that ensures accountability
Scope of TOD and instills a degree of responsibility and
fairness into the decision-making
A rich mix of TOD can be found across process, but this environment can also
America today, and all indications are form roadblocks to implementation.
that the numbers and types of TOD will
grow in years to come. Over 100 TOD The spectrum of participatory roles transit
projects currently exist in the United agencies can take on are wide-ranging—
States, found overwhelmingly in and from roles as modest as providing
S-1

technical guidance (e.g., transit- restrictive state statutes or self-imposed

supportive design guidelines) to those as transit-agency rules. Some states limit,
ambitious as being the self-anointed lead ipso facto, real-estate transactions
developer. Most transit agencies get undertaken by transit agencies to
involved in land-use affairs (broadly “transportation uses.” Many transit
defined); however, they generally limit properties shy away from land
their involvement in TOD matters to development matters on the grounds that
interagency coordination. Most TOD it is not central to their mission of
work concentrates on public outreach delivering safe and efficient transit
and education. A common method for services. As a result, most transit
drawing public input into the TOD agencies have no personnel assigned to
planning process is organizing design TOD or, more generally, land
charrettes—ranging from multi-day development, leaving it to their legal
workshops led by professional designers departments to handle land-use affairs
to facilitated community discussions and disputes. One in-house rule that has
(inspired by the successes at the Pleasant clearly hampered TOD is one-to-one
Hill BART station in the San Francisco replacement parking requirements.
Bay Area and along the Wasatch Front Nonetheless, over 50 transit stations
under the guidance of Envision Utah). across the United States are presently
Local governments wield considerable being targeted for parking lot
control over TOD outcomes through conversions, thanks in part to FTA’s
zoning ordinances and building codes. new joint development rulings.
Some states, notably California and New
Jersey, have sought to jump-start TOD TOD Implementation Tools
through transit village initiatives that
critics view as mere window-dressing TOD implementation ideally starts with
since little funding support is provided. a vision, cultivated from broad-based
public input, and proceeds to strategic
Important recent federal initiatives have station-area planning backed by
been the new joint development ruling appropriate zoning as well as policy
(which enables transit agencies to sell land incentives and regulations. Around half
for TOD even if the land was purchased of surveyed transit properties in the
using federal dollars), new starts criteria, United States state that their regions
and various livable community initiatives. have a vision, policy, or plan in place
that embraces TOD principles.
Coordination between public agencies as
well as with the private sector normally Overlay zones are the most common
occurs through various ad hoc task means of controlling land uses, densities,
forces and similar forums. In recent and site designs of TOD. Overlays, often
years, private developers, builders, and introduced on an interim basis to head
real-estate interests have joined forces to off automobile-oriented uses that might
promote TOD in cities like Houston, compromise a TOD, usually specify
Charlotte, and San Jose. desired land uses as-of-right, such as
housing and convenience shops. For
The major institutional barriers to TOD urban TODs, densities of 20 to
are regulatory ones, either a product of 30 dwelling units per residential
S-2

acre and FARs of 1.0 and above are In terms of what metropolitan planning
not uncommon. Some of the more organizations, state departments of
progressive TOD zoning districts also transportation, and the federal
lower automobile parking requirements government might do to help implement
and sometimes even set bicycle parking TODs, respondents from the local levels
mandates. stated loudly and clearly that what is
most needed is money—specifically
The national survey of U.S. transit for strategic station-area planning,
agencies revealed that besides standard infrastructure, and on-the-ground
zoning, the tools most frequently used to improvements. Smart-growth legislation
leverage TOD are funding for station- that targets state infrastructure and urban
area planning and ancillary capital renewal grants to transit station areas
improvements; the introduction of density (such as that in Maryland) is also looked
bonuses, sometimes used to encourage upon favorably by local interests.
the production of affordable housing Regulations like concurrency
units; and relaxation of parking standards. requirements, on the other hand,
These measures, moreover, received generally received low grades among
high marks in terms of their overall survey respondents from the local level.
effectiveness among transit professionals
who responded to the survey. Next in the For financing streetscape and other
order of frequency of usage have been ancillary improvements around transit
land-based tools, like land purchases on stations, monies have mostly come from
the open market (for land-banking and federal and state grants such as the
potential “deal-making”) and assistance Transportation and Community System
with land assemblage. For the most part, Preservation Pilot Program under the
redevelopment agencies have applied Transportation Equity Act for the
these tools, meaning their role in 21st Century (TEA-21). The most
leveraging TOD has been mainly limited common sources of non-grant funds used
to economically depressed or blighted to leverage TOD are individual investor
neighborhood settings. Because of the funds and nonprofit/foundation funds.
higher risk involved, redevelopment tools
have often been accompanied by other Building and Bankrolling TOD
funding sources, sometimes with a dozen
or more participants involved in the Ultimately, TOD is an outcome of one or
process. more developers putting up their money,
or the money of lenders and investors, to
Implementation strategies that are create a new form of urbanism around
procedural in nature, like expediting transit stations. Interviews revealed that
entitlement reviews and excluding TODs developers view TOD in mostly positive
from concurrency requirements, have terms. When asked to rate the overall
been applied less often in practice and financial record of TOD, interviewed
are also viewed by public-sector developers on average gave it a 5 on a
interests as less effective than other scale of 1 to 7, indicating that they think
measures in jump-starting TOD. This it performs better than most products.
view, however, does not square with that Developers were especially optimistic
of many TOD developers. about TOD’s prospects in areas where
S-3

traffic congestion continues to worsen general agreement that TOD offers little
and there is a pro-TOD political help when it comes to securing
sentiment. conventional debt financing. Loan
decisions, they note, are governed by
While there were substantial areas of fundamentals, not urban planning
agreement among developers who were concepts. Interviewed lenders echoed
interviewed, a number held conflicting this sentiment.
views of certain elements of TOD. One of
these elements was parking. On the one Most of the interviewed lenders had
hand, many developers relate to the idea difficulty pinpointing the positive and
that parking standards should be lowered negative factors that influence whether
to the degree that significant numbers of they invest in a TOD because banks,
residents, shoppers, and workers ride they contend, look at each project on its
transit. On the other hand, many have individual merits. Dealing with the
embraced the principle that parking is an innate market characteristics of TOD—
effective marketing tool and can notably, mixed-use projects with the
sometimes make or break a project. advantage of being near transit—is
Regardless, most favor leaving the generally viewed as the best way to
decision of how much parking to provide market the TOD product to the lending
to the private sector. Developers feel that community. Factors that enhance the
they know the market best and will take connection of a parcel to a rail station—
advantage of cost savings when justified. direct and attractive pathways, well-
lighted and secure portals, and a strong
On balance, many developers feel that degree of public commitment backed by
locating projects near major transit stops infrastructure improvements like under-
is advantageous to the degree it provides grounding utilities and upgrading road
rent premiums. Some also feel that access—are likely to make TODs all the
locating projects close to transit can more attractive to lending institutions.
improve the ability to secure equity
finance, particularly for certain product Interviews suggest that joint development
types in pioneering locations (e.g., projects are more difficult to finance than
office development in suburban neighborhood-scale TODs. This is partly
locations). Most developers realize that due to guilt by association—the fact that
more is needed than spatial proximity, a project is directly tied, symbolically and
however. Making sure that the walk figuratively, to a transit facility seems to
between a project and a station portal is detract from its value. The bureaucratic
safe and reasonably attractive matters to component of joint development projects,
many. Putting in complementary land involving government institutions that are
uses, such as convenience shops and not always driven by the profit motive,
service retailers, is particularly makes some lenders uneasy as well.
important to TOD homebuilders.
Nonetheless, developers realize that TOD Barriers
regardless of what they think, access to
funds is often dependent upon the views Many roadblocks stand in the way of
of lenders. Many developers embrace TOD, just as they do with most forms of
TOD as a concept; however, there is a compact, mixed-use development. Some
S-4

barriers are fiscal in nature, such as the price of housing and parking, creating
higher costs and risks of dense, infill separate markets for each.) Within
development; the alignment of rail lines transit station boundaries, clashes are
along low-cost corridors that have also found between the preferences of
minimal development potential; and professional-class suburbanites who park
fiscal/exclusionary zoning policies that and ride and other groups who would
restrict housing production. Others are in prefer more human-scale station designs.
the form of political roadblocks, like Many transit officials side with
“not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) automobile-using patrons, invoking
opposition to infill. Still others are one-to-one replacement policies to
institutional and organization in ensure that parking is in ample supply.
character, such as the difficulty of Lastly, mixed land uses, which are a
coordinating TOD activities among characteristic trait of TODs, pose
multiple actors and stakeholder groups difficulties in lining up funding,
with divergent interests. investors, and contractors. Vertical
mixing is particularly problematic; most
While many of these barriers are generic developers call for horizontal mixing
to all forms of dense, infill development, instead. Quite often, the ground-level
some are more often associated with retail components of mixed-use TODs
TODs. One of these barriers is the suffer the most, in part because they are
“congestion conundrum”: the fact that poorly laid out.
nodal development around a transit
station increases spot congestion, The national survey of public-sector
prompting some jurisdictions to stakeholders shed light on what barriers
downzone. Another barrier is the are perceived to be the most onerous and
logistical dilemma of accommodating difficult to overcome. Most problematic,
multi-modal access needs, which often according to survey respondents, are
results in station road designs and automobile-oriented development
parking layouts that detract from the patterns. The lack of lender and
quality of walking. More fundamentally, developer interest in TOD, limited local
this represents a conflict between the expertise in planning for TOD, and
role of a station as a functional “node” questionable market demand are also
(particularly in the minds of transit generally seen as significant stumbling
managers) and a desirable “place” blocks. Factors like NIMBY opposition,
(particularly in the minds of urban inadequate transit services, and poor
planners). Still another stumbling block siting of transit stations were generally
unique to TODs is the rationalization of rated as moderate barriers.
parking. By their very nature, transit
stations offer “location efficiency,” While the developers interviewed for
enabling residents to get by with fewer this study were enthusiastic about TOD,
automobiles than they might otherwise their views on what is “transit-oriented”
own. Despite transit stations’ inherent did not always square with urban design
location efficiency, lenders and planners principles that call for mixed-use
often insist that code-standard parking buildings clustered in close proximity to
be provided in station areas. (One a transit station. Notably, a handful of
mediating approach is to unbundle the developers felt strongly that TOD design
S-5

guidelines should not overemphasize TOD’s secondary benefits include

vertically mixed uses such as ground- congestion relief, land conservation,
floor retail and upper-level residential. reduced outlays for roads, and improved
They explained that outside of dense safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Many
urban locations, building mixed-use of these benefits feed off of each other,
products in today’s marketplace can be and quite a few are redistributive in
a complex and risky proposition; few nature—gains experienced by some
believe that being near a train station are matched by losses experienced
fundamentally changes this market by others.
reality. Those interviewed did welcome
certain public-sector efforts to create The impacts of TOD no doubt vary by
incentives for development, including time and circumstances. In a boom
land assembly, infrastructure provision, economy, when highways are jam-
strategic investments to improve packed, the benefits of living, working,
neighborhood image, and expedited and running a business near a grade-
development review processes. In separated, high-performance transit line
general, developers cautioned against are likely much greater than during an
over-regulation and identified actions economic downturn. TOD is also likely
that could be taken well in advance of to be more highly valued in large
development that would reduce risks congested cities than in small uncongested
and encourage more TOD. ones. It is because of such variation that
our knowledge of TOD benefits remains
The Benefits of TOD partial. Such variation has also given rise
to harsh debates and conflicting signals
The potential benefits of TOD are social, on TODs benefits, especially in “best
environmental, and fiscal. Focusing case” settings like Portland, Oregon.
growth around transit stations capitalizes
on expensive public investments in Those working for transit agencies and
transit by producing local and regional local, regional, and state governments
benefits. TOD, proponents believe, can generally give TOD a moderate rating in
be an effective tool in curbing sprawl, terms of its ability to produce benefits.
reducing traffic congestion, and TOD gets high marks for contributing to
expanding housing choices. neighborhood and housing conditions.
Its greatest benefit, according to national
The most direct benefit of TOD is survey respondents, lies in increasing
increased ridership and the associated ridership.
revenue gains. Research shows residents
living near stations are five to six times In light of the premium placed on
more likely to commute via transit than TOD’s ridership-boosting potential, this
are other residents in a region. Other study carried out original research that
primary benefits include the revitalization examined the association between
of declining neighborhoods, financial development patterns around rail
gains for joint development opportunities, stations and transit usage in two regions
increases in the supply of affordable of the country with among the most
housing, and profits to those who own successful TOD track records: the San
land and businesses near transit stops. Francisco Bay Area and the Washington
S-6

(D.C.) Metropolitan Area. For the Bay on land values of affected properties.
Area, census data from 2000 and To the degree that TODs enhance
geographic information system tools accessibility, this benefit gets capitalized
were used to build statistical models that into the sales price of real estate. The
showed transit commute shares increase weight of evidence to date shows that
with density, land-use diversity, and development near transit stops enjoys
pedestrian-oriented design of land-value premiums and generally out-
neighborhoods around rail stops. performs competitive markets. This
Significant interaction effects were generally holds for residential housing
found between residential density and (especially condominiums and rental
city block size. The model suggested units) as well as office, retail, and other
that a doubling of mean residential commercial activities. However, the
densities from 10 to 20 dwelling units payoffs are not automatic, and quite
per gross acre, for example, increases often a number of preconditions must
transit’s commute mode share from be in place. One is an upswing in the
20.4% to 24.1% for a typical Bay Area economy, with plentiful demand for real
rail station setting with an average block estate and, importantly, worsening traffic
size of 6 acres; the commute share rises congestion. Only then will there be
to 27.6% if residential densities are market pressures to bid up land prices
combined with a smaller (and thereby and a clear benefit to having good rail
more pedestrian-friendly) average block access as an alternative to fighting
size of 4 acres. Similarly robust highway traffic. Also important are
relationships were uncovered for public policies, such as zoning bonuses,
Arlington County, Virginia, in the which further leverage TOD and system
Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area. expansion that produce the spillover
There, office-retail development was the benefits of a highly integrated network.
most powerful predictor of ridership at Moreover, it is important that transit be
seven Metrorail stations. For example, in a neighborhood free from signs of
models estimated that every 100,000 stagnation or distress with a reasonably
square feet of additional office and retail healthy real-estate market if significant
floor space near an Arlington County premiums are to accrue.
Metrorail station increased average
daily boardings and alightings at that In San Diego, premiums have been
station by around 50 customers, all else recorded for commercial properties in the
being equal. Housing construction Mission Valley corridor, an area that has
interacted with transit service levels to generally enjoyed sustained growth over
give ridership a further boost. Every the past decade. Pro-development policies
1,000 additional residential units around introduced by local governments—such
a station, when combined with as overlay zoning to encourage mixed
100 additional railcar passenger spaces land uses and targeted infrastructure
per day passing through the station, led investments—bolstered commercial
to more than 50 additional daily station property values in the Mission Valley.
boardings and alightings. This stands in marked contrast to San
Diego’s South Line (to the Tijuana
Another valid means of gauging the border), where little effort has been made
benefits of TOD is to examine impacts to leverage TOD, in large part because of
S-7

stagnant growth, and, predictably, no Through effective partnerships with

meaningful land-use changes have transit agencies, local government, and
occurred. others, and under the right conditions, all
parties are in a position to reap the
Insights into the property-value impacts financial gains conferred by well-
of TODs carry policy significance. For planned and well-managed TOD.
one, public entities are in a position to
recapture some of the added value Case Studies and Lessons
through benefit assessments, land
acquisitions and re-sales, and ground/ To embellish and extend the insights
air-rights leases. Some areas, such as gained from the national surveys,
the Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan literature reviews, and informant
Area, Los Angeles, and Portland, interviews, 10 case studies were carried
have been particularly aggressive in out for the following U.S. locations:
recapturing some of the value created Boston, New Jersey, the Washington
by transit investments; however, legal (D.C.) Metropolitan Area, Miami,
and institutional concerns continue to Chicago, Dallas, Colorado, Portland, the
impede progress in this area. San Francisco Bay Area, and Southern
California. Together, the case studies
TODs take time to evolve, and offer a rich set of perspectives on the
experiences suggest that land-value challenges and potential payoffs of
benefits from TODs take time to accrue implementing TOD.
as well. This was underscored by
experiences in Santa Clara County, The 10 case studies provided valuable
where no measurable land-value lessons on 5 important aspects of TOD:
premiums were found for transit in its political and institutional factors,
infancy, but where, by the system’s planning and land-use strategies, benefits
tenth anniversary, when the real-estate and impacts, fiscal considerations and
market had revved up, benefits were partnerships, and design challenges.
appreciable. Savvy developers
increasingly understand that profiting Political and Institutional Factors
from TOD is a long-term process. In the
words of one active TOD developer in • Political leadership is vital to TOD
the Denver region, “We’re not here to implementation. Having someone
‘flip’ properties in the search for quick step up as the political champion of a
profits with TOD and infill in general; TOD proposal is critical to
we’re in it for the long haul.” More and marshalling resources, building a
more, developers are using long-term coalition, and resolving disputes that
pro formas when evaluating the potential invariably crop up along the way.
payoff of TOD. As with any long-term
investment, asset management is • Inclusiveness and ongoing public
essential to reaping handsome profits. input in TOD planning, design,
And for profits to accrue, the public and implementation is essential to
sector needs to do its part to ensure that success. Outreach not only helps to
transit-served neighborhoods are, and fend off a possible NIMBY backlash,
will continue to be, viable places. but also gives those who live and
S-8

work in a TOD neighborhood a Planning and Land-Use Strategies

vested stake in ensuring that what is
built is consistent with neighborhood • Successful TODs start with shared
goals, has a human-scale “feel” and visions that guide planning and
is of the highest caliber possible. implementation for years to come.
The enterprise of creating a TOD
• Institutional coordination and over an extended period of time is
streamlining are especially crucial subject to so many distractions and
to TOD implementation when interruptions that the ability to stay
multiple agencies govern different focused on a shared vision is pivotal
elements of land development and to success. Arlington County,
transit-service delivery. Red tape, Virginia, adopted the metaphor of a
institutional bickering, and multiple “bull’s-eye” to articulate its TOD
levels of review are sometimes future. Many local observers attri-
enough to frighten away the hardiest bute Arlington County’s success at
of developers from station locations. adding over 15 million square feet of
Places like Metropolitan Baltimore, office space, 18,000 housing units,
Philadelphia, San Francisco- and several thousand hotel rooms to
Oakland, and Denver have formed the bull’s-eyes of the Rosslyn-
interagency working groups and Ballston corridor since 1970 to this
committees to streamline the TOD early vision and the subsequent
review and coordinate decision general plan and specific station-area
making. plans that contributed to the vision’s
realization.
• More permissive regulatory
environments and enabling • Start TOD planning early. TODs
legislation are often needed if are often the cumulative products
transit agencies, local governments, of many individual development
and regional planning organizations decisions, some of which unfold
are to proactively implement TOD. slowly and in fits and starts. Areas
The absence of authorizing with successful TOD track records,
legislation or simple avoidance of like Portland, Arlington County, and
the issue of how far transit agencies Montgomery County (in Maryland),
can go in pursuing land development have been working on TOD for a
has many times cast a cloud of long time.
suspicion on whether TOD is a
legitimate public-sector undertaking. • TOD success can hinge on
Without clearly articulated rewarding developers with measures
legislation that enables transit that grant more latitude in designing
agencies and other local actors to projects; allow mixing of uses;
assemble and bank land and enter increase density envelopes; and
into joint development arrangements, offer certainty, clarity, and built-in
TOD either gets ignored or ends up assurances that the public sector
on the back-burner, lost in the will follow through on planning
pressing day-to-day needs of commitments. Because of the risks
running a transit organization. sometimes encountered in building
S-9

near transit stations, especially with every TOD project in large part
infill and redevelopment projects, and because the TOD market is not
because of the public good conferred “standard.” Experience shows that
by TOD, “business as usual” should new housing built near rail stops
not apply to TOD developers. Zoning often appeals to single professionals,
must often be revised to allow childless couples, and empty-nesters
higher-than-average densities and a who value amenities as much as the
land-use program and mix that satisfy amount of living space and who often
market demands. In cities like own fewer automobiles and log fewer
Seattle, San Diego, and Atlanta, miles on their odometers than the
zoning overlays have been typical urban household. Standards
successfully used to increase for mortgage qualifications, building
permissible densities, diversify uses, designs, and parking supplies need to
and prevent automobile-oriented uses reflect these market realities.
from preempting TOD possibilities.
• Station-area plans and planning
• Successful TODs emphasize “place- matter. Given the risks and un-
making”: creating attractive, certainties associated with TOD,
memorable, human-scale environs developers, residents, and merchants
with an accent on quality-of-life expect, and indeed deserve, carefully
and civic spaces. Increasingly, crafted, forward-looking plans that
projects built around up-and-coming orchestrate how, when, and where a
transit nodes, like Dallas’s TOD will evolve. Good TODs begin
Mockingbird Station, Portland’s with good planning.
Pearl District, and Metropolitan
Chicago’s Arlington Heights, are Benefits and Impacts
targeted at individuals, households,
and businesses seeking locations that • TOD’s ridership bonuses are
are vibrant and interesting; these substantially a product of
places usually have an assortment of residential self-selection, suggesting
restaurants, entertainment venues, art that policy reforms should focus on
shops, cultural offerings, public allowing residents to sort themselves
plazas, and civic spaces. into transit-served neighborhoods
unimpeded. Research continues to
• TODs invite bold new policies that demonstrate that self-selection is a
push conventional boundaries and major factor behind higher transit
acknowledge the unique market ridership among those living near
niches that are being served. rail stations. It follows that public
Location Efficient Mortgages and policy should focus on breaking
sliding-scale impact fees, along with down barriers to residential mobility
unbundled parking costs and flexed and to the introduction of market-
parking standards, are good responsive zoning in and around
examples of “out-of-the-box” transit stations.
thinking. Standard designs, cost pro
formas, and building-code templates • TOD benefits are not automatic and
have to be challenged for each and generally accrue during upswings
S-10

in local economies, when traffic revenues that can go to various

congestion increases. Favorable station-area improvements like
conditions must exist for TOD to landscaping, pedestrian-way
produce significant economic upgrades, and public spaces.
benefits. Experience shows that if
compact, mixed-use development • Creative financing is essential to
around transit nodes is to attract spreading the risks; expanding the
enough motorists to transit to reduce base of knowledge and experience;
traffic congestion and increase and tapping into the fiscal
environmental benefits, areas need advantages of certain partners, such
to be growing rapidly and traffic as local governments’ superior bond
conditions need to be bad and getting ratings and guarantees, to make
worse. Since TODs increase projects “pencil out.” Partnerships
accessibility among those living, are pivotal to successful TODs. In
working, and shopping near transit, redevelopment districts that suffer
an extensive transit network is also from a poor marketing and
often necessary for the benefits of performance image, multiple partners
TOD to materialize. are often necessary to raise sufficient
capital to spread financial risks. Each
• Transit’s benefits, as reflected by partner can bring something unique
land-value premiums, also generally and of value to the table.
increase with proactive planning,
network development, and system • Market fundamentals, not a TOD
maturation. External factors like label, govern whether private
regional economic and traffic capital gets invested around transit
conditions do not solely govern stations. The availability of equity
the potential benefits of TOD. and loans to fund projects near
Experiences in Santa Clara County transit is primarily driven by capital
and San Diego, California, show that market conditions and perceived
land-value premiums tend to increase market demand, not a project’s status
as a system’s network expands and as a TOD. Lenders involved with
are generally higher in areas with TOD projects (not all of whom even
stronger real-estate markets and realize they are funding a TOD)
where farsighted, proactive rarely adjust lending standards to
planning has taken place. reflect proximity to transit.
Fiscal Considerations and Partnerships Design Challenges
• TODs benefit from efforts to • In urban settings, rationalizing

recapture some of the value parking policies in relation to TOD
conferred by transit investments is essential to influencing how a
to generate revenues needed for TOD station will be accessed and to
ancillary improvements. avoiding conflicts over whether land
Recapturing some of the land-value goes to parking or development.
premium conferred by transit If not properly dealt with, parking
investments provides much-needed can form a huge obstacle to TOD:
S-11

separating a station from the conflict between the role of transit

neighboring community, diminishing stations as “nodes” and their role as
the quality of the walking “places” often makes this difficult.
environment, and precluding station- Research shows that the majority of
site air rights or joint development. residents living within 1⁄4 mile of a
Transit boards need to rationalize transit station arrive by foot or
parking policies beyond a carte bicycle; however, this share
blanche one-to-one replacement plummets markedly if there are
mandate. Where affordable housing significant physical, symbolic, and
is being built near stops, reduced psychological barriers to bicycle and
parking quotas or at least flexible pedestrian traffic like wide, busy
standards should be considered to roads and incomplete sidewalk
reflect the tendency of many TOD networks. San Diego’s Mission
households to own fewer automobiles. Valley and suburban Denver are
Unbundling the cost of parking from good examples of places where (with
the cost of housing can make transit- the help of smart-growth planning
based residency all the more monies and pedestrian-sensitive
affordable. zoning ordinances) design attention
and resources were directed to
• Even though mixed land uses are a improving the quality of circulation,
trademark of TOD, arriving at a aesthetics, and basic provisions
workable program poses design (e.g., crosswalks and benches) of
challenges that need to be overcome areas surrounding rail stations.
for a successful TOD. Quite often,
finding the right formula for mixed • Transit service improvements and
land uses is every bit as difficult as system upgrades can trigger TOD
rationalizing parking policies. activities, especially in settings with
Planners sometimes impose a design expensive housing markets and a
template of ground-floor retail and pent-up demand for transit-oriented
upper-level housing or offices living. “Choice” transit users are
(i.e., vertical mixing) on any and all highly sensitive to service quality;
development proposals within a therefore, running frequent and
TOD. Mixed-use projects are trickier reliable trains and minimizing the
to design, finance, and sometimes need to transfer can be critical to the
lease than single-use ones. Local future of TOD. In northeast New
governments need to be sensitive to Jersey, the through extension of New
such challenges and focus more on Jersey Transit’s (NJ TRANSIT’s)
achieving a desired land-use mix Northeast Corridor to New York’s
within a transit station area as Pennsylvania Station unleashed a
opposed to individual parcels flurry of building activities around
(i.e., horizontal mixing). century-old commuter rail stations.
In Boulder, Colorado, the integrated
• Walking access, quality of Community Transit Network—
circulation, and the overall known for its colorful “Hop,”
pedestrian environment are critical “Skip,” “Jump,” “Leap,” and
to successful TODs. However, the “Bound” buses—triggered bus-based
S-12

TOD (typically second- and third- amounts of time behind the wheel, and a
floor offices and lofts above street- feeling of isolation from cultural
level retail) along several routes. offerings—are prompting more and
more Americans to leave the suburban
Policy Reflections and edge and head to transit-served subcity
Future Research nodes and even the traditional inner city.
The state of practice with TOD in the As long as TOD confers both public and
United States is generally a healthy one. private benefits, there is no replacement
There are many exciting examples of for public-private partnerships in
TOD currently on the ground and at least advancing TOD implementation. Each
as many on the drawing boards across party brings unique talents, insights, and
the United States. Mixed-use TODs like resources to the table. Experience has
downtown Plano, Texas, and Englewood shown that creating an in-house
City Center, outside Denver, would have capability within transit agencies to
been unimaginable in the 1980s, when pursue partnerships, hammering out
these and other suburban communities fair and mutually rewarding risk- and
were hosting a boom in campus-style revenue-sharing agreements, and
office development and automobile- building in contingencies that allow
oriented shopping plazas. The United projects to change course as needed can
States is in the midst of a sea change produce win-win outcomes. Successful
when it comes to linking transit and TOD partnerships win recognition in the
urbanism. In once automobile-dominant marketplace and deserve other kinds of
settings, yesterday’s design templates recognition as well such as national
are being discarded in favor of TOD. awards, “best practice” web sites, and
Atlanta’s BellSouth TOD is the result of high-profile special sessions at national
taking scattered automobile-oriented conferences like those sponsored by
development and transforming it into a Rail∼volution and the Urban Land
concentrated TOD. Attention has been Institute. As the joint development talent
given to every detail, such as siting pool and knowledge base expands,
additional BellSouth employee parking lessons will be learned and put to good
around other Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid use on new and up-and-coming projects.
Transit Authority stations to enable Disseminating knowledge and cross-
workers to commute by rail for part of pollinating it offer the best hope of
their trip. The company’s aim is for at achieving future generations of TOD
least 30% of its workforce to arrive by and joint development projects that
transit, a huge change from the current are robust, smartly designed, and
market share of under 5%. financially viable.
Also different from the past is that it is Considerable progress has been made in
not just public policies and interventions our understanding of TOD: what works
that are paving the way for TOD. and what does not, what preconditions
Unfettered market forces are also having are necessary to effectively leverage
a profound impact. The less desirable land development around stations, and
features of sprawl—automobile how private developers react to different
dependence, congestion, excessive regulations and incentives. More is also
S-13

known about land-value premiums fully loaded costs of pursuing TOD with
enjoyed by property owners with parcels standard patterns of suburban
near rail stops and ridership impacts, development.
among other areas. Still, knowledge gaps
remain. Areas that hold future research Finding ways of effectively disseminating
promise include studies that monetize the results of TOD research is equally
TOD’s benefits under a range of important. Research reports, professional
conditions; set cost-effectiveness journal publications, and conference
thresholds for TODs at varying densities presentations are obvious channels. The
and transit services at various levels of Internet is another important channel. A
intensity; evaluate impacts of TOD- national TOD web site that showcases
friendly measures like Location Efficient “best practices” and highlights the latest
Mortgages, flexible parking standards, research findings would be welcomed by
and bus-based initiatives; and compare many professionals and practitioners.
S-14

PART 1
TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE

UNITED STATES TODAY
Transit-oriented development (TOD) has gained currency not only as a promising means
of expanding the ridership base of U.S. urban rail and bus systems, but also as an
approach to revitalizing communities, a new vernacular of architecture and urbanism, and
a venue for increasing choice and diversity in local housing markets. Part 1 of this report
reviews the scope of TOD activities in the United States today. The first chapter provides
an overview of TOD and transit joint development, reviewing local definitions as well as
goals and objectives, and discussing this study’s overall methodology. Chapter 2
inventories the scope and breadth of contemporary TOD and joint development in the
United States, highlighting noteworthy examples among rail and bus systems and across
big and small cities.

Chapter 1
Transit-Oriented Development: An Overview
Introduction formation of the Georgia Regional

Transportation Authority (GRTA), a
Transit-oriented development (TOD) has watchdog state agency with purse-string
gained currency in the United States as a powers, whose principal charge is to
means of promoting smart growth, coordinate transportation and land use.
injecting vitality into declining inner-city The recent transformation of Atlanta’s
settings, and expanding lifestyle choices. Lindbergh Station from being
TOD’s focus of locating new predominantly a surface parking lot to
construction and redevelopment in and being a vibrant rail-served mini-city
around transit nodes is viewed by many signals an abrupt shift in policy, one
as a promising tool for curbing sprawl aimed at exploiting transit’s
and the automobile dependence it development potential. Rather than
spawns. Some hope that TOD can passively sitting back and letting the
breathe new life and vitality into areas of market determine what, if anything,
need by channeling public investments happens around stations, more and more
into struggling inner-city settings. And transit agencies and their partners across
by creating more walkable, mixed-use the United States are today proactively
neighborhoods with good transit creating new markets for transit by
connectivity, TOD is thought to appeal targeting growth in and around stations.
to the lifestyle preferences of growing
numbers of Americans, such as childless Interest in TOD is being driven from
couples, those Americans belonging to the supply side also. New rail or bus
“Generation X,” and empty-nesters. rapid transit systems are planned or
under construction in all but three of
That elusive concept, quality of life, is the 30 largest U.S. metropolitan areas.
another often-heard reason why TOD While older east-coast cities like
should be pursued. Many Americans Boston, Philadelphia, and New York
spend too much time getting to and from have more than a 100-year legacy of
work, robbing them of time at home with TOD, going back to the streetcar
families and friends. Between 1990 and suburbs of yesteryear, today cities like
2000, the average nationwide travel time Dallas, Denver, Salt Lake City,
to work rose by almost 3 minutes, to Charlotte, Portland, and Minneapolis
25.5 minutes. Commuters in Atlanta are borrowing a chapter from the past,
reported the largest increase in commute exploiting new rail investments to
time, on average, a 5.2-minute increase. create transit-friendly urban forms.
The widespread perception of many
Atlantans that quality of life is rapidly This report provides a comprehensive
eroding has prompted a number of review of the practice of TOD in the
radical changes in recent years, like the United States. Through a combination of

canvassing the literature, surveying and political leadership in spearheading

interviewing key stakeholders, and redevelopment in traditional commuter-
conducting in-depth case studies, TOD’s rail neighborhoods. Part 5 concludes the
current state of the art and state of report with a summary of key findings,
practice in the United States are assessed. overall policy conclusions, and
suggestions for further research.
Part 1 of the report provides a summary Appendixes A, B, and C provide
of the present-day scope of TOD in the supplementary material.
United States and its closely related
cousin, joint development. As discussed Study Approach
later, joint development is defined in this
study as a form of TOD that occurs on The main tactic used in compiling
transit-agency property and typically information about TOD and joint
involves a public-private partnership. development in the United States was to
Part 2 probes the current institutional, talk with, interview, and survey those
organizational, and regulatory most actively involved—the
environment that governs TOD practice, stakeholders. Insights and information
drawing on survey results and informant for five public-sector stakeholder
interviews of seven stakeholder groups groups—transit agencies, local
from both the public and private sectors. governments, redevelopment agencies,
Part 3 is evaluative in nature, reviewing metropolitan planning organizations
evidence on the benefits of TOD and (MPOs), and state departments of
assessing the degree to which it has transportation (DOTs)—were compiled
achieved its hoped-for targets, be they mainly from responses to open-ended
traffic congestion relief or expanding and close-ended survey questions.
options in affordable housing. Original Views and opinions from two private-
research on the ridership impacts of sector interests—developers and
development activities around transit lenders—were elicited primarily
stations is also presented, based on through telephone interviews, using a
experiences in the San Francisco Bay structured interview protocol. Surveys
Area and Arlington County, Virginia. and interviews were conducted from
Part 4 provides focused insights into July to September 2002.
TOD and joint development through
10 in-depth case studies. Each case study The survey process focused on
focuses on a particular theme or issue compiling background information and
related to TOD. Together, they provide attitudinal responses from all U.S. transit
a rich portrait of contemporary TOD agencies as well as other stakeholder
practices in the United States—successes groups in large metropolitan areas where
as well as failures—from a multitude of TOD is known to exist in some form.1
perspectives. Case studies like that of In all, the number of surveys received
Portland, Oregon, focus on experiences (and the response rates) from each
in promoting mixed-use development public-sector stakeholder group was
and affordable housing near rail lines in the following: 90 from transit agencies
a setting where anti-sprawl initiatives (21.7%), 23 from local governments
abound, while case studies like that of (29.5%), 8 from redevelopment agencies
Chicago, Illinois, examine the role of (44.4%), and 24 from MPOs (28.9%).

For further discussions of the survey What Is TOD?

methodology and copies of survey
instruments, see the interim report for There is no universally accepted
TCRP Project H-27: Transit-Oriented definition of TOD because development
Development and Joint Development that would be considered dense,
in the United States: A Stakeholder pedestrian-friendly, and transit-supportive
Analysis. in a middle-size city in the Midwest
would be viewed quite differently in the
Complementing the national survey were heart of Manhattan or the District of
the 10 case studies, chosen to provide Columbia. Moreover, the “tag” of TOD
more detailed insights into the “art and has recently come under attack by those
science” of TOD implementation. These who contend that buildings erected near
highlight best-case practices and U.S. transit nodes do not always have
performance impacts as well as missed any kind of functional or meaningful
opportunities, disappointments, and relationship to the station. In sizing up
implementation barriers. neighborhoods surrounding train stations
in the United States today, Hank Dittmar,
The 10 cases—Boston, New Jersey, the President of the Great American Station
Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area, Foundation, a nonprofit corporation that
Miami Metro, Chicago, Dallas, Colorado, promotes economic development through
Portland (Oregon), the San Francisco the preservation of railroad stations,
Bay Area, and Southern California— recently remarked: “Most often they have
were selected in close consultation with conventional single-use development
the TCRP H-27 project panel to patterns, with conventional parking
highlight various themes and issues requirements, so that the development is
surrounding TOD. Case studies were actually transit adjacent rather than transit
conducted through a series of steps: oriented.”3 Such a take has spawned a
collection and review of background new term for characterizing land
materials and information (through development near transit, “transit-
literature reviews and Internet searches); adjacent development,” or TAD (a less
initial telephone correspondence with desirable form of development for some
“key local players” (to explain the than TOD).
purpose of the study and solicit local
support and interest); preparation of a In this study, we opted not to parse
“study plan” (based on background definitions of TOD, leaving it to local
materials and telephone contacts); field stakeholders to identify what they
visits (using interview templates to elicit consider to be TOD from their own or
inputs from local stakeholders); their agencies’ perspectives. Ten of the
collection of data, reports, newspaper 90 surveyed transit agencies (11.1%) had
articles, and other secondary materials; formally adopted a definition of TOD,
visits to and photographs of projects; according to respondents. Most in-house
follow-up contacts (to fill in missing definitions of TOD came from large
information); draft case-study transit properties operating rail services,
preparations (provided to key local with the notable exception of the Roaring
contacts for reactions and suggestions); Fork Transportation Authority serving
and final case-study write-ups.2 the Aspen, Colorado, area. Table 1.1

Table 1.1. Transit Agency Definitions of TOD

Transit Agency Definition
ATLANTA: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Broad concept that includes any development that
Authority (MARTA) benefits from its proximity to a transit facility and
that generates significant transit ridership.
ASPEN: Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Land development pattern that provides a high level
Colorado of mobility and accessibility by supporting travel by
walking, bicycling, and public transit.
BALTIMORE: Maryland Transit Administration A relatively high-density place with a mixture of

residential, employment, shopping, and civic uses
located within an easy walk of a bus or rail transit
center. The development design gives preference to
the pedestrian and bicyclist.
CHARLOTTE: Charlotte Area Transit System High-quality urban environments that are carefully
planned and designed to attract and retain ridership.
Typically, TODs provide for a pedestrian-friendly
environment.
NEW JERSEY: New Jersey Transit Corporation An environment around a transit stop or station that
(NJ TRANSIT) supports pedestrian and transit use, created by
providing a mix of land uses in a safe, clean,
vibrant, and active place.
CHICAGO: Regional Transportation Authority of Development influenced by and oriented to transit

Northeast Illinois (RTA) service that takes advantage of the market created
by transit patrons.
ORLANDO: Central Florida Regional A sustainable, economically viable, livable

Transportation Authority (LYNX) community with a balanced transportation system
where walking, biking, and transit are as valued as
the automobile.
SALT LAKE CITY: Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Projects that enhance transit use, improve the
quality of service provided to Authority riders, or
generate revenue for the purpose of supporting
public transit.
SAN FRANCISCO: Bay Area Rapid Transit Moderate- to higher-density development, located
Authority (BART) within an easy walk of a major transit stop,
generally with a mix of residential, employment,
and shopping opportunities designed for pedestrians
without excluding the automobile. TOD can be new
construction or redevelopment of one or more
buildings whose design and orientation facilitate
transit use.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Washington Metropolitan Projects near transit stops which incorporate the
Area Transit Authority (WMATA) following smart-growth principles: reduce
automobile dependence; encourage high shares of
pedestrian and bicycle access trips to transit; help to
foster safe station environments; enhance physical
connections to transit stations from surrounding
areas; and provide a vibrant mix of land-use
activities.

presents the definitions of TOD adopted California Department of Transportation

by these 10 agencies. Some definitions (Caltrans). In its recent comprehensive
relate to smart-growth and sustainability study of TOD, Statewide Transit-
principles in general, although most Oriented Development Study: Factors
focus on the design characteristics of for Success in California, Caltrans
transit-supportive environments. Most defined TOD similarly to most local
definitions emphasize the importance transit agencies: higher than usual
of high-quality walking environments. densities, mixed land uses, and
Four of the definitions call for mixed pedestrian-friendly designs. California’s
land uses and two specifically mention definition is noteworthy for making the
higher-density developments. Also, point that TOD is not “anti-car,”
three definitions tie TOD to increases in emphasizing that TOD creates an
ridership and revenues. The Regional attractive pedestrian environment
Transportation Authority (RTA) in “without excluding the auto.” This caveat
metropolitan Chicago views TOD in is not surprising given that California has
market terms. In general, there is one of the highest automobile ownership
agreement within the professional transit rates in the country.4
community as to what constitutes a
TOD: a pattern of dense, diverse, It bears noting that TOD is hardly a new
pedestrian-friendly land uses near transit concept. A century ago, highly walkable,
nodes that, under the right conditions, mixed-use communities blossomed
translates into higher patronage. around most streetcar and interurban
rail lines in the United States. The
Similar definitions of TOD were offered subsequent uprooting of these systems
by other stakeholder interests. Local in favor of roads and super-highways
governments tend to cast TOD in more witnessed the gradual disappearance of
specific terms, such as minimum floor- transit-oriented communities. Single-use
area ratios (FARs) and distances to rail automobile-oriented subdivisions,
stops, that are often tied to development scattered in all corners of a metropolis,
regulations and zoning codes. Buffalo, became the dominant built form instead.
New York, for example, allows specific In many ways, TODs aim to restore
uses with specific FAR and setback many of the features of yesteryear’s
requirements in its “transit station zoning cityscapes—comfortable and enjoyable
district.” Mountain View, California, has streetscapes, vibrant and interactive
adopted a 2,000-foot radius around rail public spaces, and an assemblage of land
stations to circumscribe TOD, applying uses that invite people to stroll, linger,
fairly permissive zoning standards within and interact with each other. In his
the sphere in hopes of leveraging new recent report, The Returning City:
investments. Historic Preservation and Transit in
the Age of Civic Revival, Dan Costello et
Comparatively few redevelopment al. comment that the recent spurt in
agencies, MPOs, or state DOTs surveyed literature and considerable press given
had formally adopted TOD definitions. to TOD seems to suggest that there is
One higher-level agency that has taken a something different and unique about
leadership role in promoting and this approach to urbanism and community
marketing the TOD concept is the design than in years past. They remind

us that contemporary TOD borrows a form of TOD that is project-specific

heavily from the past: and takes place either on or adjacent to
transit-agency land.
The highly visible ‘neo-traditional’
success stories have led to the The distinction between TOD and joint
notion of TOD as a new idea. In development was described in the
fact, new TOD developments following way in the questionnaire sent
promote transit use through time-
to transit properties for this research:
honored strategies to create density
and mixed uses, income diversity,
and pedestrian-supportive Transit joint development is
design. . . . The transit villages that distinguished from TOD mainly by
came of age in the late 19th century being tied to a specific real-estate
exhibited all the characteristics project, venture, or brokered deal
modern TOD proponents describe and involving the direct
as ideal for today, including a participation of a public entity, often
coherent transportation pattern that a transit agency, in revenue streams
worked within each transit village and sometimes ownership. Joint
at the pedestrian scale and development often occurs on a
multiplied efficiently throughout transit agency’s property or in its air
corridors and regions, connecting rights; however, it can also occur
neighborhoods and suburban towns on nearby private land if an
to the urban core via public improvement is physically or
transportation.5 functionally integrated with a transit
facility. Joint development at transit
One must also be careful not to cast stations includes air-rights
development, ground-lease
TOD purely in physical determinist
arrangements, station interface or
terms. TOD is not simply an assembly of connection-fee programs, and other
buildings around transit nodes. It is also initiatives that promote real-estate
about community and neighborhoods. development at or near transit
To some observers, TOD is partly about stations to the mutual benefit of
building social capital—strengthening public and private interests.
the bond between people and the
communities in which they live, work, Despite this effort to distinguish the two
socialize, and recreate. This is a side enterprises, it is clear that most transit
benefit, however. Mainly, the aim is to professionals lumped them together.
create settings which prompt people to Only 9 of the 90 transit-agency
drive less and ride public transit more. respondents indicated that their
organizations had adopted a definition
Joint Development: What Is It? of joint development. Take, for
example, the Washington Metropolitan
The distinction between TOD and joint Area Transit Authority (WMATA), a
development is not always clear, and pioneer in the practice of transit joint
quite often survey respondents from development. WMATA defines joint
transit agencies (and other stakeholder development as: “a creative program
groups) used the terms interchangeably. through which property interests owned
In this study, joint development is and/or controlled by WMATA are
treated as a subset of TOD—specifically, marketed to office, retail/commercial,

recreational/entertainment, and Several survey respondents said that

residential developers with the objective their agencies have adopted the FTA’s
of developing transit-oriented definition of joint development. The
development projects.”6 WMATA FTA’s web site offers a generic
practices what it preaches. Between definition: “joint development involves
1970 and 2002, WMATA formally the common use of property for transit
entered into 38 joint development and non-transit purposes.”8 More
projects in the District of Columbia and specific is the language in FTA’s
bi-state area, more than any transit Circular 9300.1 for capital grant
agency in the United States. The sum applications: “FTA encourages
value of these ventures has exceeded incidental uses of real property that can
$2.5 billion. Collectively, these raise additional revenues for the transit
projects—everything from air-rights system or, at a reasonable cost, enhance
leases and land rents to station system ridership. FTA approval is
connection fees—yield the agency required for these incidental uses of real
some $6 million in annual revenues. property which must be compatible with
Currently, the most remunerative the original purposes of the grant.”9 This
initiatives involve air-rights and ground provision has been interpreted to mean
leases at the Bethesda, Ballston, and that transit agencies can sell land
White Flint Stations. holdings financed by federal grants
without having to return proceeds as
San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit long as the grantee retains control over
(BART) District, also active in joint projects, and funds are used to shape
development, adopted the following communities being served by transit.10
joint development definition in 1984:
Goals and Objectives
In the broadest sense, it [joint
development] represents active Given the definitions above, what are the
cooperation between the public and goals and objectives that have been set
private sectors in undertaking real for TODs and joint development? Open-
estate ventures which either ended survey responses from the five
physically connect to or functionally public-sector stakeholder groups shed
support the transit facility. For the
light on this question.
purposes of this policy, the term
‘joint development’ is also meant
to cover those value capture
TOD Goals
mechanisms aimed at ensuring that
the public shares in the benefit Increasing ridership was at the top of the
which accrues to the private sector list of TOD goals identified by transit-
(property owner/developer) because agency respondents, representing one-
of improved access to a regional fifth of all goals stated (see Figure 1.1).
transit facility.7 The next most frequent set of goals
identified by transit agencies was
Between 1984 and 2003, BART has financial in nature. This set of goals
entered into eight joint development included promoting economic
agreements, mostly in built-up areas of development (and job growth) and
the cities of San Francisco and Oakland. raising revenues for transit properties.

Increase Ridership 20.0%
Promote Economic Development 15.6%
Raise Revenues 13.3%
Enhance Livability 11.1%
Widen Housing Choices 8.9%
Private Development Opportunities 6.7%
Improve Safety 4.4%
Share Construction Costs 4.4%
Reduce Parking 4.4%
One-Stop Center/Fare Outlet 4.4%
Improve Intermodal Integration 2.2%
Enhance Pedestrian Access 2.2%
Improve Air Quality 2.2%
Put Property on Tax Rolls 2.2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Percent of Total Stated Goals
Figure 1.1. Relative Frequency of Stated Transit-Agency Goals for
TOD Projects.
Next in frequency were objectives that projects. Predictably, increasing

are more social in nature, such as revenues—at the farebox (from
enhancing quality of life and widening ridership) and from direct lease
housing choices for consumers. A few payments—is what motivates most
transit agencies supported TOD to transit operators to pursue joint
create private real-estate opportunities. development. After fiscal objectives,
Respondents from local government and transit-agency representatives identified
redevelopment agencies cited similar a host of societal reasons why joint
TOD goals. They emphasized the role of development is important. Among these
TOD in promoting affordable housing, broader societal objectives, ones related
stimulating economic development, and to the economic well-being of cities—in
revitalizing declining neighborhoods. terms of spurring private investments
and redevelopment—topped the list.
Joint Development Goals Some respondents also emphasized the
aesthetic role of joint development in
As with TOD, transit-agency respondents creating secure and active civic spaces,
were asked to list the goals for providing needed in-neighborhood
implemented joint development facilities like bike paths and showcasing
10

architecturally integrated and well- implementation, including those related

designed public and private buildings. to goal formulation and visioning, are
taken up in Chapter 6.
Unanimity Versus Pluralism
Summary
A recent assessment of TOD across the
United States, drawn from interviews TOD continues to attract interest as a
with practitioners and site-specific tool for promoting smart growth,
workshops, argues that the absence of a leveraging economic development, and
universal working definition of TOD catering to shifting market demands and
hampers the ability to set agreed-on lifestyle preferences. This report, based
goals and therefore to gauge success. on a combination of stakeholder survey
The authors write: responses, interviews, and in-depth case
studies, paints a national portrait of
Because of the lack of clarity in the contemporary TOD practice in the
definition of TOD, legitimate United States in its many shades and
disagreements about what might colors.
constitute good TOD, and diverging
priorities and interests, actors may TOD is widely defined as compact,
bring different, and sometimes mixed-use development near transit
contradictory, goals to the table.11 facilities with high-quality walking
environments, not necessarily at the
On its web site, the recently formed expense of automobile access. Joint
Center for Transit-Oriented development is a form of TOD that is
Development further echoes this view: often project specific, taking place on,
“There is no clear definition of TOD or above, or adjacent to transit-agency
agreement of desired outcomes, and property. Recent FTA policy promotes
hence no way of ensuring that a project joint development by allowing transit
delivers these outcomes.”12 agencies to use incidental property,
even if purchased with federal funds,
Plurality of interests and perspectives can for private real-estate projects that
be both a strength and a liability in the support broader community
pursuit of TOD. The marketplace, be it development objectives.
for real estate, places to live, or widgets,
is based on the very principle of variety The primary aim of TOD and joint
and choice. A project next to a rail stop development are to boost ridership and,
that is belittled as too automobile-centric relatedly, increase revenues. Community
in its design in some camps might stretch economic development and broader
the limits of what is perceived as smart-growth agendas are secondary
“comfortable” and politically feasible in objectives.
others. The breadth of perspectives on
what constitutes a TOD “success story”
Notes
is addressed throughout this report, but
particularly in the coverage of various 1 While surveys were sent to the full population
stakeholder viewpoints in Chapters 3 of U.S. transit agencies (at least those who
through 5. Impediments to TOD were members of the American Public
11

Transportation Association), for other groups design considerations, creative financing

representative samples were drawn. A true approaches, and impacts of public policies).
random sample format was not used in part 3 M. Leccese, “Will T-Rex Meet TOD?”
because of the effort to target surveys to large
Urban Land, Vol. 62, No. 5 (2003): 86.
metropolitan areas, especially those with rail
4
transit systems, where TOD is known to exist According to the 2000 census, the mean
in some form, such as the Washington (D.C.) number of motor vehicles per household
Metropolitan Area, the San Francisco Bay in California was 1.79. This is higher than
Area, metropolitan Atlanta, the Dallas-Ft. the national average of 1.68. (Census
Worth metroplex, and the Philadelphia-New Transportation Planning Package 2000 Profile
Jersey-New York axis. To ensure a balance of Sheets, http://transportation.org/ctpp/home.)
responses from smaller areas that operate bus 5 D. Costello, R. Mendelsohn, A. Canby, and
services only, random samples of local J. Bender, The Returning City: Historic
governments, redevelopment agencies, and Preservation and Transit in the Age of Civic
MPOs in areas with regional populations Revival (Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit
under 200,000 were selected from master Administration, National Trust for Historic
lists of these organizations. Preservation, 2003), 10.
2 Open-ended, in-depth interviews were 6 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
conducted among appropriate local Authority, WMATA Joint Development
individuals for each case study. Besides Policies and Guidelines (Washington, D.C.:
obtaining relevant information on the “what,” WMATA Office of Property Development
“who,” “why,” “when,” and “where” of TOD and Management, February 2002).
and joint development, efforts were made to
7
elicit information from the perspectives of Bay Area Rapid Transit District, “BART
interviewed stakeholders on the following Joint Development Policy” (Oakland,
topics: goals and objectives for TOD; the California: BART, 1984).
presence of local or regional plans or policy 8 http://www.fta.dot.gov/.
visions regarding TOD; identification and
9
description of major TODs and joint Federal Transit Administration, FTA Circular
developments; impacts, performance, and 9300.1, Capital Grant Program: Application
outcomes (and the degree to which goals and Instructions (Washington, D.C.: 1997).
objectives have been achieved); tools applied 10 Federal Register Notice, FTA Policy on
and incentives introduced to promote and Transit Joint Development, Vol. 62, No. 5
leverage TOD (as well as interviewees’ (March 14, 1997) pp. 12266–12269.
perceptions on how effective these tools and 11
incentives have been); approaches to D. Belzer and G. Autler, Challenges to
Implementing Transit-Oriented Development
institutional coordination in promoting TOD;
(Las Vegas, New Mexico: Great American
marketing and outreach initiatives (successful
Station Foundation, 2002).
and unsuccessful); major impediments to the
formation of TODs; and other issues (such as 12 See http://www.ReconnectingAmerica.org/
impacts of park-and-ride lots on TOD, urban tod_to_scale.htm.
12

Chapter 2
The Breadth and Scope of U.S. TOD and Joint Development
TOD Activities served cities. The San Francisco Bay

Area has the most identified TODs,
A wide array of TOD currently exists served by heavy-rail (BART),
across in the United States. Table 2.1 commuter-rail (Caltrains and the Capitol
lists the TOD projects identified by Corridor), and light-rail (Santa Clara
surveyed stakeholders, starting with Valley and San Francisco Municipal
TODs oriented to rail followed by bus- Railway [MUNI]) systems. Other
based ones and organized by numbers of national TOD leaders are the
projects in each metropolitan area. Most Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area,
TODs on the list were identified by Portland (OR), Atlanta, and Dallas. The
survey respondents, but known TODs list for pro-TOD cities like Portland
documented in the literature are also could be expanded if smaller-scale
shown. Many more TODs are in various projects were included. As discussed in
stages of planning and development; Chapter 17, the Portland area has
those listed in Table 2.1 were on the witnessed a considerable amount of
ground or substantially developed as of high-density infill projects within
late 2002. walking distance of light-rail stations,
like 172nd and East Burnside and the
In all, well over 100 TODs were Oneota Townhomes in the Greshman
identified. TOD designations, of course, area and the Westshore Apartments,
are quite subjective: one person’s TOD Vandalay Arms, and Hazelwood
may be viewed by others as little more Apartments in the city of Portland. Many
than an office building with suburban infill projects in Portland are also found
parking ratios that happens to be near a on active bus corridors, like Irvington
train stop. Table 2.1, moreover, is not a Place, Hollywood Townhomes,
complete inventory because not all transit Macadam Village, and Pearl Court
agencies, local and state governments, and Apartments.
other surveyed groups responded to the
survey. Thus, the list should be viewed as Many U.S. TODs are situated outside of
illustrative of the types and geographic central cities, in newer and older suburbs
distributions of TODs found in the United alike. Some TODs, notably the Rosslyn-
States although not necessarily complete. to-Ballston axis and Jefferson Davis
Figure 2.1 shows that the largest numbers Corridor (Pentagon and Crystal City
of TODs on the list were served by heavy- areas) in Northern Virginia, are quite
rail systems, followed by light rail, dense, featuring high-rise clusters of
commuter rail, bus, and ferry. office towers, retail shops, housing,
entertainment, and civic uses (see
The majority (more than 100) of the Chapter 12). Since 1960, over 98% of
listed TODs are located in large rail- office and retail development and 95%
13

Table 2.1. Existing TODs Identified by Survey Respondents or from Literature Review, Late 2002
Metropolitan Areas: RAIL
TODs Descriptions
& RAIL/BUS AGENCIES
San Francisco Bay Area: Bay Area * Concord BART * Mixed-use office & housing
Rapid Transit (BART) District * Pleasant Hill BART * Mixed-use office, hotels, housing
* Walnut Creek BART * Predominantly office with some retail
* Rockridge BART * Mixed-use housing, office, retail
* Daly City BART * Mixed-use office, retail, housing
* El Cerrito del Norte BART * Mixed-use housing and retail
* Berkeley BART * Traditional downtown with office & retail
* Lake Merritt BART * Office, educational, housing, modest retail
* Fruitvale BART * Mixed office, retail, housing, services
* Hayward BART * Mixed housing, retail, city hall
* Fremont BART * Mixed office, medical, housing
* Embarcadero BART corridor * Dense downtown of office, retail, hotels,
(downtown San Francisco) housing, government
th
* 16 /Mission BART * Mixed-use retail & housing
th
* 24 /Mission BART * Mixed-use retail & housing
* Colma BART * Mixed-use retail & housing
San Francisco/San Mateo/Santa * Mission Bay (San Francisco) * Mid-high rise residential/mix use
Clara County Axis: Caltrain, * Bay Meadows (San Mateo) * Mixed-use development
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers * The Crossings (Mountain View) * Townhouses, neo-traditional streets
Board, San Francisco Municipal * Redwood City * City Center, affordable housing, & retail
Railway, San Mateo County * San Mateo downtown * Traditional rail-served center city
Transit District
Santa Clara County: Santa Clara * Moffett Park (Sunnyvale) * Office cluster
Valley Transportation Authority * Ohlone-Chynoweth (San Jose) * Compact housing, retail center, civic uses
(VTA) * Almaden Lake Village (San Jose) * Compact housing & services
* Northside Industrial district * High-tech office, commercial, housing
San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento: * Davis Station * Nodal, walking-friendly development

Capitol Corridor Joint Authority * Martinez Station * Traditional downtown undergoing
redevelopment
* Emeryville Station * Adaptive reuse/mixed housing & office
Washington, D.C.-Maryland- * Silver Spring Metro (MD) * Redevelopment of urban core

Virginia: Washington * Bethesda Metro (MD) * Mixed office, hotel, restaurant node
Metropolitan Area Transit * Grosvenor Metro (MD) * Housing & commercial node
Authority (WMATA), * Twinbrook Metro (MD) * Office, retail, housing, hotel infill
Montgomery County Transit * Gallery Place-Chinatown (D.C.) * Urban mid-rise office, retail, housing
* White Flint (D.C.) * Mixed housing & retail uses
* Rosslyn (VA) * High-rise office, retail, housing
* Courthouse (VA) * Major mixed-use development
* Ballston (VA) * Office, retail, housing, hotel, civic uses
* Clarendon (VA) * Office, retail, housing node
* Virginia Square (VA) * Office, retail, housing, hotel uses
* Pentagon City (VA) * Mid-high rise office, retail, housing, hotel
* Crystal City (VA) * Office, retail, housing, hotel node
14

Table 2.1. (Continued)

TODs Descriptions
& RAIL/BUS AGENCIES
Portland, Oregon: TriMet * Orenco Station * Mixed housing, town center
* LaSalle Apartments * Compact housing & ground-floor retail
* Greshman Civic Neighborhood * Retail, housing, community uses
* Russellville Commons * Large-scale apartment complex
* Center Commons * Mixed-income housing development
* Stadium Station Apartments * Mid-rise mixed housing & retail
* Collins Circle * Mid-rise housing & ground-floor retail
* Liberty Centre * Office, retail, plaza development
* Buckman Heights * Housing & retail with carsharing
Atlanta: Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid * Georgia State Station * State of Georgia Floyd Office Towers
Transit Authority (MARTA) * North Avenue Station * Office concentration, with retail
* BellSouth Center * Office tower with auxiliary buildings
* Midtown Station * Office concentration, with retail
* West downtown area * Entertainment/office/retail area
* Decatur Station * Restaurant/entertainment district
* Lindbergh City Center * Office, retail, multifamily housing
San Diego: Metropolitan Transit * America Plaza * Downtown office, shops, art museum
Development Board (MTDB) * Rio Vista West * Mixed housing & neighborhood retail
* Hazard Center * Townhouses, office, retail
* Uptown District * Bus-oriented housing & retail
* La Mesa Village Plaza * Condominium, offices, retail
* Village of La Mesa * Large-scale apartment development
* Mercardo at Barrio Logan * Mixed housing and retail center
Los Angeles: Metropolitan Transit * Hollywood/Highland * Retail, entertainment, theater complex

Authority (MTA), Metrolink, * Pine Court (Long Beach) * Vertically mixed retail, office, housing
Antelope Valley Transit Authority * Holly Street Village (Pasadena) * Apartment & ground-floor retail
* North Hollywood Arts District * Mixed-use bus transit village
* Lancaster Metrolink * Mixed-use development
* Montage at Village Green (Sylmar) * Mixed single-family housing
Dallas: Dallas Area Rapid Transit * Mockingbird Station * Mixed office, retail, housing
(DART) * Southside on Lamar * Mixed-use development
* Galatyn Park (Richardson) * Housing with retail
* Plano Transit Village * Traditional redeveloped downtown
* Westside Village * Mixed-use development
* Cedars Station * Apartments & ground-floor retail
Chicago: Regional Transit * Evanston-Davis Street * Dense residential, retail, entertainment

Authority of Northeast Illinois, * Marion Street Station * Housing & retail near mall
Pace Suburban Bus, Metra * Arlington Heights Station * Dense residential, retail, entertainment
Railway, Chicago Transit * Riverdale Metra * Traditional mixed retail area
Authority * Woodstock Metra * Mixed housing and retail
* Franklin Park * Traditional neighborhood
New York Suburbs: Metro North * Mount Vernon Station * Retail, hotel, sports arena
* Ossining Station * Mixed residential, retail project
* New Rochelle Station * Intermodal center in traditional downtown
* Yonkers Stations * Retail, office, restaurant, housing
* White Plains/Bank Street * Housing, office, hotel development
Commons
Baltimore: Maryland Transit * Owings Mills Metro * Converting to compact, mixed-use center
Administration * Cultural Center Light Rail Station * Symphony Center/State office complex
* Lexington Market Metro * Urban revitalization zone
(Table continues next page)


& RAIL/BUS AGENCIES TODs Descriptions
Denver: Regional Transit District * Englewood City Center * Compact, mixed-use development
* I-25/Broadway * Mixed-use area poised to redevelop
* Greenwood Village * Traditional mixed-use center
Seattle: Seattle Metro * Overlake (Redmond) * Rental housing & services

* Northgate North * Retail, apartments, park-and-ride stalls
* Renton Transit Center * Apartments & intermodal center
New Jersey: New Jersey Transit * Rutherford Boiling Springs * Mixed-use development
* South Orange Station * Mixed-use redevelopment
Salt Lake City: Utah Transit * Delta Center * Mixed office, commercial, civic
Authority * 4500 South Station * Compact, pedestrian-friendly setting
Miami: Miami-Dade Transit * Dadeland South * Office, retail, hotel node

* Dadeland North * Concentrated retail
Sacramento: Sacramento Regional * Aspen Neighborhood, West Davis * Medium-density housing

Transit * Butterfield Station * Office development
Cleveland: Greater Cleveland * Tower City Center * Redeveloped office, retail, hotel complex
Regional Transit Authority * Shaker Square * Renovated housing & retail, traditional
St. Louis: Bi-State Development * Cupples Station * Office, hotel, entertainment, sports center
Agency
Metropolitan Area: BUS
AGENCIES/OTHER
Charlotte Area Transit System * South End * Historic Trolley upscale neighborhood
with popular retail/entertainment district
Delaware Transit Corporation * Wilmington Station * Downtown TOD near rail station
Orange County Transportation * Buena Park * Housing near Metrolink

Authority
Everett Transit, Washington * Everett Station * Multimodal public-private partnered

development
* Hewitt Avenue/Westmore * Traditional neighborhood with transit
Triangle Transit Authority * Triangle Metro Center * Dense, mixed-use development
Jacksonville Transportation * Riverside * Marketplace shopping in historic

Authority neighborhood
Dayton Regional Transportation * Schuster Arts Center * Cultural mixed-use center

Authority
Rock Island County Metropolitan * Centre Station/John Deere * Offices, hotel, convention center at bus
Mass Transit District Commons transfer station
Kitsap Transit, Washington * Bremerton Center * Downtown ferry terminal

* Baimbridge Island Transfer Center * Traditional downtown setting
Sources: Survey responses; T. Parker, G. Arrington, M. McKeever, J. Smith-Heimer, Statewide Transit-Oriented
Development Study: Factors for Success in California (Sacramento: California Department of Transportation, 2002); R.
st
Bernick and R. Cervero, Transit Villages for the 21 Century (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997); various web sites and local
sources.
16

Heavy Rail 37.4%
Light Rail 31.3%
Commuter Rail 21.8%
Bus 7.8%
Ferry 1.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Percent of TODs
Figure 2.1. Distribution of Listed TODs by Type of
Transit Service.
of housing additions in Arlington County respondents from smaller communities.

have been within a 1⁄2 mile of Metrorail Some small-city TODs are organized
stations: 29.7 million square feet of around intermodal transfer facilities.
office space, 4 million square feet of Several TODs in the state of Washington
retail, and 26,500 residential units in all.1 are served by passenger-ferry ports.
Outside of the Washington (D.C.) Chapter 16 provides several examples of
Metropolitan Area, however, the typical bus-based TODs in Colorado, and
TOD is a small- to moderate-scale mixed- Chapter 11 discusses ferry-oriented
use development with slightly above- developments in Northeast New Jersey.
average densities (e.g., mid-rise offices
with ground-floor retail, residential Although not shown in Table 2.1, quite a
townhouses and condominiums in the few TODs were identified by survey
range of 20 to 30 dwelling units per respondents as being in various stages of
residential acre, a scattering of construction and development. Listed
restaurants with entertainment uses, below are some metropolitan areas that
occasionally a hotel or two, and often are actively pursuing new TODs and
civic spaces and buildings like plazas some of the TODs that are beginning to
and libraries. Survey respondents from take shape in each:
the New York City Metropolitan Transit
Authority and San Francisco MUNI did • Seattle: Beacon Hill, MLK@Holly,
not list TODs because, they noted, their Jefferson@Ballard, Othello,
“entire city met the definition of TOD.” Edmunds, The Gilmore;
The same can largely be said for other • Portland: Cascade Station, Sunnyside
cities with century-old rail services like Village, Lexington Park, Richmond
Chicago, Philadelphia, and Boston. Place, The Yards at Union Station;
• San Juan: Sagrado Corazon Station,
While TODs exist mainly in large rail Hato Rey Station;
cities, a fair number of predominantly • Santa Clara County: Whisman
bus-based TODs were identified by Station, Japantown;
17

• Metropolitan Washington (D.C.): commercial boulevard, mid-rise

New York Avenue, Rhode Island housing, and civic uses in a
Avenue, Twinbrook, Court House, 2.2-square-mile area served by
U Street/African American Civil four Metro subway stations in the
War Memorial/Cardozo Station; Hollywood-Wilshire neighborhood
• New Jersey: South Amboy, (Map 2.1).2 See Chapter 19 for more
Morristown, Hamilton, Rahway, discussions of TOD activities in
South Orange, Rutherford; Southern California.
• St. Louis: Emerson Park, Swansea,
Belleville, Maplewood; • Houston: The city of Houston
• San Francisco-Oakland: West Dublin, anticipates several TODs will take
Richmond, Ashby, McArthur; form once the Main Street Corridor
• Denver: I-25/Broadway, Union light-rail system is completed.
Station;
• Sacramento: Folsom East, South • Raleigh-Durham: The Triangle
Line Extension; Transit Authority’s diesel multiple
• Miami: Martin Luther King, Jr. unit (DMU) system, currently under
Station, Santa Clara, Okeechobee construction, calls for several TODs
Station; along the axis connecting downtown
• Cleveland: W. 65th St./EcoVillage; Durham to downtown Raleigh. Town
• Charlotte: Huntersville, Cornelius; centers designed around rail stops are
• Salt Lake City: 7200 South, 10000 planned for the Cary, 9th Street/East
South; and Campus, and Alston Avenue stations.
• Dayton: Wright Plaza
• Minneapolis: Recently, the city of
Additionally, a number of transit Minneapolis and the Metropolitan
properties from smaller cities identified Council have joined forces to
TODs that are on the drawing boards, prepare TOD plans for four station
including Lane Transit District in areas along the Hiawatha Corridor.
Eugene, Oregon (Walnut Station,
Glenwood), Kenosha Transit in Joint Development Projects
Kenosha, Wisconsin (Harborpark), and
Peoria Mass Transit in Peoria, Illinois How prevalent is transit joint
(Hope IV-Riverwest). development—private development on,
above, or adjacent to a transit agency’s
The notion of TOD as nodal development property—in the United States today?
is also being recast. Today, a growing A 1990 study counted 117 projects
number of cities have slated entire nationwide.3 There appear to be at least
corridors for TOD, with rail-served this many today, if not more.
districts stretching over dozens of city
blocks, including Respondents from 33 of the 90 surveyed
transit properties (37%) indicated that
• Los Angeles: The city of Los their agencies currently have some form
Angeles has prepared a specific plan of joint development at stations or stops.
for the Vermont/Western TOD, Joint development projects were self-
aimed at preserving and expanding a identified according to each agency’s
18

Map 2.1. Vermont/Western Transit-Oriented District, City of Los Angeles, 2002.

Source: City of Los Angeles, Vermont/Western Transit Oriented District Specific Plan, Ordinance No. 173,749
(March 2001).
19

own definitions of what constitutes joint leases (mostly office space) above rail
development (see Chapter 1). Most stations are Ballston in Arlington
transit agencies (22) with joint County, Great American Plaza in San
development operated rail services; still, Diego, Union Station in Los Angeles,
nearly a third of agencies with some form Datran Center at the South Dadeland
of joint development operated buses only. Station in Miami, and Resurgens Plaza
at Atlanta’s Lenox Square Metropolitan
Tables 2.2 and 2.3 list and describe joint Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
development projects that were cited by (MARTA) Station (see Text Box 2.2).
respondents from rail and bus agencies, Los Angeles’s Metropolitan
respectively.4 Transit properties in fast- Transportation Authority (MTA)
growing areas like greater Washington presently receives nearly $3.5 million
D.C., Atlanta, Dallas, San Diego, and the annually in air-rights lease revenues.
San Francisco Bay Area have been
particularly aggressive in pursuing joint Over 25 rail joint development projects
development. Washington’s WMATA is involve the sharing of operation costs
in a league of its own when it comes to (e.g., ventilation systems, utilities, and
joint development, having engaged in parking facilities). WMATA’s Farragut
30 projects of varying sizes and scopes West Station, for example, taps into the
since its inception in the late 1970s, International Square office and retail
including Bethesda Metro Center, project’s heating and air conditioning
currently the nation’s biggest joint system. At the Bethesda Station, heat
development moneymaker, earning the generated by the transit system is being
agency some $1.6 million in annual recycled into an integrated mixed-use
lease revenue (see Photo 2.1). Two up- office-retail-housing project.
and-coming joint development projects,
at the White Flint and New Carrollton Sharing of construction costs
Stations, will be the agency’s biggest (e.g., building foundations, parking
and most remunerative joint facilities, and construction staging areas)
development ventures over the coming by transit agencies and adjoining private
decade (see Text Box 2.1). development projects has occurred over
20 times nationwide. Developer-financed
Most joint development projects use a bus bays and drop-off spaces at the
variety of tools to spread risks and Van Ness and Bethesda Stations, for
rewards. Forty of the 103 projects (39%) example, saved WMATA an estimated
listed in the two tables have pursued $2.1 million (1982 dollars) in
multiple joint development initiatives. construction costs. Besides air and
The most common type of joint ground leases, construction cost savings
development is leasing of ground space has been the only other form of joint
and air rights, constituting 50 and 30, development adopted by bus agencies to
respectively, of the sampled joint any notable extent. Still, rail agencies
development projects. Figure 2.2 shows have been far more aggressive in seeking
ground leases to be far more common out cost-sharing deals, especially east-
among rail properties. Besides the coast transit agencies like WMATA
Bethesda Station mixed-use project, and New York City’s Metropolitan
other notable U.S. examples of air-rights (continues on page 29)
20

Table 2.2. U.S. Rail Joint Development Projects, Transit-Agency Responses

Agency/Project Type(s) Primary Land Use(s)
Heavy-Light Rail Properties
WMATA (Washington D.C.)

Ballston AR, GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential
Bethesda AR, GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential
Clarendon SCF Office
Columbia Heights GL Residential-Retail
Court House GL Office-Retail
Dupont Circle GL Retail
Farragut North GL, SCF Office-Retail
Farragut West SCF, SC, SO Office-Retail
Fort Totten GL Residential-Retail
Franconia - Springfield GL Retail
Friendship Heights SCF, GL Mixed Commercial
Gallery Place SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential
Greenbelt SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential
Grosvenor GL, SC Mixed Commercial–Residential
Huntington GL, SCF Mixed Commercial–Residential
McPherson Square GL Office-Retail
Metro Center GL, SCF Office-Retail
Minnesota Avenue SC, SO Office-Retail
Prince George's Plaza GL Mixed Commercial–Residential
Rhode Island Avenue GL Residential-Retail
Shaw - Howard University GL, SO Mixed Commercial–Retail
Silver Spring GL Mixed Commercial–Residential
Takoma SC Residential-Retail
Twinbrook (East & West) GL Mixed Commercial–Residential
U Street SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential
Union Station (Connection) SCF Retail
Van Dorn GL Residential-Retail
Van Ness GL Office-Retail
Western Bus Garage GL Residential-Retail
Wheaton GL, SC Mixed Commercial–Residential
BART (San Francisco)

Fruitvale AR, GL, SO, EP Mixed Commercial–Residential
Castro Valley GL Mixed Commercial–Residential
Richmond SC, SO, EP Residential-Retail-Civic
Oakland: 12 St./Civic SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Oakland: 19th St. SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
San Francisco Embarcadero SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
San Francisco Montgomery SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
21


BART (San Francisco) (cont.)

San Francisco Powell SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
MARTA (Atlanta)
Lindbergh City Center GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Abernathy GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Medical Center GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
One Atlanta GL Office
Resurgens Plaza AR Office
DART (Dallas)
Mockingbird AR, SCF, NPC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential
Southside on Lamar NPC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential
Galatyn Park NPC, SC, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential
Plano IA, BAD, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential
City Place SCF, BAD, IA Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
MTDB (San Diego)

American Plaza AR, NPC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Imperial-12th Street NPC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Grossmont GL, SO Retail
Barrio Logan EP Residential
La Mesa Village EP Mixed Commercial–Residential
MTA (Los Angeles)

Union Station Gateway AR, SCF, BAD, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Grand Central Market AR, BAD, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Hollywood/Highland AR, GL, SC, BAD, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Pacific Court EP Mixed Commercial–Residential
TriMet (Portland)
Arbor Vista EP Residential
Collins Circle EP Mixed Commercial–Residential
Gresham Central EP Residential
Maryland Transit Administration

Cultural Center AR Civic-Entertainment
Owings Mills AR Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Old Court Metro AR Residential
Cleveland Regional Transit

Tower City GL, NPC Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Gateway Walkway AR Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
CEOGC Headstart Daycare GL, NPC Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
22


Santa Clara Valley (CA)

Sunnyvale: Moffet Park GL, NPC Office
San Jose: Olhone-Chynoweth GL, NPC Mixed Commercial–Residential
San Jose: Almaden GL, NPC Residential
Port Authority of Allegheny (PA)

Castle Shannon Station AR Mixed Commercial–Residential
Carnegie Station SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Steel Plaza Station GL Retail
Southeastern Penn. Transp. Authority

Gallery I & 11/Market East NPC Retail
Suburban Stations NPC Retail
Miami-Dade Transit
Dadeland South AR, GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Dadeland North AR, GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Regional Transp. District (Denver)

Englewood CityCenter SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Arapahoe Station EP Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
MUNI (San Francisco)

Mission/Stuart Hotel GL Hotel
Commuter Rail Properties
Metro-North Railway
Harrison GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Mt. Vernon AR Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Ossining NPC Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Port Chester SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Yonkers SC, SCF Mixed Commercial–Residential
New Jersey Transit
Morristown GL, SCF, NPC, BAD, SO Mixed Commercial–Residential
Key: AR=air rights lease; GL=ground lease; SCF=station connection fee; NPC=negotiated private
contribution; BAD=benefit-assessment district; SC=construction cost sharing; SO=operations cost sharing;
IA=incentive agreements (e.g., bonuses in exchange for improvements); EP=equity participation.
23

Table 2.3. U.S. Bus Joint Development Projects, Transit-Agency Responses

Agency/Project Type(s) Land Use(s)
Dayton Regional Transit Authority
Wright Stop Plaza SCF Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Fifth Third Field SC Sports Facility
Schuster Performing Arts Center SC Civic Facility
Dayton Riverscape SC Recreation/Entertainment Use
Dayton Aviation Heritage Park SO Recreation/Entertainment Use
Orange County Transp. Authority

Santa Ana Transit Terminal AR Office
San Mateo County Transit (CA)

Sequoia Station SC Institutional
Colman GL Residential
San Antonio VIA Metro Transit

Robert Thompson/Sunset Station GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Ellis Alley GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Lane County Transit (Eugene, OR)

Eugene Station GL Retail
Pace Suburban Bus (IL)

General Transit Center GL Institutional
Foothill Transit (CA)

Covina Transit Plaza SC, SO, EP Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Kenosha Transit (WI)

Harborpark GL Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Kitsap Transit (WA)

Bremerton Transportation Center AR Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Peoria Mass Transit Authority (IL)

Transit Center SC Daycare Facility
Rock Island MetroLINK (IL)

Centre Station GL, NPC, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office-retail-other)
Southwest Metro Transit (MN)

Southwest Station NPC Mixed Commercial–Residential
Key: AR=air rights lease; GL=ground lease; SCF=station connection fee; NPC=negotiated private
contribution; BAD=benefit-assessment district; SC=construction cost sharing; SO=operations cost sharing;
IA=incentive agreements (e.g., bonuses in exchange for improvements); EP=equity participation.
24

Photo 2.1. Bethesda Metro Center: America’s Biggest Joint

Development Moneymaker. The mixed-use project in downtown
Bethesda, Maryland, was completed in 1985 and sits directly atop
the Metrorail station, with direct connections to commercial office
space and an adjoining civic plaza.
Type of Joint
Development:
43
Ground Lease 7
19
Air-Rights Lease 11
25
Operations Cost Sharing 3
18
Construction Cost Sharing 7
19
Station-Connection Fee 1
13
Negotiated Private Contribution 2
6
Benefit-Assessment Districts 0
4 Bus Rail
Equity Partnerships 1
1
Incentive Agreements 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
No. of Transit Agencies
Figure 2.2. Distribution of Joint Development Types Among Surveyed
Transit Agencies.
25

WMATA’s Joint Development Ventures:

Still Growing After 30 Years
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) was one of the first transit
agencies in the country to leverage real-estate development above and adjacent to its rail
stations. For more than 30 years, the agency has been actively working with private
developers, lenders, and other public entities to develop over 30 property sites in and
around the nation’s capital.
WMATA’s joint development projects range from revenue-producing schemes (e.g., air-
rights leasing and station-retail connections) to cost-sharing arrangements (e.g., shared
use of heating systems and construction-cost co-venturing). Key to success was the
formation, early on, of a real-estate division within the transit agency. With financial and
institutional support provided by board members, WMATA’s real-estate office has over
time amassed an impressive portfolio of land holdings, much of it purchased on the open
market. Rather than waiting and reacting to developer proposals, WMATA’s real-estate
office aggressively seeks out mutually advantageous transit joint development
opportunities. WMATA generally executes long-term, unsubordinated ground leases with
private developers and in a few cases has made fee-simple sales.
The agency’s top-performing and most impressive joint development project, the Metro
Center in downtown Bethesda, features some 400,000 square feet of office space, a 380-
room Hyatt Hotel, and 60,000 square feet of retail space that lies above or adjacent to the
Bethesda Metrorail station. The project has spurred other nearby office, retail, and
residential development within a walkable distance, including a popular nighttime
restaurant, arts, and entertainment district. The air-rights lease at the Bethesda Station
today generates $1.6 million annually in rents, the highest earnings for any single joint
development project in the country. This sum will likely be eclipsed by the leased
payments generated by the planned office-retail-residential project at the White Flint
Station in Montgomery County.
Commercial-Retail Joint Development at Bethesda Metrorail Station
Text Box 2.1

WMATA’s Joint Development Ventures:

Still Growing After 30 Years
The White Flint project is poised to be a colossal joint development undertaking. The
34-acre site adjacent to the station in North Bethesda has been leased by LCOR, Inc.,
a Pennsylvania developer. WMATA will receive $66 million from LCOR for the 55-
year, long-term ground lease. The $625 million proposal for the site includes the
construction of 1.2 million square feet of office space, 212,000 square feet of retail
space, and 1,400 high-rise apartments. Additionally, a 1⁄4-block “tree-save” area has
been designated to allow 50 mature trees and indigenous rocks to be preserved. It is
estimated that the mixed-use development will generate over 6,500 additional daily
Metro riders. The project is slated for completion some time between 2011 and 2013.
Another mega-project is slated for the New Carrollton Station, a joint venture between
the state of Maryland, Prince George’s County, and WMATA. Plans call for the
transformation of several parcels (47 acres in total) into a 2.1-million-square-foot,
mixed-use project focused on the area’s Metrorail and Amtrak stations.
The proposal for the WMATA parcel calls for 1.17 million square feet of office space,
92,000 square feet of retail space, 30,000 square feet of restaurant space, and a 20-
screen cinema. The state of Maryland parcel will hold an additional 200,000 square
feet of office space, a 300-room hotel, 375 residential units, and a possible college or
university facility. Additionally, two major pedestrian axes will connect the
Metro/Amtrak station to the new mixed-use development.
The project’s success will depend on a close and effective working relationship
among developers, construction firms, architects, real-estate professionals, and
planners, in addition to public agencies. The anticipated benefits of the New
Carrollton Station development include a boost in Metro ridership, increased tax
revenues for the state and county, and the creation of new jobs in the area.
The developments at New Carrollton and White Flint are evidence of WMATA’s
continued commitment to public transit and the communities that it serves.
Text Box 2.1 (Continued)

Large-Scale Air-Rights Joint Development Projects at U.S. Transit Stations.

The top left photo shows Resurgens Plaza, a 400,000-square-foot office building
constructed above MARTA’s north line tracks adjacent to the Lenox Station north
concourse. When completed in 1989, the developer agreed to pay MARTA an annual
rent of $120,000, with increases tied to the Consumer Price Index. In 2001, it added
$177,000 to MARTA’s coffers. The top right photo shows the more than 4 million
square feet of mixed-use space above the Ballston Metrorail subway station on what,
prior to the late 1980s, was a major parking lot and bus staging area at the Orange Line
terminus. Once freed from its use as an intermodal staging zone, the station area quickly
emerged as the centerpiece of the Ballston redevelopment campaign. The bottom left
photo shows a San Diego Trolley train entering the ground level of the 34-story Great
American Plaza Tower, a 272-room hotel, restaurant, museum, and retail project at the
Broadway and Kettner Transfer Station. The transit arcade that covers the Trolley
station resulted from a partnership of the transit agency, the city redevelopment office
and a private developer. The developer donated the land and built connecting
passageways, and the regional transit operators contributed $1.2 million toward station
construction. The bottom right photo is the Datran Center office towers, above and
adjacent to the South Dadeland Station. Six acres of land were donated to build the
station in return for a 991⁄2- year air-rights lease with a guaranteed annual income of
$300,000 going to the Miami-Dade Transit Authority.
Text Box 2.2

Transportation Authority. In New York been applied less frequently. Because of

City’s case, cost-shedding as opposed to their greater institutional capacities and
cost-sharing is perhaps a more planning resources, rail agencies are
appropriate description; regardless, the more likely to negotiate monetary
presence of a density bonus provision contributions with private developers
makes this program potentially lucrative than are bus agencies. Santa Clara
in the minds of many developers.5 Since Valley Transit Authority (VTA), for
1982, New York City has required example, negotiated with housing
development sites within the Midtown developers to sell land used for parking
Zoning District and adjacent to a subway for residential development, taking
stair entrance to relocate the subway stair advantage of FTA’s new joint
within the development lot as a development rulings that allow the
precondition to building approval. agencies to keep the proceeds as long as
Making a substantial pedestrian the development is supportive of transit
passageway enhancement and major in its design and layout. Benefit-
improvements to an adjacent subway assessment financing has been used by
station can earn a developer up to a 20% the Los Angeles MTA to co-finance
density bonus, a potential windfall in ancillary improvements around Red Line
midtown Manhattan’s pricey commercial subway stations. Benefit assessments
real-estate market (see Text Box 2.3).6 have also been used to pay for bus malls
in downtown Minneapolis, Denver, and
Station connection fees, another Portland. Minneapolis’s Nicollet
common form of joint development, Mall/busway was the first application
likewise tend to fall within the province of benefit-assessment financing in the
of rail agencies. Also referred to in the transit field. Property owners paid 75%
literature as station interface fees, they of the cost of financing the $3.8 million
are especially popular with retail (1968 currency) bus-mall project
developers since they can deliver transit in downtown Minneapolis in the
riders (and potential shoppers) to the late 1960s.
ground floors of connecting buildings
(see Text Box 2.4). WMATA is also a Most transit joint development projects
national leader in this arena. In the case in the United States are commercial in
of the Friendship Heights Station, a nature. Figure 2.3 shows that rail and
major retailer (Woodward and Lothrop) bus agencies have pursued different joint
paid the agency a one-time fee of development land uses. Rail properties
$300,000 (1982 currency) for the right to tended to focus on large-scale mixed-use
connect to the station rotunda and also projects, most commonly commercial-
paid for the design and construction of office and retail developments. Mixed
the tunnel. This was followed by two residential and retail developments have
other retail developers who paid tie-in also constituted a large share of rail joint
fees of $737,000 and $775,000, development projects. In contrast, the
respectively, plus annual rents, for their joint development projects of bus
own connections to Friendship Heights. operators were more likely to be single
or specialized uses like sports facilities,
Among the surveyed transit agencies, entertainment centers, or daycare
other forms of joint development have facilities.
29

New York’s Density Bonus Program
A good example of cost-sharing as a “win-win” proposition is New York City’s Density

Bonus Program. Introduced in the 1980s, the program entitles the city’s planning
department to grant FAR bonuses of up to 20% to new commercial developments in
return for improvements made to subway stations and their entrances. This program not
only offloads rehabilitation costs to the private sector but also shifts development to
“ground zero” (i.e., directly above subway portals). Given Manhattan’s lofty real-estate
prices, the prospect of being able to add several more floors to a mid- or high-rise
building has made the program an attractive proposition to the development community.
New York’s subway has long suffered from being perceived as an aging, unkempt
underground facility. Historically, subway entrances have not been terribly attractive,
sometimes appearing like an oversize sewer cap in the middle of a sidewalk. The density
bonus program has sought to provide more “humane” and “civic” connections among
the streetscape, the public realm, and the underground transit facility. To date, the majority
of improvements have gone toward pedestrian circulation (e.g., passageway upgrades)
although monies have also been used to remove barriers to accessibility for those with
disabilities, enhance air circulation and natural lighting, and add beautification/
landscaping. The cost of the typical station-entrance improvement is around $10
million, monies that the cash-strapped New York Metropolitan Transit Authority would
otherwise have to bear. Among the most recent examples of developers receiving
density bonuses in return for multi-million dollar subway enhancements are midtown
Manhattan (8th Ave. & W. 57th St., Lexington Ave & E. 53rd St., 3rd Ave. & E. 53rd
St, 8th Ave. & W. 50th St) and Queens (Long Island City).
Upgraded Ground-Floor Subway Entrance and the Density-Bonused Worldwide Plaza

Above It, 8th Ave. & W. 50th St., Manhattan
Text Box 2.3

New York’s Density Bonus Program
Enhanced Subway Entrance on 42nd St. Civic Plaza and Glass-Shielded Subway
in Newly Refurbished Time Square Entrance at Lexington Ave. & E. 53rd St.
Spacious, Airy Subway Entrance on Property of the Density-Bonused

Office Tower at 3rd Ave. & E. 53rd St., Manhattan
31

Station Connections. Station interfaces or connections are one of the least expensive
and potentially lucrative forms of joint development. Typically, a retailer or developer
pays for the costs of a pedestrian tunnel that connects a concourse to the main level of
an adjoining or nearby department store. It is a “win-win” proposition in that the transit
agency benefits from being near so many shoppers (in the form of potential riders),
and the retailer benefits from having transit riders walking through the ground-floor
shops (and possibly purchasing an item or two). WMATA has been particularly
ambitious in negotiating station-connection fees with retail developers at the busiest
subway stations in the District of Columbia.
Text Box 2.4
Land Use:
36
Mixed Commercial 7
Mixed Commercial–Residential 24
1
18
Mixed Residential–Retail 0
6
Retail 1
4
Offices 1 Bus Rail
4
Residential 1
Civic/Entertainment Center 1
1
0
Recreation Facility 2
0
Sports Facility 1
0
Daycare Facility 1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
No. of Transit Agencies
Figure 2.3. Distribution of Land Uses of Joint Development Projects Among
Surveyed Transit Agencies.

While joint development is pursued proposals (RFP) for joint development of

mainly by large transit properties, a parking lot at the 7800 South Station
instances were also found among smaller and is assessing the market potential of
agencies. The Rock Island County converting land around the 7200 South
Metropolitan Mass Transit District and 10000 South Stations to mixed-use
(MetroLINK) in Illinois, for instance, has development. In San Juan, the Puerto
jointly developed a bus transfer center Rico Department of Transportation and
and mixed-use commercial center with a Public Works has issued RFPs for joint
private developer. The Centre Station in development projects around six Tren
John Deere Commons contains offices, a Urbano elevated train stations: Sagrado
convention center, a hotel, a parking Corazon, Hato Rey, Roosevelt,
structure, and various pedestrian Domenech, San Francisco, and Martinez
amenities (Photo 2.2).7 The joint Nadal. Miami-Dade Transit has two
development projects of many smaller notable joint development projects to its
bus-only properties are often at major credit, at North and South Dadeland
terminal facilities (e.g., Santa Ana Transit (which currently yield $800,000 in
Terminal, Bremerton Transportation annual lease revenues), and is actively
Center, and Corpus Christi’s mixed-use seeking to expand this amount
transit center (Photo 2.3). considerably. The agency is currently
seeking to enter into deals with private
Some transit agencies have yet to enter interests to develop 11 agency-owned
into formal joint development properties. Most impressive is the
agreements but are actively planning to Coconut Grove Metrorail station for
do so. Utah Transit Authority, for which the transit agency entered into a
example, recently put out a request for lease agreement with a private developer
Photo 2.2. MetroLINK’s Centre Station at the John Deere Commons. The
redevelopment project along the riverfront in downtown Moline, Illinois, is
home to a Radisson Hotel, several restaurants, a pavilion, and the MARK, a
12,000-seat civic arena. The Centre Station intermodal facility, shown in the
photo on the right, consists of a 12-bay bus staging area arranged in a sawtooth
pattern at the grade level with an elevated bus transfer platform. The 4,000-
square-foot structure contains office space and a multi-purpose retail lobby.
Deere & Company participated in the financing of this $8.4-million project.
33

Photo 2.3. Corpus Christi’s Staples Street Bus Transfer Facility. Serving 14 bus
routes and some 5,000 daily transit users, the transfer facility, built in a Spanish-style
motif, features on-site retail offerings and involved public-private equity participation.
The transfer center has become a veritable town square, featuring a weekly farmers
market, food concessions, and 1,500 tiles hand painted by local residents and students.
By all accounts, it has given bus transit a positive image in Corpus Christi. The
transfer center was the recipient of the 1995 Presidential Design Achievement Award.
to build a 19-story mixed-use retail and of enticing private capital to the

residential project, a 19-story office neighborhood, no proposals were
building, and a community supermarket received. In 2000, an unsolicited
(see Photo 2.4). Miami-Dade Transit also proposal was received from Saint Agnes
has high hopes for the Overtown/Arena Rainbow Village Development
Metrorail station area that to date has Corporation, Inc., a not-for-profit
seen few land-use changes. When an community development corporation,
RFP was issued in the 1990s in hopes calling for a mixed-use office, retail, and
Photo 2.4. Planned Redevelopment for Miami-

Dade Transit’s Coconut Grove Metrorail
Station.
34

civic-use project that could yield more Vermont/Western district in Los

than $14 million in rental payments over Angeles’s Hollywood area. Further, more
the initial 30-year lease. (See Chapter 13 than 100 joint development projects today
for further discussion of joint exist on, above, or adjacent to U.S.
development in greater Miami.) transit-agency property. The most
common joint development arrangements
Two other agencies currently building are ground leases and operations cost-
rail systems, Houston Metro and Triangle sharing. Most often, joint development
Transit Authority, are actively seeking occurs at rail stations surrounded by a
out joint development opportunities. As mix of office, commercial, and
part of the Main Street light-rail corridor institutional land uses. However,
program, Houston Metro is soliciting the examples of public-private joint-
co-participation of private interests in venturing can be found among bus-only
constructing facilities and building real- systems as well, normally in the form of
estate projects on agency properties. joint intermodal transfer and commercial-
To entice private investment along the retail space at central-city bus terminals.
16-station DMU rail system between
Durham and Raleigh, the Triangle
Notes
Transit Authority has adopted WMATA’s
approach to joint development, evaluating 1 Department of Community Planning,
the development potential of agency- Housing and Development, Arlington
owned land on an ongoing basis and County, Development in the Metro Corridors
soliciting private-sector participation (Arlington County, Virginia, 2002).
through an RFP process. 2 City of Los Angeles, Vermont/Western
Transit Oriented District Specific Plan,
Summary Ordinance No. 173,749 (March 2001).
3 R. Cervero, P. Hall, and J. Landis, Transit
A rich mix of TOD is today found across Joint Development in the United States,
the United States, and all indications are Monograph 42 (Berkeley: National Transit
that TOD numbers and types will grow Access Center, Institute of Urban and
Regional Development, University of
in years to come. The practice of TOD in
California, 1992).
contemporary America is “alive and
4
well,” not only in big rail cities but also This is not an exhaustive list of current transit
joint development projects in the United
increasingly in places where only bus
States but rather a representative coverage of
services are offered—places not often recent-day initiatives. Most of the major
associated with strong linkages between transit joint development deals known to
transit and urbanism. have occurred over the past two decades are
thought to be included in the list. Many
More than 100 TOD projects currently smaller transit joint development deals from
earlier times, involving fairly modest
exist in the United States. They are found
monetary exchanges, are known to exist and
overwhelmingly in and around heavy-, are documented in the literature. For a fairly
light-, and commuter-rail stations. While extensive coverage of transit joint
TOD projects are typically nodal in form, development projects up to 1990, see
TOD corridors have or are beginning to R. Cervero et al., 1992, op. cit.
take shape, such as the Rosslyn-Ballston 5 New York City’s experiences are not listed in
axis in Arlington County and the Table 2.2 because it is not joint development
35

in a true sense of public and private interests further discussions on New York City’s
voluntarily pursuing a program as a “win- density bonus program, see R. Sandler,
win” proposition. New York City’s program, “Private Development/Public Transit: Using
in contrast, is mandatory, stipulated in the Transit’s Zoning Tools,” New York Affairs,
zoning and permitting codes of special Vol. 7, No. 3 (1982): 114–120.
purpose districts in Midtown Manhattan, 7 See http://www.gcmetrolink.com/services/
Union Square, Lower Manhattan, and
centrestation.php.
Long Island City Mixed Use District.
6 Over the past decade, the program was
expanded to encompass three other areas: Photo Credit
Union Square, Lower Manhattan, and
Long Island City Mixed Use District. For Photo 2.3: Project for Public Spaces
36

PART 2
THE POLICY ENVIRONMENT
In the United States, TOD takes form in a complex, sometimes charged policy
environment. While market pressures have a strong imprint on TOD, public policy
initiatives can also exert considerable influence. Part 2 probes TOD’s policy environment
in its many shapes and forms. Chapter 3 reviews the institutional setting of TOD,
focusing on the roles of transit agencies, local and regional governments, state agencies,
and the federal government. In-house policies, legislation, regulations, interagency
collaborations, and other initiatives introduced by public-sector actors are examined.
Chapter 4 looks at TOD implementation, beginning with the process of visioning and
planning and moving on to discuss how various tools, like zoning and fiscal measures, are
being used to leverage TOD. Chapter 5 shifts to a private-sector perspective, relying on
interviews of developers and lenders involved with TOD projects. The chapter examines
the market for TOD, factors that weigh in on the decision to build around transit stations,
and approaches to private financing of projects. Chapter 6 ends Part 2 with a discussion
of impediments to TOD implementation, particularly in the minds of builders and
developers, and what might be done to overcome them.

Chapter 3
The TOD Institutional Landscape in the United States
Institutional Setting are the developers, building associations,

construction firms, and lending
Given the many vested interests in TOD institutions that end up designing,
and joint development outcomes, not financing, and building much of what
surprisingly a complex and sometimes happens on land parcels in and around
fractured institutional environment— transit stops. Not to be forgotten are the
involving multiple jurisdictions, each with many nongovernmental organizations,
its own agendas, boards, staffs, budgets, or NGOs, that have an active voice in
and constituents—has evolved. Some TOD outcomes as well, including
large transit properties have set up neighborhood associations, bicycle
in-house real-estate departments to coalitions, and sustainable transportation
negotiate joint development deals and advocacy groups.
assigned planners to TOD oversight
duties. Many rail-served municipalities Taken together, these vested interests
have enacted zoning ordinances that allow form an institutional environment that
for high-density, multi-use development more closely resembles a “marble cake”
in neighborhoods surrounding stations. hierarchical model of governance—with
In quite a few inner-city neighborhoods, interlocking agreements, checks and
redevelopment agencies have seized on balances, and subtle chains of
opportunities to assemble land using command—than the “wedding cake”
eminent domain powers to build model taught in high school civics
affordable housing near rail stops. courses. This has unavoidably created
Moreover, some MPOs, such as those in roadblocks and impediments to TOD
the Portland (OR), San Diego, and Dallas- implementation, but it has also served to
Fort Worth regions, have embraced TOD democratize and infuse a certain degree
as part of their regional smart-growth of accountability and fairness into the
strategies, using pass-through federal process. This chapter draws upon
transportation dollars to promote and stakeholder surveys, interviews, and other
leverage transit-supportive development background information to characterize
in rail-served communities. Even state the administrative, budgetary,
DOTs have gotten into the picture, using collaborative, and participatory
carrots to entice local governments to dimensions of contemporary TOD
target new growth along transit corridors. practice in the United States.
Two states—California and New Jersey—
have undertaken “transit village” Transit-Agency Organizational Context
initiatives for this very purpose.
Transit agencies are vital to TOD since,
These examples represent only the after all, they control where, when, and
public side of things. On the private side even if rail and bus services are
39

delivered. Further, when it comes to (See Appendix A for the instrument used
joint development, transit properties in surveying transit professionals.)
occupy the front line of implementation,
deciding if and when agency-owned land Transit Agencies and Land-Use Affairs
and air rights are to be leased or sold.
For TOD to take form, public entities
The role of transit agencies in promoting must plan for, manage, and regulate land
TOD and joint development raises uses. This often means promoting mixed
fundamental questions regarding uses through inclusionary and overlay
legitimacy and mission. Not all transit zoning and increasing permissible
board members subscribe to the view densities by granting FAR bonuses.
that land development lies within the Normally, land-use controls and
purview of a transit agency’s portfolio concessions are the prerogatives of local
of tasks, preferring to define transit’s governments. However, as public
mission more narrowly. Moreover, entities, transit authorities not only
transit agencies are sometimes so control the use of agency-owned property
consumed by pressing everyday matters, but also are in a position to influence
such as securing full-funding agreements land-use decisions on adjacent and
for investments and defusing labor neighboring parcels through cooperative
tensions, that joint development falls arrangements with local governments
way down the list of priorities. and negotiations with private landholders
Moreover, some agencies have adopted as part of joint development deals.
firm parking replacement policies, all but
precluding development opportunities in The majority of transit agencies
instances where land prices are high responding to the survey openly
enough to warrant structured parking. acknowledged that land use is first and
foremost a local-government prerogative,
Transit agencies are in a position to with freely elected city council members
assume many roles in the TOD and other local elected officials
implementation process—brokers, shouldering the lead responsibility (see
facilitators, educators, funders, active Figure 3.1). However, nearly one out of
development partners, and advocates. five indicated that their transit agency
Sometimes these roles are co-dependent shares responsibilities with other entities,
(e.g., equity participation requires a including local governments, in land-use
certain degree of advocacy and affairs. Moreover, in roughly one out of
mediation), and sometimes they are in ten cases, the MPO was identified as
conflict (e.g., advocacy can compromise taking the lead on land-use issues related
the ability of a transit agency to act as to TOD, generally in the form of setting
an impartial mediator). policies and promoting a pro-transit
political climate.
This section discusses the present-day
organizational setting and context of Three of the responding rail agencies—
TOD and joint development from a BART, NJ TRANSIT, and Triangle
transit-agency perspective. This is done Transit Authority (in North Carolina)—
largely from the responses of the provide funds for strategic station-area
90 surveyed U.S. transit properties. planning and for leveraging land-use
40

How Transit Agency Addresses Land Use:
67.6%
Local Government Leads 54.7%
17.4%
Shares Responsibility 18.9%
9.2%
MPO Leads 11.3%
2.0%
Conducts Studies with Others 7.5%
8.7%
Uses Funds to Leverage 1.9%
Rail Agency
0.0%
Not Concerned With Bus Agency
5.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percent of Transit Agencies
Figure 3.1. How Transit Agency Addresses Land Use, Rail versus Bus
Agencies, National Survey Results, 2002.
decisions by local jurisdictions. In the mission of a transit agency, taking

contrast, several of the smaller bus the next step of actively promoting TOD
companies responding to the survey and joint development can be a big leap.
indicated that “land use is not something Fifteen of 32 (46.9%) rail transit
that we are concerned with.” More agencies surveyed indicated that they
telling is the fact that respondents from have “formal programs” designed to
95% of bus agencies and all rail agencies encourage TOD. Among bus operators,
indicated that land use is something their there was far less in-house support—just
transit agency is and will continue to be 5 of 58 agencies surveyed (8.6%). The
concerned about. amount of staff resources devoted to
TOD activities (as opposed to land-use
While relatively few of the surveyed matters more generally) varied
transit properties have staff who focus considerably. Only two of 58 bus
on TOD, full time or part time, half (45 agencies (3.4%) devoted full-time staff
of 90) stated they have staff or to TOD. Among rail agencies, 42% did.1
consultants assigned to work on land-use
matters on an as-needed basis. The most Among transit agencies without staff
frequent level of involvement on land- assigned to TOD tasks, more than three-
use affairs was 10% of a full-time quarters indicated that they encouraged
equivalent (FTE) staff position. TOD planning and implementation in
other ways. In most instances, this
In-House Support for TOD involved agency staff routinely reviewing
development proposals early in the
Even though being involved in land-use process to ensure that they were
affairs is widely considered to be within supportive of transit—meaning
41

everything from having sufficient respondents from smaller transit agencies

densities to support stepped-up transit indicated that they work with city
services to designing streets that can planning departments and neighborhood
accommodate the turning radii of groups on an ongoing basis as part of both
standard coaches. A number of agencies short- and long-range transit planning.
also said they promote TOD through the
preparation and distribution of transit- Table 3.1 outlines the nature of in-house
supportive design guidelines. Most TOD programs among five responding
Table 3.1. Activities of Transit Agency TOD Programs, Including Staff Time Allocations
Transit Agency Activity % of
Time
Utah Transit Authority Preparing RFPs for agency properties 33%
Planning future land uses for agency properties 33%
Public outreach and meetings 6%
Developing transit pass program 10%
Ongoing administration 18%
Miami-Dade Transit Preparing RFPs for joint development projects 20%

Negotiations of joint development projects 20%
Zoning and regulatory reviews 20%
Administration of leased properties 40%
Maryland Transit Funding of TOD projects 40%

Administration Administering local conservation grants 35%
Administering TOD incentive grants 11%
Planning pedestrian/cycling improvements 10%
Ongoing planning and administration 4%
Denver Regional Implementing joint development projects 60%

Transit District Public outreach, education, and training 20%
System integration of TOD 20%
San Diego Reviewing development projects and proposals 40%

Metropolitan Transit Interjurisdictional outreach and coordination 25%
Development Board Preparing and updating development guidelines 10%
Pursuing funding opportunities and grants 10%
Ongoing planning and administration 15%
42

transit agencies, along with staff time agencies involves technical assistance on
commitments to various tasks. Besides TOD planning matters.
advancing joint development projects, the
most common activity is public outreach The most common approach to general-
and coordination, consuming 6 to 25% of public outreach on TOD matters among
TOD staff time. Reviewing development surveyed transit agencies has been
proposals typically takes a quarter to one- design charrettes, that is, neighborhood
half of a TOD staff member’s time. The meetings where residents and business-
Maryland Transit Administration, owners participate in the design of a
responsible for transit in metropolitan master plan for a station area under the
Baltimore and other urbanized parts of assistance of trained professionals (see
Maryland, has assigned its staff to a range Figure 3.2 and Text Box 3.1). Charrettes
of TOD activities including planning and need not be expensive undertakings
designing pedestrian/bicycle/bus-stop involving highly paid designers and
access improvements and administering architects. Charrettes can be facilitated
development grants. The agency’s strong community meetings that forge a
commitment to TOD is revealed by its consensus on future land-use directions.
generous budget allocations, far more than Many surveyed rail agencies have also
any transit agency surveyed. During the turned to conferences and workshops on
three fiscal years spanning 2000–2003, the TOD to reach both the general public
Maryland Transit Administration invested and professionals. Public hearings,
$500,000 to $600,000 annually in TOD media coverage (e.g., television shows),
administration and planning, compared and web sites have also been used to
with $7 million to $13 million annually market TOD, albeit less frequently than
for TOD construction and charrettes or conferences. The Maryland
implementation.2 Transit Administration, for example, has
its own local access cable show that has
Outreach and Education featured stories on the Symphony Center
and Owings Mills TOD projects.
Public outreach and education have
constituted the lion’s share of TOD Outreach programs generally get passing
activities among U.S. transit agencies. grades from transit-agency respondents.
Around one-quarter of the surveyed Figure 3.3 shows that around 40% of
transit agencies reported that they respondents felt outreach was significant
conducted such activities, targeted in helping to initiate projects.3 Outreach
normally at the general public. In some generally received the lowest marks for
cases, efforts are aimed at reaching local effectiveness at helping to resolve
government staff, elected officials, conflicts and temper neighborhood
developers, and lenders. The Utah opposition to TOD projects.
Transit Authority, Dallas Area Rapid
Transit, and SouthWest Metro Transit Other Organizational and
in Minnesota, for example, concentrate Legislative Contexts
on reaching out to the development
community. For NJ TRANSIT, the Other spheres of government and
primary aim is to reach local elected stakeholder interests have formed their
officials. Most outreach by transit own institutional forums for advancing
43

Initiative Taken:
Design Charrette 81.1%

36.4%
Conference for General Public 74.4%

26.1%
Conference for Professionals 73.3%

36.4%
66.7%
Public Hearing on TOD 25.6%
47.6%
Media Coverage 14.0%
42.9%
Internet Web Site 32.5%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Bus Agency Rail Agency
Figure 3.2. Outreach Initiatives Taken in Transit Agencies’ Service Areas

Over Last 2 Years Involving TOD.
Effectiveness of Outreach at:
Increasing Public 22.2%

66.7%
Awareness 11.1%
Increasing Private- 27.8%

55.6%
Sector Awareness 16.6%
Engaging Public 17.7%

70.6%
Dialogue 11.8%
11.1%
Resolving Conflicts 61.1%
27.8%
Significant
Helping to Initiate 39.9%
39.9% Moderate
Projects 22.2% Minimal
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percent Rating
Figure 3.3. Rating of Effectiveness of TOD Outreach Efforts by Transit-Agency
Respondents.
44

Pleasant Hill’s Second-Generation Transit Village Charrette

BART’s Pleasant Hill Station is one of America’s most prominent suburban TODs,
although some would call it more TAD than TOD. It currently boasts some 2,400
housing units and several million square feet of office and commercial floor space
nearby, but it suffers from a poor-quality walking environment and the absence of a
human-scale “feel.” Plans to add more retail and office space to the area unleashed a
“not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) backlash, prompting local officials (in concert with
BART, residents, business leaders, activist groups, and area employees) to organize a
community-based design charrette aimed at building broad-based local support for
transforming the 18-acre site from a TAD to a TOD. Portland-based Lennertz Coyle and
Associates was retained to lead the charrette process. More than 500 people participated
in the 6-day “give-and-take” event in the spring of 2001. Participants discussed dozens
of ideas before agreeing on a plan that calls for the strategic siting and infill of mid-rise
housing, community-oriented retail space, offices, and assorted public amenities.
Emphasis was given to providing attractive, accessible, and automobile-restricted spaces
for pedestrians and cyclists. Also, the process led to the revamping of local
implementation tools, mainly in the form of devising building and site-design codes
based on New Urbanism principles. How to replace the 1,294 park-and-ride spaces that
will be lost to the development remains a bone of contention in seeing the plan through
to implementation. For further information, see Pleasant Hill BART Station Design
Charrette Outcome at http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/charrette/outcome/
outcome.htm.
The citizen-driven charrette process led to a community plan that calls for the
transformation from the present-day TAD (top left) to a second-generation, master-
planned TOD with the ambience of Tuscan village (top right). With the aim of creating a
human-scale, pedestrian-friendly environment, the charrette process relied on streetscale
computer-generated visualizations to depict how current intersections (bottom left) might
be transformed (bottom right).
Text Box 3.1

TOD. TOD’s potential to spur economic San Francisco Bay Area (Metropolitan
growth and relieve pressure to expand Transportation Commission), Seattle
roads can create a powerful incentive for (Puget Sound Regional Council), and
local governments to become proactive. Dallas-Fort Worth (North Central Texas
As stressed earlier, TOD often relies Council of Governments). Big MPOs
upon “precursors” that only municipal mostly provide technical assistance
governments can introduce, like germane to TOD (e.g., planning
permissive zoning ordinances or information and demand forecasts); a few
streamlining entitlements. In distressed provide grant assistance and occasionally
inner-city locations, responsibilities broker cost-sharing arrangements among
often lie with redevelopment entities. local governments (e.g., for funding
Higher levels of government, from strategic planning studies). Portland
regional entities to federal agencies, Metro budgeted $1.7 million specifically
are also increasingly vital to TOD for TOD planning in fiscal year
implementation if for no other reason 2002–2003, the largest amount among
than they often control funding and the MPOs nationwide. The more typical
legislative powers vested in transit amount spent by MPOs was around
agencies and local governments. $100,000 per year, funded mainly using
federal pass-through planning grants.4
Sub-State Institutional Roles
State Roles and Involvement
Thirty percent of the surveyed local
governments (7 of 23) have “formal More and more state DOTs are turning
programs” to encourage TOD in their their attention to TOD because sprawl,
jurisdictions. This has typically involved left unchecked, poses a serious threat to
creating station-area development plans, scarce state resources—not only prime
matched by zoning reforms (e.g., overlay farmland, natural habitats, and open
zones and interim-use restrictions) and space but also thinly stretched state
building code revisions, topics addressed budgets. Most states with metropolitan
in the next chapter. A few of the and/or intercity passenger rail services
surveyed local entities (the cities of Los encourage TOD indirectly through
Angeles, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and funding grants, technical assistance on
Baltimore) have personnel who work planning, and participation on various
full time on TOD affairs. Most local interagency coordinating committees (see
municipalities as well as redevelopment Text Box 3.2). A few states have adopted
agencies support TOD through other policies that explicitly call for steering
means, such as cooperating and future statewide growth to transit
coordinating with other agencies. corridors. For example, in 2001, the state
of Georgia approved a smart-growth
At the MPO level, the formal promotion initiative through the GRTA and the
of TOD is found mostly in large, rail- Governor’s Development Council that
served regions, such as greater embraces TOD as a sprawl-curbing tool.
Philadelphia (the Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission), Oregon’s recent Public Transportation
San Diego (San Diego Association of Plan, an outgrowth of several decades of
Governments), Portland (Metro), statewide land-use planning, encourages
46

State Governments and TOD
In a recent report, The Role of State Government in Transit-Oriented Development,

the Pennsylvania Environmental Council identified nine possible roles for state
governments on the basis of a review of experiences in 11 states that have been the
most active in pursuing smart growth:
■ Promote regional coordination;

■ Forge collaborative working relationships among state entities such as
transportation, transit, highways, community development, and housing;
■ Develop a set of goals to promote tax savings and environmental well-being
through new community design strategies such as TOD;
■ Implement programs and funding initiatives (often using federal dollars) that
achieve these goals;
■ Provide financial incentives;
■ Remove regulatory and statutory barriers to land use;
■ Promote public-private partnerships;
■ Provide planning, policy research, technical assistance, and information
support and help local governments employ innovative redevelopment
strategies; and
■ Establish pilot programs to test and show by example how new modes of
thinking can work.
Source: L. Hersh, The Role of State Government in Transit-Oriented Development (Philadelphia:

Pennsylvania Environmental Council, December 2001).
Text Box 3.2
public transportation projects that funding of TOD planning, administration,

support compact or infill development or and capital improvements throughout the
mixed-use projects.5 state (discussed in the previous section).
No other states in the country are thought
To date, few state laws or regulations to have passed similar legislation. Brief
have been enacted that pertain specifically descriptions of the activities in California,
to TOD. Four states have passed New Jersey, and Oregon follow.
legislation or have provided funding
through departmental agencies • California: In 1994, California’s
specifically aimed at promoting TOD: legislature passed Assembly Bill
California’s Transit Villages Planning 3152, which promotes the adoption
Act of 1994; Oregon’s Senate Bill 763 of transit village plans. The Act
Vertical Housing Zone Bill; New Jersey’s says that no public works projects,
Transit Village Initiative; and the tentative subdivision maps, or parcel
Maryland Transit Administration’s maps may be approved, or zoning
47

ordinances adopted or amended, areas and transit-oriented areas are

within an area covered by a transit defined using definitions already in
village plan unless the map, project, Oregon Revised Statutes. The most
or ordinance is consistent with the salient feature of the bill is that it
adopted plan. It also automatically authorizes tax abatement as an
exempts conforming projects in a inducement to infill and moderate- to
transit village district from traffic high-density development, especially
impact assessments under the state’s near transit stations. In this sense,
Congestion Management Act. The Oregon’s bill has more “teeth” and
lack of funds directly committed to “purse-string punch” than initiatives
TOD, however, is widely thought to in California and New Jersey.
have limited the Act’s effectiveness.6
Another noteworthy California Federal Roles and Involvement
requirement says that all new state
office structures built within the The primary role of the federal
service district of the Sacramento government in encouraging the growth of
Regional Transit District lie within TOD is one of funding. About 18% of all
1
⁄2 mile of a rail stop. funding from the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21),
• New Jersey: The NJ TRANSIT roughly $36 billion between 1997 and
Village Initiative, established by the 2003, was allocated to transit, mostly
New Jersey Department of going for capital improvements. The
Transportation (NJDOT) with federal government also encourages
numerous state agencies, assists collaboration between government
communities in leveraging private agencies as well as between the public
redevelopment. A collaboration of and private sectors. An important
state agencies provides technical program in this regard has been the
assistance and resources to help Transportation and Community and
communities implement the Systems Preservation Pilot Program
initiative. Additionally, communities (TCSP) of the Federal Highway
designated as “transit villages” get Administration. TCSP has provided
priority access to NJDOT’s Local grants to state, local, and regional
Aid for Centers Program, the agencies that partner with community
Transportation Enhancements groups, nonprofit organizations, or
Program, and Bicycle and Pedestrian private investors to enhance
projects. (See Chapter 11 for further transportation and land-use connections.
discussions of this initiative.) NJ TRANSIT, for example, was recently
awarded over $800,000 in TCSP grants
• Oregon: Senate Bill 763, passed by to assist 11 municipalities in developing
Oregon’s legislature in 2001, strategies to enhance connections
authorizes the creation of a “Vertical between station areas and surrounding
Housing Zone” within local communities and to leverage private
jurisdictions. The bill applies to capital to redevelop station areas.
light-rail station areas, transit-
oriented areas, and core areas of Other important national policies and
urban centers. Both light-rail station programs that have promoted TOD and
48

joint development include the the past.8 Some agencies have given
following: priority to route alignments and
station locations in jurisdictions that
• New Joint Development Policy: have adopted transit-supportive land-
FTA’s 1997 reinterpretation of the use plans, and many are seeking
Federal Common Grant Rule, among zoning and parking-code changes that
other things, permits transit agencies are “transit friendly.” The national
to sell land holdings financed by survey of 90 transit properties
federal grants without having to confirmed these findings. Figure 3.4
return proceeds as long as funds are reveals that more than 40% of
used to “help shape the community respondents from transit agencies felt
that is being served by the transit that the New Starts process “raised
system.” Transit properties in the profile of the transit/land-use
Washington D.C., Atlanta, Portland, connection.” Respondents from
Southern California, and the San several rail-served agencies,
Francisco Bay Area have been including Portland’s TriMet and San
particularly aggressive in exploiting Francisco’s BART, indicated the new
this new ruling. For the BellSouth criteria “led directly to changes in
multi-tower complex, currently taking locally adopted land-use policies and
form at MARTA’s Lindbergh Station plans for transit corridors.”9
in the fashionable Buckhead district
of Atlanta, MARTA took advantage • Livable Communities: Launched by
of the ruling to expedite the FTA in 1994, this program has
construction of some 5 million square sought to empower inner-city
feet of mixed-use development on a neighborhoods by making them
former surface parking lot. (See eligible for special grants and tax
Text Box 3.3.) credits. Assistance has gone to siting
child-care centers and police
• New Starts Criteria: This policy substations near transit stations and
mandates that applicants for federal improving access to and lighting
New Starts funds carefully address conditions around rail stops in
land-use matters as part of their Cleveland, St. Louis, Baltimore,
capital investments.7 Key to Philadelphia, and Oakland.
successful applications for highly
competitive New Starts funding are • Other Federal Initiatives: Included
“transit-supportive existing land- here are Location Efficient Mortgage
use policies and future patterns,” (LEM) programs, jointly sponsored
“supportive zoning regulations near by Fannie Mae and private banks,
transit stations,” “tools to implement that make it easier to purchase a
land-use policies,” and “the home near transit stations (under the
performance of land-use policies.” premise that lower transportation
Several recent studies have costs free up earnings for housing
concluded that this policy has spurred consumption); the Environmental
U.S. transit properties to take land- Protection Agency’s Brownfields
use matters and transit-supportive Initiative for cleanup of former
planning far more seriously than in industrial sites (particularly
49

From Parking Lot to Mini-City: Atlanta’s Lindbergh Station
Atlanta’s Lindbergh Station is in the midst of transforming into a “mini-city,” thanks in no

small part to FTA’s joint development policy ruling that enables land purchased using federal
funds, including parking lots, to be leased to the private sector as long as the resulting
development is transit supportive. Using a competitive-bid process, the Metropolitan Atlanta
Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) selected a master developer, Carter and Associates, in 1997
to move full-speed ahead with a large-scale mixed-use project. Some 1.3 million square feet of
office space, retail shops, and a hotel, plus residential condominiums, are slated for an 11-acre
park-and-ride lot. A pedestrian-friendly Main Street, featuring retail shops and restaurants, will
bridge over the rail station into a multifamily residential district. One of Atlanta’s largest
companies, BellSouth, will be the project’s anchor tenant. BellSouth’s move to the Lindbergh
site reflects a corporate decision to relocate scattered suburban offices to a central-city transit
node in response to growing employee frustration over traffic congestion and a perception that
quality of life was eroding. The consolidation of its offices into three new centers will mean
that 80% of company employees in metropolitan Atlanta will work near a MARTA station,
compared with 30% today. Due to pressure from local residents, parking ceilings have been
introduced at the Lindbergh Station, an about-face given that the city of Atlanta has in the past
always imposed parking minimums. (Local residents were not informed of the full extent of the
BellSouth project, prompting a backlash over parking and traffic that required a mediator and a
lawsuit before matters were settled.) Parking for retail and office space has been reduced by a
third from the city’s standard of 3.7 and 2.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, respectively. Shared
parking between office and retail uses is also in the works. BellSouth hopes to lure its
employees to MARTA by providing free or discounted transit passes and free private parking at
outlying MARTA stations. Also, MARTA will consider eliminating some station parking as
ridership numbers increase.
Master Plan for Lindbergh City Center

(top left); first-phase construction, 2003
(top right); streetscape rendering of Main
Street (bottom left). Sources:
http://www.carterusa.net/ lindberghcitycenter; G. B.
Arrington, et al., Statewide Transit-Oriented Development
Study—Factors for Success in California (Sacramento:
California Department of Transportation, 2002).
Text Box 3.3

Effects of FTA’s New Starts Criteria

on Land-Use Activities:
4.2%
Significant Impact
0.0% Rail Agency
Led to Changes in 12.5% Bus Agency
Land-Use Plans 2.1%
Elevated TOD 8.3%

Planning 10.6%
Raised Profile of 45.9%

TOD 40.4%
29.2%
No Impact 40.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Figure 3.4. Effect of Federal New Starts Land-Use Criteria on Transit
Agencies’ Interests in TOD Planning.
important where rail is being built on initiatives, private-sector committees/

abandoned railroad rights-of-way); working groups, and public-private
housing subsidy programs under the forums.
U.S Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), which Public-Sector Interagency Initiatives
promote coordination between transit
and housing; and Congestion Almost all U.S. transit agencies with rail
Management/Air Quality (CMAQ) services and a majority of the big all-bus
funds (designed to help local operators participate in some forum to
governments implement the federal coordinate transit and urban development
Clean Air Act Amendments of among government entities. In Maryland,
1990), eligible for TOD planning a TOD working group has formed with
activities (CMAQ funds were representatives and co-funding from the
recently used in Minneapolis’s Maryland Transit Administration, the
Hiawatha corridor). Maryland Department of Transportation,
the Governor’s Office of Smart Growth,
Cooperation and Collaboration and the Maryland Department of
Planning. Along the San Francisco–
Given the various institutional roles and San Jose Caltrain commuter-rail corridor,
legislative mandates discussed above, each commuter-rail station project has a
what mechanisms have evolved for working group, spearheaded by the local
coordinating activities and building agency, which brings public agencies
partnerships among stakeholders? This together to coordinate activities (see
section reviews collaborative experiences Chapter 18). NJ TRANSIT actively
at three levels: public-sector interagency participates in the state’s transit village
51

program, working with the state DOT, the agencies and state governments or
Economic Development Authority, the redevelopment authorities.10
Office of State Planning, and other groups
to promote transit-friendly planning and Private-Sector Initiatives
smart growth (see Chapter 11). The
Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Developers, builders, real-estate brokers,
Authority has joined forces with and others involved with TOD from the
Cleveland’s planning department and private side have over time formed their
other local interests to form a Committee own forums to promote their collective
for Transit-Oriented Design that meets interests. Examples include
monthly to promote awareness and the
need for TOD. An example of regional • Houston’s Main Street Coalition.
cooperation comes from the Seattle area, Formed in 1994 to create a signature
where Sound Transit and the Puget Sound transit-and-pedestrian spine along an
Regional Council coordinate planning, 8.5-mile boulevard stretch, the
funding, and development activities coalition is today focusing on the
around existing and future transit stations. land-use and architectural integration
along the $300-million light-rail line
Figure 3.5 shows that the most common being built in downtown Houston.
interagency cooperative agreement
entered into to promote TOD, as • Charlotte’s Business Community for
identified by the 90 surveyed transit Regional Transportation Solutions.
properties, has been between transit Formed in 2000 as a task force of the
agencies and city governments. Charlotte division of the Urban Land
Comparatively few agreements have Institute, the association has raised
been entered into between transit developer awareness of TOD
Transit Agency Entered into a

Cooperative Agreement with:
17.6%
Redevelopment Agency 4.2%
35.0%
City Government 35.3%
26.3%
County Government 19.1%
26.3%
Regional/MPO 14.0%
Rail Agency
17.6%
State Government 0.0% Bus Agency
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Figure 3.5. Cooperative Interagency Agreements Between Transit
Agencies and Other Entities to Promote TOD.
52

opportunities for planned rail have been relied on in forging

and bus corridors. public consensus on how to best
transform selected neighborhoods
• Envision Utah. A privately led into transit-friendly environs. (See
initiative to promote regional smart Text Box 3.4.)
growth in Salt Lake City’s rapidly
urbanizing Wasatch Front, • Silicon Valley Manufacturing
Envision Utah has embraced Group. Composed of senior
TOD as a central component of managers of member companies in
the region’s strategic long-range this burgeoning high-tech corridor,
plan. An ambitious outreach the Group addresses transportation
program and visual simulations and sustainable growth issues for
Envisioning Utah Through Visual Simulations
Envision Utah has launched an

ambitious outreach program,
conducting various workshops
and polling residents (through
newspaper ads and focus
groups) on their preferences
for their community’s and the
Wasatch Front’s future.
Envision Utah hired a local consultant, Cooper, Roberts, Simonsen Architects, and a
national consultant, Calthorpe Associates, to work with local communities in developing
illustrative plans for four sites: Central Park and Murray North stations on the present
TRAX light-rail line and proposed stations in West Jordon and downtown Layton. The
consultants understood that citizens do not think of or view places in plan (i.e., bird’s eye)
view, but rather from a streetscape perspective. Thus, visual simulations were relied upon
to suggest how corridors, such as those near the Murray North TRAX station, might be
transformed from dreary landscapes (left) to vibrant, pedestrian-active streets (right).
These efforts culminated in the preparation of a handsomely illustrated report, Wasatch
Front TOD Guidelines, published by Envison Utah in 2002. Source: Cooper, Roberts,
Simonsen Architects and Calthorpe Associates, Wasatch Front TOD Guidelines (Envision Utah, 2002).
Text Box 3.4
53

rail-served Santa Clara County. (See boundaries delineating the degree to

Chapter 18 for further discussion.) which transit agencies can pursue TOD
are mainly defined through statutory
• 1000 Friends of Oregon/Livable regulations and legal mandates. The
Oregon. Nonprofit, grass-roots Utah Transit District Act limits transit
initiatives, led by 1000 Friends, were authorities to building and operating
instrumental in winning support transit services and facilities except as
for the TOD-friendly Westside stipulated in federal grants and
Metropolitan Express (MAX) line in legislation.11 Miami-Dade Transit is
metropolitan Portland in lieu of a limited in its leasing and sale of county
planned beltway project. The group property under State Statute 125. Under
funded sophisticated planning and the State Transportation Article, the
modeling of transportation/land-use Maryland Transit Administration is
futures for the region. required to offer the original owner any
land acquired for transportation
Public-Private Forums purposes that is no longer being used;
some interpret this to mean that
Thirteen of the 90 transit agencies underutilized land banked or set aside
surveyed identified public-private for TODs may have to revert to its
organizations or committees that have original ownership. Also, the state of
formed to promote TOD at some level. Maryland’s procurement code did not
These include the Salt Lake City anticipate public-private partnership
Downtown Alliance Transportation agreements that are not always reached
Committee; Denver Regional through an open-bid competitive
Transportation District’s (RTD’s) process.
TOD Task Force; Portland’s Livable
City Housing Council (committed to Some enabling legislation expressly
identifying barriers to TOD and funding forbids transit agencies from engaging
demonstration projects, with in land-use activities. State legislation
representatives from TriMet, the city that authorized the formation of the
of Portland, for-profit developers, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
insurance companies, Fannie Mae, and Authority (SEPTA), for instance,
major banks); and the San Francisco prohibits the agency from pursuing land
Bay Area, where BART and private development.12 Similarly, New Jersey’s
interests have entered into exclusive Public Transportation Act of 1979, which
agreements to develop mixed-use created NJ TRANSIT, allows the agency
TODs on agency land at Walnut Creek, to acquire property for “transportation
El Cerrito del Norte, and several other uses” but not to pursue ancillary real-
stations. estate development opportunities,
including TOD.13 Several transit agencies
Regulatory Environment responding to the national survey cited
FTA’s Third Party Contracting
Many things stand in the way of TOD Requirements (Circular 4220.1D) as a
implementation, a topic addressed in the regulation that ties their hands in
next chapter and throughout the case negotiating the best land-use programs
studies in Part 4 of this report. The for TODs.
54

Even within the same state, statutory inclined to embrace TOD in principle,
powers governing land development can but, when it comes to specifics, they are
vary markedly among transit properties. sensitive to the fact that land use lies
In California, for example, original within the purview of local governments.
statutes governing BART’s joint They see themselves as mainly in the
development powers are far more business of running trains and buses,
restrictive than those granted to Southern deferring specific land-use decisions
California’s Metropolitan Transit for station-area development to
Authority (MTA). BART relies on municipalities. As one respondent of a
powers of eminent domain, which the large east-coast transit property put it: “we
authority was originally granted to try to assist and influence communities’
construct and operate the heavy-rail land-use decisions without overstepping
system, but MTA’s statutes are more local home rule.” The line between being
permissive and explicitly allow the in favor of TOD as a concept and actively
agency to pursue value-capture strategies promoting specific TOD projects is often
like benefit-assessment financing.14 a delicate one to cross.
MTA was formed after BART, allowing
the authority to review and improve on Parking Policies
BART’s charter.
For several big rail properties, an in-
Most state statutes are vague about transit house policy that has stood in the way of
joint development matters. Since most converting surface parking lots into on-
transit agencies were created before joint site mixed-use developments is one-to-
development gained ascendancy, many one replacement parking requirements.
contemplating joint development face the Fourteen of the respondents indicated
prospect of bending the original intent of that their agencies have replacement
their authorizing statutes. The absence of parking requirements.15 Given that half
clear state-level policy directives (outside (45 of 90) of the respondents said that
of Oregon and Maryland) and authorizing there are park-and-ride spaces at stations
legislation regarding land development where TOD is being promoted, it appears
has, de facto, steered some U.S. transit that replacement parking strictures affect
properties away from the practice of TOD at least a third of TOD settings.16 In the
and joint development. case of BART, the elected board of
directors’s one-to-one replacement
Internal Strictures policy has reduced ground-rent income
by providing rent credits to developers
According to transit-agency survey who provide replacement parking. Even
respondents, what ties their hands more in if BART’s board were to relax the one-
pursuing TOD than state regulations are to-one replacement requirement, this
internal ones—policies, strictures, might not result in reduced parking since
mandates, and so forth within agencies all local jurisdictions require that BART
that limit the practice of TOD. Around replace all parking displaced by
15% of surveyed transit-agency development on agency land.
respondents said such controls, whether
explicit or tacit, existed within their In and around transit stations, parking is
organizations. Most transit properties are a double-edged sword. On the one hand,
55

it is absolutely essential for drawing parking is seen as a more important transit

customers to transit in low-density use next to the platform than a TOD.
settings where feeder bus services are
sparse. On the other hand, parking lots Notwithstanding the sometimes
can form huge obstacles to the creation schizophrenic relationship transit
of viable and attractive TODs. Parking properties have with parking, most
reduces opportunities for TOD in several transit-agency survey respondents did
ways. First, parking separates the transit not feel that parking facilities inhibit
system from the adjacent community, TOD. Fifteen percent of transit-agency
along with potential TOD parcels. respondents said park-and-ride spaces
Second, parking creates a station-area were a “significant obstacle” to their
milieu that is distinctly automobile- agency’s ability to successfully plan and
rather than pedestrian-oriented. Third, build TOD projects. Figure 3.6 breaks
parking demands lead to stations being the responses down, revealing that
sited in marginal settings that are not respondents from rail agencies were
conducive to TOD. Finally, regulatory generally more critical about parking as
requirements on replacement parking a deterrent to TOD. The figure shows
severely limit the possibility of some degree of sensitivity to the impacts
converting commuter spaces into TOD. of park-and-ride spaces on pedestrian
environments. Almost half of rail-
It must be remembered that the cost of agency respondents and over 60% of
replacing parking becomes a TOD, not a those from bus agencies felt that parking
transit-system, requirement. The TOD spaces moderately detracted from the
must develop enough revenue to replace pedestrian-friendliness of station
surface parking with a costly deck environments.
structure. Replacement parking policies
have placed a higher value on the short- Despite the obstacles to removing
term ridership generated from park-and- parking lots near stations, respondents
ride than on the long-term benefits from from 17 of the 90 transit agencies
creating viable communities around (18.9%) said plans are underway to
stations. The notion of generating riders convert park-and-ride lots to TOD. In
from TOD to offset the cost of all, parking lots at over 50 rail stations
replacement parking is quickly dismissed or bus terminals are slated for
in many parts of the United States. This conversion to commercial and/or
has been the case at Dallas’s Mockingbird residential development. The FTA’s
Station. The developer of an adjacent new joint development ruling that
mixed-use TOD inquired about the allows transit agencies to sell off
possibility of relocating parking in front parking lots to private investors and
of the station and developing the parcel as retain proceeds has no doubt helped
apartments. The Dallas Area Regional trigger this response. Agencies with
Transit agency, DART, has so far resisted. park-and-ride conversions in the works
Even with a one-to-one replacement are listed below with affected stations:
policy, DART is more interested in
preserving this choice piece of land for • Washington Metropolitan Area
commuter parking. For many local Transit Authority. Branch Avenue,
decision-makers and their constituents, Suitland, Rhode Island Avenue,
56

Impact Bus Agency Rail Agency
28.6%
Significant 5.0%
Moderate
28.6% Obstacle to
40.0%
TOD
42.8%
Minimal 45.0%
23.5%
Significant
0.0%
47.1% Harms
Moderate 61.1%
Walking
29.4%
Minimal 38.9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 3.6. Views of Transit-Agency Respondents on
Impacts of Park-and-Ride Spaces on TODs and Quality
of Pedestrian Environments.
Van Dorn, Prince George’s Plaza, • New Jersey Transit: Morristown,

Wheaton, Greenbelt, and Hamilton, Liberty State Park,
Takoma Stations; Jersey City, and Dover Stations;
• Metropolitan Atlanta Regional • Portland TriMet: Gateway,

Transportation Authority: Chamblee, Rockwood, and El Monica (land
King Memorial, Lakewood-Fort swap) Stations;
McPherson, Abernathy Road,
Kensington, Avondale, and • Metropolitan Transit Development
Hamilton E. Holmes Stations; Board (San Diego): Morena/Linda
Vista and Grossmont Stations;
• San Francisco BART: Pleasant Hill,
MacArthur, West Oakland, • Caltrain/SamTrans (San Mateo
Richmond, El Cerrito Del Norte, County): Redwood City and
El Cerrito Plaza, Ashby, Fruitvale, Colma Stations;
Hayward, and Union City Stations;
• Maryland Transit Administration:
• Miami-Dade Transit Authority: Owings Mills, Old Court Metro,
Coconut Grove, Overtown/Arena, Reisterstown Plaza Metro Stations;
Brownsville, Douglas Road,
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Plaza, • Dallas Area Rapid Transit:
and Santa Clara Stations; Mockingbird Station;
57

• Utah Transit Authority: 10000 South to jump-start TOD through transit

Station; village initiatives that critics view as
mere window-dressing since little
• SouthWest Metropolitan Transit funding support is provided.
Commission (Minnesota): Important recent federal initiatives
Chanhassen Station; and have been the new joint development
ruling (that enables transit agencies to
• Regional Transportation District sell land for TOD even if the land was
(Denver): Arapahoe Station. purchased using federal dollars), New
Starts criteria, and various livable
Summary community initiatives.
Many voices shape the practice of TOD Coordination among public agencies as
in the contemporary urban United States. well as with the private sector normally
A multi-layered, sometimes complex occurs through various ad hoc task
institutional and political environment forces and similar forums. In recent
has evolved that ensures accountability years, private developers, builders, and
and instills a degree of responsibility and real-estate interests have joined forces to
fairness into the decision-making promote TOD in cities like Houston,
process, but this environment can also Charlotte, and San Jose.
form roadblocks to implementation, a
topic addressed in Chapter 5.
The major institutional barriers to TOD
The spectrum of transit-agency are regulatory in nature, either a product
participation can range from modest of restrictive state statutes or self-
(providing technical guidance such as imposed transit-agency rules. Some
transit-supportive design guidelines) to states limit, ipso facto, real-estate
ambitious (being the self-anointed lead transactions undertaken by transit
developer). Most transit agencies get agencies to “transportation uses.” Many
involved in land-use affairs, broadly transit properties shy away from land
defined; however, they generally limit development matters on the grounds that
their involvement in TOD matters to it is not central to their mission of
interagency coordination. What TOD delivering safe and efficient transit
work is carried out concentrates on services. As a result, most transit
public outreach and education. Design agencies have no personnel assigned
charrettes have been used quite to TOD or, more generally, land
successfully to draw public input into the development, leaving it to their legal
TOD-planning process, as exemplified departments to handle land-use affairs
by the successes at the Pleasant Hill and disputes. One in-house rule that has
BART station and along the Wasatch clearly hampered TOD is one-to-one
Front under the guidance of Envision replacement parking requirements.
Utah. Local governments wield Nonetheless, over 50 transit stations
considerable control over TOD across the United States are presently
outcomes through zoning ordinances and being targeted for parking lot
building codes. Some states, notably conversions, thanks in part to FTA’s
California and New Jersey, have sought new joint development rulings.
58

Notes planning (Oregon, Massachusetts, and

Georgia), enact development of regional
1 Sixteen of the 90 transit properties responding impact (DRI) requirements (Georgia and
to the survey (17.8%) have people working Massachusetts), and target state infrastructure
part time on TOD affairs. BART has the most funding to direct growth (Oregon).
part-timers (11), followed by NJ TRANSIT 6 R. Cervero, Transit Villages in California:
(4) and the Regional Transit Authority of Progress, Prospects, and Policy Reforms,
Northeast Illinois (3). Working Paper 98-08 (Berkeley: Institute
2 Funds used for TOD usually came from of Urban and Regional Development,
transit agencies’ operating budgets. Several University of California, 1998).
agencies, however, have dedicated funding, 7 49 U.S.C. § 509(a)(5), Federal Transit
targeted specifically at TOD planning and Administration, Technical Guidance on
development. San Mateo County Transit Section 5309 New Starts Criteria
District (SamTrans) supports its TOD (Washington, D.C.: 1999).
functions with earmarked sales-tax revenues
8
and developer fees. While most of Portland Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas,
TriMet’s TOD activities are supported by the Transit Oriented Development in California
agency’s general fund, Interstate highway (Sacramento: California Department of
transfer grants have been used in the past to Transportation, 2001); E. Deakin, C. Ferrell,
support station-area planning and development J. Mason, and J. Thomas, “Policies and
and are envisaged for the 5.8-mile Interstate Practices for Cost-Effective Transit
MAX extension now under construction. The Investments: Recent Experiences in the
Maryland Transit Administration gets 98% of United States” (paper presented at the
its funding from a State Transportation Trust 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Fund and 2% from a Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
Enhancement Program grant under the January, 2002).
federal TEA-21 legislation. In the past, NJ 9
When asked whether “the presence of land
TRANSIT has supported its TOD functions
use as an FTA New Starts rating criterion
with federal TCSP grant funds and support
changed how your agency approaches land
from the state budget. Denver RTD’s TOD
use in the development of transit projects,”
functions are supported by developer
around two-thirds of respondents from transit
contributions and community development
agencies stated “no.” Most responding “no”
grants, with the current focus on the
indicated that their agencies have always
Transportation Expansion Project (T-REX)
treated land-use issues seriously and would be
in Denver’s Southeast Corridor.
addressing land-use issues regardless. Around
3 A number of questions in all surveys a quarter indicated that “land use is a local
discussed in this report judged attitudes using issue; having a federal criterion has had little
a 7-point Likert (ordinal) scale. In this figure to no impact.” Respondents from WMATA,
and most others, scores of 1 or 2 were the Maryland Transit Administration, DART,
interpreted as “minimal,” scores of 3 through and NJ TRANSIT, among others, felt the
5 were translated as “moderate,” and scores criterion “provided the impetus to more
of 6 or 7 were weighed as “significant.” seriously address land-use issues.” Other
4
respondents, including those from BART,
These were an FHWA TCSP grant, FHWA MARTA, and the Houston Transit Authority,
planning funds under Section 112-PL, and indicated that the criterion “has opened the
FTA’s Section 5303 planning enhancement door to get discussions going.”
funds.
10 Redevelopment districts exist in the service
5 More common are state land-use planning areas of 71% of transit agencies surveyed
and growth management rules that mandate (62% of the non-rail agencies and 91% of the
statewide land-use plans (Oregon and rail agencies).
Georgia), create regional authorities with
11
quasi-control over land use and transportation Utah Transportation Code 17A-2-1101, et seq.
59

12 Pennsylvania Title 74 C.S.A. Chapter 17 Development Board (San Diego), New

(Transportation). Jersey Transit, Peninsula Corridor Joint
13
Powers Board (Caltrain), Regional
New Jersey Statutory Act 27: 25-1 et seq.
Transportation District (Denver), San
14 M. Bernick and A. Frelich, “Transit Villages Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District,
and Transit-Based Development: The Rules San Mateo County Transit District, Santa
Are Becoming More Flexible—How Clara Valley Transportation Authority,
Government Can Work with the Private SouthWest Metro Transit Commission
Sector to Make It Happen,” The Urban (Minnesota), Utah Transit Authority, and
Lawyer, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1998): 1–31. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
15
Authority.
The fourteen are: Capitol Corridor Joint
16
Powers Authority (Sacramento–San Jose), According to responses, the mean size of the
Dallas Area Rapid Transit, Los Angeles average agency parking lot was 220 spaces,
Metropolitan Transit Authority, Maryland with considerable variation (with the average
Transit Administration, Metropolitan Transit size ranging from 40 to 1,200 spaces).
60

Chapter 4
TOD Implementation Tools
Getting the Job Done concept in the case of Stockholm.1

Arlington County, Virginia, arguably
Going from the theory of TOD to real- the United States’s most successful
world implementation can be a gargantuan example of TOD outside of a central
leap. Local governments, redevelopment business district, embraced this
authorities, regional planning Scandinavian model when it adopted
organizations, and even public transit its “bull’s eye” concept plan for the
agencies have over time accumulated an Rosslyn-Ballston corridor in the 1970s
arsenal of tools and techniques to get the (see Figure 4.1). Through a collaboration
job done. This chapter focuses on methods that engaged local stakeholders and an
currently being used among multiple ambitious campaign that targeted
stakeholder groups in bridging TOD supportive infrastructure improvements
theory and practice. The focus is on tools to rail stops along the corridor,
introduced and controlled by the public Arlington County managed to transform
sector; Chapter 5 provides a private-sector the Metrorail Orange Line into a
perspective. Most implementation tools showcase of transit-supportive
reviewed in this chapter lie within the development, with mid- to high-rise
purview of local governments and special towers and multiple uses today at the
authorities, like redevelopment agencies. Rosslyn, Court House, Clarendon,
Funding and finance issues related Virginia Square, and Ballston Metrorail
to supportive TOD infrastructure stations. Since 1970, over 15 million
(e.g., streetscape and access
improvements) also receive
attention in this chapter.
TOD Visioning and Planning
Step 1 in implementing TOD is to forge

a shared vision and prepare a strategic
plan. Transit can be a catalyst to
achieving a desired community—the
kind of place where people want to live,
work, play, and raise a family. Two
Scandinavian cities known as paragons
of TOD, Copenhagen and Stockholm, Figure 4.1. “Bull’s Eye” Vision for
adopted metaphors early on to articulate the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor in
and market their visions of the future— Arlington County, Virginia.
the celebrated “Finger Plan” in case of Source: Arlington County Department of Community
Copenhagen and a “Planetary Cluster” Planning, Housing and Development.
61

square feet of office space, several Focused Areas” as part of its “Land
thousand hotel rooms, and 18,000 Guidance Program”; Miami-Dade’s
housing units have been added to these Comprehensive Development Master
station areas. With the bull’s eye Plan; Eugene-Lane County’s Regional
metaphor in place to guide ongoing Transportation Plan (RTP) that calls for
planning, Arlington County proceeded mixed-use nodes around bus rapid transit
to leverage Metrorail’s presence and (BRT) stops; and Grand Rapids,
transform once dormant neighborhoods Michigan’s “Blueprint Plan” that
into vibrant clusters of office, retail, and similarly endorses bus-based TOD.
residential development. (See Chapter 12
for more details on Arlington County’s When asked whether any cities or other
experiences.) governmental entities in their regions
had adopted TOD plans or introduced
How prevalent is TOD visioning and TOD zoning, 38 of 90 national survey
planning in the United States today? respondents (42%) answered “yes.”
In the national survey of 90 transit More than three-quarters of rail agencies
agencies, questions were asked about had local TOD plans or zoning in their
regional visioning and planning as well service areas, compared with 36% of
as the zoning of land around agencies’ non-rail agencies. Within BART’s
transit stations. When asked whether service jurisdiction alone, 15 separate
there was “a regional vision, policy, or TOD plans have been prepared for
plan in place that calls for compact station areas, along with complementary
development organized around transit,” zoning.2 WMATA’s TOD planning has
44 agencies, or nearly half, said there spanned two states (Maryland localities
was. Among the regional initiatives in Montgomery and Prince George’s
promoting station-area development are Counties and Virginia localities in
Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s “Centers and Arlington and Fairfax Counties) and the
Corridors” plan promoting TOD along District of Columbia. Greater Chicago
five transit corridors; the Washington has seen TOD plans and/or zoning
(D.C.) Metropolitan Area’s “Corridors districts introduced in more than a dozen
and Wedges” plan, introduced in 1957; small- to medium-sized townships that
the “Livable Communities Program” and collar Chicago proper: Tinley Park, Blue
“Housing Incentive Program” sponsored Island, Elmhurst, Westmont, Olympia
by the Metropolitan Transportation Fields, Waukegan, Orland Park,
Commission and Association of Bay Riverday, Robbins, University Park,
Area Governments in the San Francisco Hazel Crest, Morton Grove, and
region; Portland Metro’s “Region 2040 Evanston, among others. In Plano,
Functional Plan” and “Regional Texas, on the outskirts of Dallas, the city
Transportation Plan”; Envision Utah’s planned and developed a downtown
Long-Range Vision, committed to TOD transit village before light rail had even
as an alternative to sprawl; the Long- arrived. Plano offices agreed on a vision,
Range Plan of the Delaware Valley set in place supportive zoning,
Regional Planning Commission in the landscaped and upgraded local
Philadelphia area that embraces TOD infrastructure, and found a developer to
principles; the San Diego Association of bankroll and implement the vision.
Governments’ designation of “Transit (See Chapter 15 for more details.)
62

The state of North Carolina has, as of permissible land uses, building setbacks,
late, witnessed a surge in TOD planning. and allowable densities in and around
In the Raleigh-Durham area, for transit stations. Land-use controls derive
example, Town Center Area Plans have from eminent-domain and home-rule
been prepared for several stations under powers granted by states. The standard
construction, with the largest amount of tool used by local governments to
development slated for the fast-growing regulate land and enforce specific plans,
technology-driven employment center, such as those for station areas, is zoning.
Cary. North of Charlotte, the town of Zoning brings macro-visions of the
Huntersville has prepared a TOD plan future down to the parcel level,
to complement its neotraditional zoning providing a fine-grained interpretation of
ordinance. The town’s TOD-R district TOD. Once regulations are written that
promotes residential growth with embrace compact growth, a pedestrian
compatible commercial uses within a orientation, and mixed uses, TOD
1
⁄2 mile of rapid transit stations; the visions can be implemented on a case-
TOD-E district, meanwhile, promotes by-case basis, in a consistent fashion, as
high-density office employment with a city goes about its regular business.
FARs between 0.5 and 1.5 within Incremental implementation through
walking distance of transit stations. zoning is especially important in big
Huntersville’s TOD plan is an cities that are essentially built out and
outgrowth of a 1999 design charrette, prime for strategic infill development.3
led by New Urbanist Andres Duany,
which forged a community consensus Traditional, or Euclidean, zoning
to transform an abandoned garment separates land uses, sets density
factory into a multi-use retail- thresholds and minimum lot sizes, and
entertainment-hotel-civic complex that usually contains explicit regulations such
will open onto a planned commuter rail as bulk and height controls and
station. The nearby cities of Cornelius minimum parking. With TOD, however,
and Davidson have developed similar traditional zoning is often turned on its
plans that orient future growth to head (i.e., uses are intermixed, not
planned rail stations. excluded, and parking caps, rather than
parking floors, are sometimes set).
A semi-rural setting where transit-
oriented zoning has been introduced is TOD Overlay Zones
Garfield County, Colorado. There, a
“Transit Planned Urban Development” To allow for TOD, a municipality can
district has been formed, and various create a special TOD zone or change
streetscape improvements have been existing classifications. Officials in
made to bus corridors. Chapter 16 reviews Mountain View, California, for example,
experiences with TOD planning and recently rezoned 40 acres of industrial
zoning in semi-rural areas of Colorado. land for 520 housing units adjacent to
the Whisman light-rail station. More
TOD Zoning common than either rezoning or new
designations, however, is the creation of
By and large, local governments wield an overlay zone. As its name implies, an
almost complete control over overlay zone is placed on the zoning
63

map over a base zone. The overlay facilities to be installed within 50 feet of
modifies, eliminates, or adds regulations building entrances of all new office and
to the base zone. Overlays provide for multifamily structures. Even the city of
effective land-use control without Phoenix, long considered a haven for
increasing the complexity of the automobile travel, is planning an interim
regulations. TOD overlay zone as it moves forward
with its Valley Metro Rail program.
A growing list of U.S. cities—San
Diego, Seattle, Portland, Eugene, San TOD Land Uses
Antonio, Oakland, Columbus, Durham
(NC), Mountain View (CA), Morristown Besides identifying unwelcome land
(NJ), and Bayonne (NJ), among others— uses, like automobile repair shops, TOD
have introduced overlay zoning in recent zones often specify activities that are
years to existing or planned station areas permitted as-of-right, such as housing
to promote complementary mixed-use and convenience shops. Lynwood,
development. San Diego’s overlay zone Washington, for example, has created a
is the chief instrument for implementing special mixed-use/transit-supportive
transit-supportive design guidelines zone that grants special use permits to
introduced early into the city’s light-rail any of the following services that are
program (see Text Box 4.1). sited near transit stops: banks,
professional businesses, retail stores,
An overlay district can be an effective offices, and child-care centers.
interim tool when demand for land
around a station is strong. To prevent Permissible uses often depend on the
automobile-oriented uses before station type of TOD; large-scale urban TODs,
area plans could be enacted, the city of for example, might allow regional trip
Portland created interim overlay zones generators like entertainment complexes,
along the westside light-rail extension to whereas neighborhood-scale TODs are
Hillsboro. Similarly, the city of Seattle’s apt to ban such activities. Figure 4.2
interim overlay district prohibits portrays the land-use mixes and site-
automobile-oriented uses and lowers design features recommended by noted
parking standards within a 1⁄4 mile of TOD designer Peter Calthorpe. These
proposed light-rail stations to preserve standards have been adopted by a host
future TOD opportunity areas (see of cities that have hired Calthorpe and
Text Box 4.2). It has since been replaced his associates over the past decade to
by permanent overlay zones at seven prepare local design guidelines and
planned light-rail stations. To prevent TOD ordinances, including Portland,
big-box retailers and automobile- San Diego, Salt Lake City, and
oriented designs from preempting TOD, Minneapolis. Calthorpe calls for
in 1998 the city of Minneapolis enacted the employment and commercial
interim overlay zones within 1⁄2 mile of components of a TOD to increase
the planned Hiawatha light-rail corridor. as it becomes more urban.
Parking ceilings were also set for TOD
zones. Besides placing a maximum “lid” The Puget Sound Regional Council
on parking, Columbus’s interim TOD suggests that to ensure a good balance
overlay zone requires bicycle parking of activity within a TOD, the number
64

San Diego’s TOD Zoning and Design Guidelines
The city of San Diego pioneered TOD zoning in the early 1990s, relying upon zoning
overlays, interim zoning, and floating zones to promote compact, mixed-use
development around light-rail stops. A key document in framing the city’s zoning
initiatives was the 1991 Transit-Oriented Development Design Guidelines, prepared by
Peter Calthorpe and local planners.4 The guidelines present a typology of TODs. At the
upper range of the hierarchy are regional-serving TODs that feature large mixed-use
cores with supermarkets, professional offices, restaurants, and retail shops. Village
greens and public plazas are also included. Neighborhood TODs, on the other hand,
focus on moderate-density, grid-street designs that connect residents to rail stops and
feature neighborhood parks. The guidelines stress that TODs should be inviting to
pedestrians, with buildings that open onto sidewalks and design elements that enliven
streets and form a pleasant walking milieu. According to the Guidelines, the following
design principles are to be applied when station-area plans are drafted:
Buildings must be of sufficient intensity to create safe and active streets
enhanced by a sense of enclosure and visual interest, and to support transit.
Orienting buildings to public streets will encourage walking by providing
easy pedestrian connections, by bringing activities and visually interesting
features closer to the street, and by providing safety through watchful eyes
and activity day and night. Moderate to high intensities also support frequent
and convenient transit service; and retail centers can provide a greater variety
of goods and services if more residents and employees are within close proximity.
Recommended residential densities are 12 to 25 dwelling units per net acre; single-
family detached housing should be built at 12 to 17 units per acre on small lots with
ancillary units (“granny flats”) on some parcels. Office densities vary according to
parking provisions, with FARs of 0.35 to 0.6 for projects without structured parking and
0.5 to over 1.0 (with exact amounts set by community plans) for those with structured
parking. In recognition of shared-parking possibilities, the city of San Diego
recommends below-code reductions of 2% to 15% for different types of land uses in
urban TODs. Also, retail, office, and public uses can count on-street parking spaces
adjacent to their properties toward meeting minimum parking requirements.
San Diego’s Transit-Focused Hazard Center TOD, Mission Valley

Districts Trolley Line
Text Box 4.1

Seattle’s Station-Area Interim Overlay Zoning District
Seattle’s City Council passed Station-Area Overlay Zoning legislation in 2001 to

preserve opportunities for transit- and pedestrian-oriented development around proposed
Link light-rail stations and the voter-approved 14-mile monorail extension. Overlay
zoning districts embody the following TOD characteristics:
• A radius that extends up to 1,320 feet (1⁄4 mile) of a station or stop;

• Medium- to high-density residential development;
• Presence of a commercial or mixed-use area where goods and services are
available to the public, with opportunities for enhancing the pedestrian
environment;
• Opportunity sites for new developments with good access to transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian modes; and
• Single-family development only if minimum density standards are met.
Seattle’s overlay zoning district further requires conditional use permits for residential
development in a pedestrian-designated zone that might otherwise be preferable for
commercial and retail activities (i.e., bigger trip generators). Residential uses are
prohibited at street level along principal pedestrian streets, and single-purpose
residential structures are prohibited if they are located within a zone that has a height
limit of 85 feet or higher. The district further defines activities that are prohibited, such
as drive-in businesses and industrial uses. Flexible parking standards, on the other
hand, are encouraged. Design standards call for the placement of parking between the
rear or side lot lines of a structure. Also, nonconforming uses (such as gas stations,
heavy commercial services, mini-warehouses, and vehicle repair shops) cannot be
expanded by more than 20% of the existing gross floor area of an existing use. Besides
light-rail and monorail station areas, overlay zoning is also being applied to two bus-
based TODs: Convention Place Station, at the north end of the downtown bus tunnel,
and Northgate Transit Center, a high-density, mixed-use urban development on the
“super block” south of the Northgate Mall, which is to be built on 8 acres now occupied
by two King County Metro park-and-ride lots.
TOD in Seattle. The Central Link

light-rail line (left photo) suffered a
setback when local voters turned down
a sales-tax referendum in 2002;
current plans call for a 2011 opening,
assuming funding can be obtained.
Top right photo shows a rendering of
light rail as a “redevelopment catalyst”
in Seattle’s Rainier Valley. Bottom
right photo shows the existing transit
center at the Northgate Mall, which
will soon be flanked by hundreds of
apartments, retail shops, restaurants,
and entertainment venues.
Text Box 4.2

Use Neighborhood Urban

TOD Densities
TOD TOD
Public 10 – 15 % 5 – 15 % Some TOD zoning codes specify
Core/Employment 10 – 40 30 – 70
Housing 50 – 80 20 – 60 residential density thresholds. Table 4.1
reveals these can be as low as 7 dwelling
units per acre for bus-based
neighborhood TODs to 30 units per acre
for larger TODs within 1⁄8 mile of a light-
rail station. For non-residential uses,
minimum FARs are sometimes defined
in hopes of not only generating transit
riders but also creating lively streetscapes
and minimizing dead spaces created by
surface parking lots. Based on a review
of 11 TOD design guidelines across the
United States, Reid Ewing concluded
that the following rules of thumb are
appropriate: 7 units per acre (basic bus
Figure 4.2. Land-Use Prototypes

for TODs. Source: P. Calthorpe, The Next American
Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Table 4.1. Recommended Residential
Dream (Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press) 1993. Density Thresholds for TODs
Minimum
City/ Residential
Source TOD Type Densities
(Dwelling
of jobs should not exceed the number Units/Acre)
of residents by more than three to one.5 Urban TOD 25
NJ TRANSIT, in its design guidelines, San Diego (light-rail served) (18)
TOD
encourages mixing of uses within Guidelines Neighborhood
station areas to generate peak and off- TOD 18
peak ridership (e.g., mixing offices with (Bus served) (12)
entertainment uses encourages activity Urban TOD 15
Washington
(light-rail served) (7)
beyond normal business hours).6 In County,
general, industrial uses are discouraged Oregon
Neighborhood
(Land Use and 8
in TODs, although not always. The city Transportation
TOD
(Bus served) (7)
of Seattle bans manufacturing activities Air Quality
from TODs since such uses have few Study)
workers per acre. However, the city Light-Rail Served 30: 0–1/8 mi
of San Diego’s TOD design guidelines Portland Tri TOD 24: 1/8–1/4 mi
hold that light industrial uses with Met, TOD 12: 1/4–1/2 mi
Guidelines Bus Served
low employment densities can be TOD 24: 0–1/8 mi
appropriate in some TODs if they 12: 1/8–1/4 mi
are located outside of the mixed-use Source: Community Design + Architecture, Model
core and are compatible with other Transit-Oriented District Overlay Zoning Ordinance
TOD uses. (Oakland: 2001).
67

services); 15 units per acre (premium bus services. The Crossings replaced an aging
service); and 20 to 30 units per acre (rail and under-performing shopping center
services).7 Such numbers are not based with 400 housing units clustered around
on widely accepted research findings nor a Caltrain commuter rail station. (See
are they universally applicable. They Text Box 4.3.) The city of Mountain View
merely represent thresholds found in zoned the land on which The Crossings
transit-agency design guidelines and are sits for compact, mixed-use development
not necessarily relevant to specific sites according to TOD-supportive design
or corridors. guidelines. Net residential densities at The
Crossings include single-family homes
By way of example, The Crossings in at 12 units per acre, townhouses and
Mountain View, California, is noteworthy rowhouses at 30 units per acre, and
for its adaptive reuse of a marginal site in apartments at 50 units per acre. The
an older suburban area with good rail average net density is 22 units per acre,
station
The Crossings, Mountain View,access. Nevertheless, some U.S.
California
The top left diagram shows a former shopping mall, surrounded in big-box retail fashion
by acres of asphalt parking. The bottom left diagram shows the site design of The
Crossings, a residence-based TOD, with the new Caltrain station at the top. The right top
photo shows row homes coming in at 30 units per acre, and the bottom right photo shows
zero-lot-line single-family residences in the range of 15 to 18 units per acre.
Text Box 4.3
68

which places all units within walking patronize transit. Guidelines normally
distance of the train station. call for densities to decline from the core
of an urban TOD in a “wedding cake”
What about the densities for employment fashion, so as to put more people closer
and commercial uses? Peter Calthorpe to the train station (see Figure 4.3).
suggests a minimum FAR of 0.35 for Research suggests that density gradients
nonresidential activities in TODs, while that decay exponentially with distance
the Puget Sound Regional Council from a station maximize ridership.10
suggests a target of 0.5 to 1.0 for
commercial developments without TOD Parking Codes
structured parking and at least 2.0 for
developments with structured parking. Rail transit has always had a
The Regional Council further contends schizophrenic relationship with parking.
that employment densities of 25 jobs per On the one hand, acres of surface
gross acre will support frequent, high- parking detract from the walking,
capacity transit service. This density human-scale quality of stations. Yet,
translates into 15,000 jobs within a 1⁄2-mile
radius of a station. For light-rail service,
employment densities of 50 jobs per gross
acre are needed.8 A recent national study
on transit and urban form estimated that
downtown densities of 100 workers per
gross acre translate, on average, into
300 boardings per day for suburban light-
rail stations that are surrounded by low-
density residences (of five persons per
acre) 20 miles from a downtown.9
Among medium-sized cities, Denver has

pushed the envelope for commercial
densities in TODs. Through Blueprint
Denver, the first overhaul of city zoning
regulations in 50 years, the new zoning
designation of transit mixed use
(TMU-30) allows FARs of up to 5 to 1;
parking requirements for areas close to
light-rail stations are slashed 25%. To
qualify for TMU-30 zoning, sites must
cover at least 12 acres and be a short
walk from a station platform. See
Chapter 16 for further discussion on
Denver’s bold TOD zoning initiatives. Figure 4.3. Density Gradations for
an Urban TOD at 18 Dwelling Units
How densities are arranged within a per Acre (du/ac). Source: P. Calthorpe, The
Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and
TOD zone can have a bearing on whether the American Dream (Princeton: Princeton
residents and workers are inclined to Architectural Press, 1993).
69

in the vast majority of suburban settings,

densities are so low and feeder bus
services are so meager that park-and-ride
is the only viable means of station
access. Nevertheless, some U.S. cities
have sought to flex or even lower TOD
parking standards. The city of San Diego
recommends reductions between 2 and
15% for land uses in the urban TODs.
Photo 4.1. Shared Parking Sign at
The cities of Denver and Dallas have
San Diego’s Grossmont Trolley
similarly enacted language reducing the
Station. Parking demands of transit
number of parking spaces in mixed-use
stations and entertainment venues
districts near rail stops.
dovetail nicely. Theater-goers can use
Trolley Station parking on evenings
The city of Portland, meanwhile, has
and weekends, and Trolley park-and-
adopted parking maximums for several
riders can use theater parking spaces
TODs, including the recently opened
Monday through Friday, from early
Cascade Station/Portland International
morning to early evening.
Center Plan District. Montgomery
County, Maryland, reduces minimum
parking requirements for office uses in A survey found that nearly one-third of
close proximity to Metrorail stations. theater employees commuted via transit,
compared with a regional transit market
Some cities allow projects within TODs share of just 3% for work trips.12 The
to count on-street spaces in satisfying arrangement generates $40,000 in annual
minimum parking requirements. The city lease revenues for MTDB.
of San Diego, for instance, allows retail,
office, and public uses to count as on- While capping automobile parking
street spaces for parcels adjacent to San supplies, some jurisdictions have called
Diego Trolley stations. Short-term for minimum levels of on-site parking
parking meters are sometimes installed to requirements for bicycles. The Mid-Ohio
ensure high rates of customer turnover. Regional Planning Commission, which
San Diego is also noteworthy for its serves the greater Columbus area, has
shared parking initiatives at Trolley stops, proposed a model TOD ordinance that
a de facto form of capping parking requires that bicycle parking be installed
supplies. There, the regional rail for all office and multifamily structures
authority, Metropolitan Transit as well as freestanding commercial uses
Development Board (MTDB), entered and that it be located within 50 feet of
into a license agreement with a theater the central or most frequently used
owner to share the transit-agency parking building entrances (see Table 4.2).
lot at the Grossmont Station (Photo 4.1).11 Zoning provisions requiring showering
For use of the parking lot, the theater facilities for cyclists have been
pays MTDB an annual lease. Theater- recommended in Atlanta’s Lindbergh
goers can use the parking lot at all hours, Station District and similar guidelines
subject to the same limitations as Trolley have been enacted around Mountain
patrons (e.g., no parking over 24 hours). View’s Caltrain commuter-rail station.
70

Table 4.2. TOD Bicycle Parking marshals who complained that planned
Requirement for Model Overlay streets were too narrow (for safety and
Ordinance, Columbus, Ohio, Region liability reasons) and neo-traditional
Minimum Bicycle planners who insisted they were too wide
Land Use Parking Requirement (and thus oriented to automobiles).
Multifamily 1.00 space per dwelling
residential unit Implementation Tools and Ratings
Retail 0.50 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft.
Office 0.25 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. To the extent that TOD represents a
Industrial 0.14 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. desirable land-use outcome, a number of
Source: Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission, planning, policy, and implementation
Model Transit Oriented Development Zoning Overlay tools are available to local entities to
District (Columbus: 1999).
encourage TOD. In addition to zoning
strategies, these include density bonuses,
Zoning Obstacles favorable lending terms through
dedicated bonding issues, direct grants
It should be noted that not all TOD or loans, assistance with land assembly,
zoning has met with success. Clark relaxed parking standards, streamlined
County, Washington, north of Portland, development reviews, and other
Oregon, adopted a TOD ordinance in mechanisms that encourage developers
1995 that was repealed a year later to undertake projects that might not fit
because of an anti-regulatory backlash their usual business model.
mounted by small businesses and
employers. The city of Vancouver, Among the many available
Washington, adopted a TOD ordinance implementation tools, which have
the same year, and while still on the been applied most widely in practice?
books, the absence of any firm Figure 4.4 summarizes experiences to
guidelines on what goes within a TOD date as identified by survey respondents.
has rendered it, according to local Percentages are broken down by
accounts, “toothless.” Such roadblocks instances where tools have been applied
to TOD implementation are taken up in for both rail and bus services. To date,
the next two chapters. U.S. rail cities have been most aggressive
in applying policy tools to leverage TOD.
Implementing TOD zoning and design Also included in the table are the mean
guidelines can also give rise to “effectiveness ratings” of each tool as
unforeseen institutional conflicts. Many assigned by public-sector survey
transit-supportive design manuals call respondents (based on a 7-point Likert
for generous turning radii at street scale, where 1 is the lowest score and 7 is
intersections to allow buses to negotiate the highest). Tools are listed in the table
turns. Such designs are generally at odds in descending order (from right to left) of
with the minimalist street designs mean effectiveness, revealing the degree
advanced by neotraditionalists and TOD to which those that are rated the highest
advocates. In the case of proposed TODs have been embraced in practice.
in California, Oregon, and Virginia,
developers have been caught in a crossfire The most widely applied tool to leverage
between traffic engineers and fire TOD has been the expenditure of
71

Bus Transit Systems Rail Transit Systems Mean Effectiveness Rating
5.6
80% 6
5.2 5.3
4.9 4.9
70% 4.7 4.7
Where Tool Applied
Mean Effectiveness Rating

4.4 4.5 4.6 5
4.3 4.4
4.2
60% 3.9
(1:Low; 7: High)
4
50%
40% 3
30%
2
20%
Percentage
1
10%
0% 0
s
w
ts
ng
ng
g
t
ds
es
t
ng
s
lp
n
ke
en
rd
rd
in
ai
ie
os
He
on
us
di
si
ci
nd
ar
da
om
em
da
ev
an
un
em Bon
B
M
y
o
Fu
an
Em tan
at
tD
nd
bl
H
lF
pt
n
i
ed
St
Ab
m
tF
pe
ng
S
La
d
em
en
ita
ty
se
ize
lin
g
y
en
si
ni
x
ap
in
Ex
nc
in
As
Ta
am
en
id
an
in
on
rk
C
rre
x-
bs
rit
/D
Pl
nd
Pa
re
Ta
cr
nd
w
Su
cu
ng
St
La
er
In
ed
La
on
ni
nd
x
ax
Zo
C
Ta
y
U
Bu
el
m
R
fro
n
io
us
cl
TOD Tools
Ex
Figure 4.4. Transit Agencies’ Experience with and Perceived Effectiveness of

TOD-Supportive Policy and Planning Tools.
planning funding, in most instances to increase the residential floor areas to

pay for consultants to prepare strategic twice a parcel’s lot area if at least 20%
station-area plans. Next most common of the units are affordable.14 Developers
are zoning/density bonuses and relaxed must agree to keep the units affordable
parking standards, followed by capital for at least 15 years. In suburban Chicago
funding (for ancillary improvements like and greater Denver, there are good
streetscape enhancements and pedestrian examples of capital improvements, such
ways). Near the Ballston Metro station in as refurbishment of aging commuter-rail
Arlington, Virginia, bonuses have been stations and provision of shared parking
introduced to create housing and retail facilities, which have attracted private
spaces in buildings that would otherwise investment to station areas (see
be exclusively office space, creating a Chapters 14 and 16, respectively).
24-hour district. Density bonuses in
Montgomery County, Maryland, have Figure 4.4 shows that a number of U.S.
been used around the Bethesda and rail cities have also introduced land-
Silver Spring Metro stations to relieve based policies, such as buying land on
developers of the cost burden of an the open market (for land banking), as
inclusionary housing ordinance that well as providing land assembly help.
mandates affordable unit set-asides.13 In the San Francisco Bay Area, for
The city of Atlanta’s Lindbergh Station instance, redevelopment agencies have
District also includes an incentive for been instrumental in assembling and
affordable housing. Developers can delivering to master-builders large plots
72

of land that accommodate major mixed- $11 million was provided through
use projects at Pleasant Hill, El Cerrito 40-year, fixed-rate, tax-exempt mortgage
del Norte, and Fruitvale stations. In the revenue bonds issued by Contra Costa
case of El Cerrito del Norte, the city’s County. The loan proceeds were insured
redevelopment agency forged a workable through the FHA coinsurance program,
partnership to create Del Norte Place, a 221(d)(4), which gives the bonds a
mixed-use project with 135 multifamily Government National Mortgage
units (20% of which are affordable) and Association guarantee and thus a
21,000 square feet of street-level superior bond rating. Remaining funds
commercial space (Photo 4.2).15 The were in the form of equity provided by
redevelopment agency acquired a site the Del Norte Place Limited Partnership.
next to the BART station for $3 million The Ibex Group contributed
through the issuance of qualified approximately $3.2 million. Low-
redevelopment bonds and then leased it income housing tax credits were
to the Ibex Group, the project owner- syndicated to 30 individual limited
developer, for a 65-year period. The partners for a further $1.8 million in
redevelopment agency in return will equity contributions. Moreover, the
receive 20% of the net project cash flow Contra Costa County Department of
(after the 5th year) and 20% of the share Community Development kicked in
of retail-sales proceeds.16 Construction $200,000 in block grants. BART joined
and permanent financing of some the partnership by selling an easement
for parking under the adjoining elevated
track.
As Figure 4.4 shows, implementation

strategies that are procedural in nature,
like streamlined review and exclusion
from concurrency standards, have not
been put into practice very often. Where
applied, however, they have made a
difference. According to the lead
developer, the 86-unit Atherton Place
project near BART’s Hayward Station
owes its existence in large part to the
local redevelopment authority, which
expedited the project through the city’s
bureaucracy. As noted in the next
chapter, this sentiment is often heard
among TOD developers. A good
example of TOD-friendly evaluation
standards comes from Santa Clara
County, California, where sliding-scale
impact fees have been used to bring
down the cost of affordable housing at
Photo 4.2. Del Norte Place Mixed-Use several light-rail stations where parking
TOD, El Cerrito, California. lots have been infilled. The county,
73

through its Congestion Management It bears repeating that most of the

Agency, recommends that localities implementation tools listed in Figure 4.4
reduce the estimated traffic impacts of have not been applied by transit agencies
new housing projects by 9% if they are themselves, but rather by municipalities
within 2,000 feet of a light-rail station or other local interests. The most
and 2% if they are within 2,000 feet of common contributions of transit
a bus stop. Trip generation rates for agencies have been capital and planning
mixed-use projects are further adjusted funding as well as acquisition of land on
downward. The Los Angeles MTA has the open market.
recently followed suit, offering a 15%
credit for residentially oriented mixed- In terms of mean effectiveness rating by
use projects that have at least 24 units public-sector respondents, the most
per acre and that are within 1⁄4 mile of a highly regarded tools are fiscal
light-rail station. The biggest credits for measures, like capital funding, tax-
a mixed-use TOD were given to the exempt bonds, and planning funding.
34-acre mixed-use megaproject at Those working “in the trenches” of TOD
WMATA’s White Flint Station in the implementation seem attuned to the
Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area. notion that “money matters.” In keeping
Traffic mitigation credits granted to this with their more limited use, procedural
project in light of its proximity, mix, and tools like concurrency exemptions and
orientation to transit were streamlining of permit reviews are
generally considered to be the least
• Mixed-use reduction: 10%–25%; effective. The simple correlation
• Proximity to station reduction: 40% between usage of a tool and its mean
for apartments, 50% for offices effectiveness rating was a respectable
(a.m. peak), 28% for offices +0.668. For the most part, tools that are
(p.m. peak), 25% for retail, viewed by public-sector stakeholders as
and 5% for cinema; and most effective at leveraging TOD are the
• Traffic management reduction: ones actually being used by transit
10%–23%. agencies and their local government
partners.
Together, these measures afforded the
project a 45% reduction in estimated TOD developers and other private
vehicle trip generation rates. Smart- interests generally have a different
growth planning requires a smart perspective on the effectiveness of tools.
calculus, such as in these TOD As discussed in the next chapter,
examples. Through sliding-scale impact interviews with real-estate developers
assessments such as those used in from across the United States (all with
northern and southern California and the firsthand experience with TOD projects)
nation’s capital, mixed-use projects built revealed that tools that increase
near light-rail stations end up paying certainty, reduce turnaround time, and
considerably lower impact fees than upgrade transit services are generally
other comparably sized projects. preferred. However, developers also
Presumably, some of these savings get generally agree that supportive zoning,
passed on to tenants, thus boosting the help with land assembly, funding set-
market demand for TOD. asides for streetscape improvements, and
74

other tools within the sphere of public- Figure 4.5 summarizes the views of
sector control can be a boon to TOD transit-agency respondents regarding
implementation in some circumstances. desired roles of higher levels of
government; rankings were similar
Help from Above among respondents from municipalities
and redevelopment agencies. Initiating
Survey respondents from transit planning grants and targeted
agencies, municipalities, and infrastructure funding (such as for new
redevelopment authorities were also highway access or regional utility
asked to weigh the importance of improvements) were actions that higher-
initiatives introduced by higher levels of level governments could take that were
government (e.g., regional, state, and most valued among local-level
federal) toward promoting TOD. While respondents. Smart-growth initiatives,
the hands of higher-level governments typically introduced at the state level,
are often tied when it comes to were also generally looked on favorably.
exercising direct control over land use or Smart-growth legislation often ties state
the behavior of developers and lenders, infrastructure dollars to local anti-sprawl
state and federal authorities can exert programs, as in Maryland where counties
influence by introducing financial must designate priority funding areas
incentives or providing local and faithfully strive to restrict growth to
governments with the legislative and those areas. State tax-abatement
statutory means to enact smart-growth programs introduced through smart-
measures like TOD. growth initiatives were looked upon
Initiative:
Planning Grants 4.5
Targeted Infrastructure Funding 4.0
Smart-Growth Legislation 3.8
Tie Capital Grants to Local TOD Commitments 3.6
Concurrency/Adequate Public Facilities

3.3
Ordinance Requirements
Required Siting of Govt. Buildings Near Transit 3.2
Development of Regional Impact Requirements 3.1
2 3 4 5
Mean Rating
(1=minimal; 4=moderate; 7=significant)
Figure 4.5. Transit-Agency Respondents’ Mean Importance Rating of Initiatives
by Higher Levels of Government to Promote TOD.
75

favorably by local respondents from big marketplace. Still, transit agencies,

rail cities. Like the state of Oregon, local and regional governments, and
which authorized tax exemptions for redevelopment authorities have turned
multifamily housing near transit stops, to a variety of sources to finance
Minnesota’s state legislature has sought ancillary improvements and amenities,
to incentivize TOD, although unlike like sidewalks, civic plazas, and under-
Oregon, its focus is on commercial grounding of utilities. Such
development. In 1996, Minnesota enhancements, proponents contend,
authorized a 12 to 15% tax break for can be a catalyst to private investment,
commercial and industrial projects that particularly in marginal neighborhoods
lie within 1⁄4 mile of high-frequency bus suffering from an image problem. This
or rail stations. High-frequency stations section reviews experiences with
are defined as either regional transfer funding TODs and the physical armature
hubs or stations served by routes with associated with them. Funding tools and
30-minute or shorter headways during finance issues are discussed from the
peak hours. perspective of four public stakeholders:
transit agencies, municipalities,
Regulations imposed by higher levels redevelopment agencies, and MPOs.
of government generally received low Chapter 5 discusses finance further,
marks among local respondents. although from a private-sector
Strictures such as adequate public perspective.
facilities ordinances, required siting of
government buildings near rail stations, Transit Agencies
and DRI requirements (such as those
recently introduced in Georgia and Rarely, if ever, are general funds from
Florida) were not of much interest to transit agencies’ budgets used for
many local respondents. Despite such ancillary improvements like streetscape
low ratings, some of these higher- upgrades; transit operations and on-site
government measures have paid off capital investments usually lay claim to
nicely; an example is the ridership boon any discretionary agency dollars. A
that followed the Franchise Tax Board’s number of transit agencies have received
recent opening of its new headquarters federal and state grants, through such
near an existing Sacramento light-rail entities as TCSP, to finance ancillary
station (see Text Box 4.4). Overall, improvements around stations. In the
local-level interests place the highest national survey, transit-agency
value on federal, state, and local respondents were asked to identify
initiatives that provide capital “concrete whether different funding sources have
and steel” improvements to TOD been used to finance either the pre-
districts as well as cash grants and are development (e.g., planning) or actual
less enthusiastic about those that are construction of TODs and their
procedural or broad-based in nature. appurtenances. Table 4.3 summarizes the
responses. For the most part, non-grant
Funding TOD: Public Perspective sources have been used sparingly to
finance ancillary improvements around
As with most real-estate development, stations. Besides inter-governmental
TOD occurs largely through the private grant transfers, individual investor funds
76

Building a State Office Campus Near Light Rail
With multiple locations in Sacramento, California’s Franchise Tax Board (FTB) wanted
to unite employees on a single campus site. State-owned land near the Butterfield light-
rail station, where two preexisting FTB buildings stood, was chosen as the desired site,
in keeping with a state mandate that requires relocated state-government offices within a
rail transit service district to be within walking distance of a station. The Butterfield
station served as a catalyst for the design of a pedestrian-friendly, human-scale project
focused on light-rail transit. The state entered into a joint development agreement with
Sacramento Regional Transit to use portions of the existing Butterfield light-rail station
for the expanded facility. The 1.85-million-square-foot campus includes a town center
building, two new office buildings, and an existing tax processing building, all linked by
an indoor pedestrian main street. The town center, which is open to the public, serves as
the front door to the campus and includes a dining facility, auditorium, daycare facility,
and various sundries and shops. The complex includes 300 bicycle lockers and shower
and change facilities. Proximity to the light-rail station and various transportation-
demand management measures reduced the number of parking spaces needed by about
1,500. A light-rail passenger can step off the train, walk 75 feet, enter the town center
building, and reach various facilities on campus without going outside. Still, all good
campuses invite outdoor activities; thus, the FTB project includes a 1.8-acre courtyard
connecting two office buildings and a landscaped plaza to the light-rail station.
New Warehouse
Butterfield
Entry
Existing Light . RT Parking
B lv d New Butterfield Way
Rail Station m Extension
ls o
Fo
New Town RT Parking
Future Oates
Center Dr. Connection
New Office
Building Proposed
Complex Theater/Retail
Complex
Staff Parking
Staff Parking
M a y.
Rd.
he
MA
YH
w
Bldg. 1
EW
RO
Mayhew Bldg. 2
AD
0
Entry y. 5
F rw
Central Plant
North
Text Box 4.4
77

Table 4.3. Non-Grant Funds Used by planning and construction grants that
Transit Agencies to Leverage TODs can go toward TODs, but just 10 of the
90 respondents (11%) have received
Number and Agencies Using
Funds for:
such grant funds to date. Lane County
Type of Transit in Eugene, Oregon, for instance,
Fund Predevelopment Development received funds from the Oregon
Pension 1: RTD-Denver 2: SamTrans; Department of Transportation to pursue
Funds WMATA
TOD planning around several BRT
Union 0 2: TriMet;
Funds SamTrans
stations currently under construction.
BART received state Environmental
REIT 2: BART; RTD- 2: BART;
Funds Denver WMATA Justice Grants to conduct community-
based planning around six inner-city
Individual 7: BART; 10: BART;
Investor Jacksonville Jacksonville rail stations.
Funds Transit; Metro Transit;
North; Miami- Maryland
Dade; TriMet; Transit
What about joint development projects?
RTD-Denver; Administration; Where have transit agencies generally
WMATA Metro North; secured funds to finance their share of
Miami-Dade
Transit; NJ
public-private co-ventures? Figure 4.6
TRANSIT; reveals that traditional funding sources—
Riverside grants and loans—have largely been
Transit;
Southwest relied on for these purposes. As a set-
Metro (MN); aside, individual investor funds have been
TriMet; used more often to pay for advanced
WMATA
planning and other predevelopment
Nonprofit/ 5: BART; Kitsap 5: BART; activities. Sources more directly
Foundation Transit (WA); Kitsap Transit
Funds Miami-Dade (WA); Miami- controlled by equity owners, like union
Transit; RTD- Dade Transit; funds and REIT funds, are used far less
Denver; TriMet RTD-Denver;
TriMet
frequently for transit joint development.
A majority of surveyed transit properties

with joint development projects have
have been most widely used for planning built-in financial safeguards. Over three-
and constructing TOD improvements. quarters of surveyed transit properties
These funds are followed by nonprofit with joint development projects have
and foundation funding in frequency of equity partnerships in which the agency
usage. Pension, union, and Real Estate receives a share of profits from the sale
Investment Trust funds (REIT) have of properties. This is usually in return for
been used sparingly. the transit agency having written down
land costs (and occasionally having
BART and Denver’s RTD have been donated land outright). An equal share
particularly proactive in tapping into of surveyed transit properties receives
various fiscal resources in order to guaranteed minimum rents, regardless
leverage TOD. of market cycles. A slightly smaller
share—58% of respondents—
Nearly half of the transit-agency survey participates directly in the profits of
respondents said their states offer private real-estate ventures. Less
78

Funding
Source:
15.0%
Grants/Loans 6.0%
Individual Investor 12.0%

Funds 14.0%
Nonprofit/Foundation 9.8%
Funds 6.0%
7.7%
Pension Funds 0.0%
Development
2.0% Predevelopment
REIT Funds 4.0%
3.9%
Union Funds 0.0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Percent of Transit Agencies Practicing Joint Development

That Have Used Funding Source
Figure 4.6. Joint Development Funding Sources, Predevelopment and
Development.
common is the levy of penalties against in redevelopment districts. Tax

developers who finish projects late. One increment financing (TIF), a
out of four surveyed agencies practicing quintessential redevelopment-agency
joint developments exact a late fee. tool, is often used for reducing the costs
of development that the private sector
Local Governments might otherwise bear. TIF secures funds
by floating bonds based on the
Municipalities are not as active as transit anticipated future increases in property-
agencies in financing ancillary tax revenues that will result from
improvements around transit stations. planned development within the
Rarely do general municipal funds go for redevelopment area. Table 4.4 shows
these purposes because of other pressing how redevelopment funds have been
needs. Special assessments or transfer used within redevelopment districts in
grants from higher levels of government four jurisdictions. Three of the four
are for the most part relied on by jurisdictions—Houston, Contra Costa
municipalities to finance sidewalks and County, and Redwood City—have
other streetscape improvements in and spent TIF funds on such infrastructure
around transit stations. improvements as roads, utilities, and
parking. The La Mesa Community
Where one does find direct local funding Development Agency has used TIF to
of station-area ancillary improvements is purchase land around a trolley station
79

Table 4.4. Redevelopment Agency Higher Levels of Government

Respondents’ Uses of Tax Increment
Financing MPO funding sources for TOD planning
Redevelopment Uses of Tax- come primarily from federal and state
Agency Increment Financing government in the form of pass-through
Houston, TX: Midtown * Utilities
grants. These include FHWA TCSP
Redevelopment Authority * Streets grants; FHWA planning funds under
* Curbs
* Gutters
Section 112-PL; and FTA’s Section
* Sidewalks 5303 planning enhancement funds. For
* Street lighting
* Street furniture
example, the Delaware Valley Regional
* Landscaping/Irrigation Planning Commission has a 2-year-old
Contra Costa County, CA: * Streets grant program (the Transportation and
Redevelopment Agency * Drainage
* Utilities
Community Development Initiative) that
* Parking Structure (Public) provides Transportation Improvement
* Housing
Program funds for TOD planning studies
Redwood City, CA: * Infrastructure improvements and other activities targeted to the
Redevelopment Agency * Landscaping
region’s core cities and inner-ring
La Mesa, CA: * A channel was under-
Community grounded to provide more suburban municipalities. In a few
Redevelopment Agency usable land for new instances, regional planning bodies have
development adjacent to
a trolley station. used their own funds. Portland Metro,
* Public street improvements for example, uses its general funds
and land acquisitions were
completed for a new
as a local match for state and federal
development fronting a trolley planning and enhancement grants. As the
station.
nation’s only directly elected regional
governing body, Portland Metro is the
exception more than the rule.
and underground a stream channel so
as to make a parcel more usable and There are no states that provide funding
attractive for TOD. TIF, it should be explicitly for TOD planning and
noted, is not available in all states, in development, although several (New
large part because it is politically Jersey and California) give TODs
controversial, effectively subsidizing priority access to state-controlled
development by creating tax-privileged transportation funding under certain
districts. conditions. State support tends to be
more indirect, in the form of technical
Besides TIF, special assessments are assistance. State governments do
also used to finance TOD improvements. channel funds to pedestrian and bicycle
Montgomery County, Maryland, for improvements that can enhance the
example, charges a special parking quality of non-motorized access and
assessment on new development near the circulation around transit stops. The state
Bethesda Metro Station. Developers who of Illinois, for example, under the
opt not to comply with requirements for “Illinois Tomorrow: Balanced Growth
structured parking must pay a fee that for a Better Quality of Life” initiative,
is used by the county to build and recently award $3.7 million in grants;
maintain its own multi-story parking some of this money went to improve the
lots in the area. walkability of local streets and
80

streetscapes in and around aging survey. Next in the order of frequency

commuter-rail stations. of usage have been land-based tools
like land purchases on the open market
Summary (for land-banking and potential “deal-
making”) and assistance with land
TOD implementation ideally starts with assemblage. For the most part,
a vision, cultivated from broad-based redevelopment agencies have applied
public input, and proceeds to strategic these tools, meaning that their role in
station-area planning backed by leveraging TOD has been mainly limited
appropriate zoning as well as policy to economically depressed or blighted
incentives and regulations. Around half neighborhood settings. Because of the
of the surveyed transit properties in the higher risk involved, redevelopment
United States stated that their regions tools have often been accompanied by
have a vision, policy, or plan in place other funding sources, sometimes with
that embraces TOD principles. a dozen or more participants involved
in the process.
The most common means of controlling
land uses, densities, and site designs of Implementation strategies that are
TOD is overlay zones. Most overlays— procedural in nature, like expediting
often introduced on an interim basis to entitlement reviews and excluding
head off automobile-oriented uses that TODs from concurrency requirements,
might compromise a TOD—specify have been applied less often in practice
desired land uses as-of-right, such and are also viewed by public-sector
as housing and convenience shops. interests as less effective than other
For urban TODs, densities of 20 to measures in jump-starting TOD. As
30 dwelling units per residential acre discussed in the next chapter, this view
and FARs of 1.0 and above are not does not square with that of many
uncommon. Some of the more TOD developers.
progressive TOD zoning districts also
lower automobile parking requirements In terms of what MPOs, state DOTs,
and sometimes even set bicycle parking and the federal government might do to
mandates. help implement TODs, respondents
from the local levels stated loudly and
The national survey of U.S. transit clearly that what they need most is
agencies revealed that, besides standard money—specifically for strategic
zoning, the most frequently used tools station-area planning, infrastructure,
introduced to leverage TOD are funding and on-the-ground improvements.
for station-area planning and ancillary Smart-growth legislation that targets
capital improvements; the introduction state infrastructure and urban renewal
of density bonuses, sometimes used to grants to transit station areas (which
encourage the production of affordable currently exists in the state of Maryland)
housing units; and relaxation of parking is also looked upon favorably by local
standards. These measures, moreover, interests. Regulations like concurrency
received high marks in terms of their requirements, on the other hand,
overall effectiveness among transit generally received low grades among
professionals who responded to the survey respondents from the local level.
81

For financing streetscapes and other 9 Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglass, Inc.,
ancillary improvements around transit R. Cervero, Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates,
stations, monies have mostly come from and J. Zupan, “Regional Transit Corridors:
The Land Use Connection,” TCRP Project
federal and state grants such as the TCSP H-1 (Washington, D.C.: Transportation
program under the Transportation Equity Research Board, National Research
Act for the 21st Century. The most Council, Washington, D.C., 1995).
common sources of non-grant funds used 10 JHK and Associates, Development-Related
to leverage TOD are individual investor Survey I (Washington, D.C.: Washington
funds and nonprofit/foundation funds. Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 1987);
JHK and Associates, Development-Related
Survey II (Washington, D.C.: Washington
Notes Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 1989); R.
Cervero, Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused
1
Development in California, Monograph 45
R. Cervero, The Transit Metropolis: A Global
(Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional
Inquiry (Washington, D.C.: Island Press,
Development, University of California, 1993).
1998).
11
2
San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development
Specific TOD plans have been adopted for
Board, “License Agreement for Parking,”
these stations: Pittsburg/Bay Point, Concord,
April 19, 1990. This agreement was between
Pleasant Hill, McArthur, West Oakland,
the San Diego Metropolitan Transit
Richmond, San Leandro, Hayward, Union
Development Board as Licensor and CCRT
City, Fremont, Castro Valley, El Cerrito
Properties as Licensee.
del Norte, El Cerrito Plaza, and Richmond.
12
3
Bragado, 1999, op. cit.
N. Bragado, “Transit Joint Development
13
in San Diego: Policies and Practices,” Montgomery County’s Moderately Priced
Transportation Research Record, Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program, one of the
No. 1669 (1999): 22–29. first inclusionary zoning requirements in the
4
United States, stipulates that 12.5% to 15%
Calthorpe Associates, “Transit-Oriented
of all units in projects of 50 units or more be
Development Design Guidelines: City of San
set aside for households earning moderate
Diego,” Department of Planning, August
income (roughly 60% of the area’s median).
1992.
In exchange for the set-aside, developers who
5 Puget Sound Regional Council, Creating comply with the program are given density
Transit Station Communities in the Central bonuses that allow more units—22% in the
Puget Sound Region: A Transit-Oriented MPDU program—to be constructed on the
Development Workbook (Seattle, 1999). same amount of land.
14
6
New Jersey Transit, Planning for Transit- The Atlanta City Council has defined the
Friendly Land Use: A Handbook for price of low-income units at 1.5 times the
New Jersey Communities (Newark, NJ: city’s median family income and the rent of
NJ Transit, 1994). low-income units at 60% of fair market rent.
15
7 R. Ewing, Transportation and Land Use M. Bernick and R. Cervero, Transit Villages
Innovations (Chicago: Planners Press, 1997). for the 21st Century (New York: McGraw-Hill,
8
1997).
Puget Sound Regional Council, 1999, op. cit.;
16
R. Ewing, Pedestrian and Transit-Friendly R. Dunphy, D. Myerson, and M. Pawlukiewicz,
Design: A Primer for Smart Growth Ten Principles for Successful Development
(Washington, D.C.: Smart Growth Network, Around Transit (Washington, D.C.: The
1999). Urban Land Institute, 2003).
82

Chapter 5
Building and Bankrolling TOD: A Private-Sector Perspective
TOD and the Private Sector among other inputs, to probe a host of
TOD implementation issues mainly
Real-estate developers occupy the front related to project financing. A series of
lines of TOD, organizing the financial, one-on-one phone interviews were
physical, and human resources needed to conducted with 35 real-estate developers
build projects around transit stations. from across the United States who have
Beyond their role in implementation, been involved with projects near transit
developers also often have a strong hand stations. The head offices of interviewed
in the planning and design of TOD. developers, reflecting, for the most part,
Dating from the streetcar suburbs of the where they have been most active, were
early 1900s, the history of development distributed as follows: Portland (8),
in the United States is replete with San Francisco Bay Area (7), Washington
examples of private real-estate interests D.C. (4), Boston (3), Chicago (3),
responding to market demand by Denver (3), Atlanta (2), and Los
planning, designing, and building projects Angeles, Minneapolis, New York City,
around rail stations. Today this tradition Sacramento, and San Diego (1 each).
is carried forward by a dedicated corps of Surveyed developers come from large
developers who see TOD as a smart public corporations, mid-sized private
investment in increasingly congested and firms, and small nonprofit housing and
built-out urban areas. These developers community development corporations.1
are drawn to TOD in hopes of making More than two-thirds of the surveyed
nice financial profits, but they usually developers indicated that residential
require and expect supportive public development is their firms’ main focus.2
policies that allow them to do so. Appendix B presents the protocol used
to guide developer interviews.3 The
Also essential to TOD implementation experiences of those interviewed are
are banks and other lending institutions discussed in this chapter, focusing on the
because, after all, as Willie Sutton said financial, market, and public policy
when asked why he robbed banks, “that’s issues that affect developers’ ability and
where the money is.” At the end of the willingness to undertake TOD.
day, the prettiest drawings, most elegant
cost pro formas, and greatest intentions of A similar tact was used in soliciting
green-minded planners will matter little if inputs from the lending community.
those who finance the majority of real- Lenders from four large metropolitan
estate projects in the United States are areas—the San Francisco Bay Area (4),
unwilling to put their money on the line. Philadelphia (2), Chicago (1), and Los
Angeles (1)—were queried about their
This chapter draws on interview past experiences with TOD and joint
responses from developers and lenders, development projects in the United
83

States. Professional staff members household of a male breadwinner, stay-

known to have been involved in making at-home mom, and two kids is pretty
loan decisions for TOD projects were much a thing of the past, especially in
interviewed over the telephone.4 While big U.S. cities with rail systems.
an interview protocol was used to guide Nationwide, the share of “non-
the discussions (shown in Appendix C), traditional” households—single parents,
for the most part, interviews were open- childless couples, divorced or never-
ended and conversational, covering married people, or two or more unrelated
topics that the interviewees felt were adults—rose from 69.8% in 1980 to
most important, on their terms. Lender 76.5% in 2000.5 The numbers of new-
interviews were often factual and to the immigrant households are also on the
point, peppered with anecdotes and rise, and the location of choice for new
frank opinions. immigrants tends to be big cities where
economic opportunities are the greatest;
The Market for TOD big cities, of course, are also where
urban rail systems are concentrated.
Developer interest in TOD stems in large Many recent immigrants from Latin
part from the fact that the market for America and Asia are accustomed to
transit-oriented living, working, and transit and understand the value of living
shopping continues to expand, and working near regional rail systems.
particularly in big cities that are They constitute a natural niche market
increasingly choked with traffic. Traffic of TOD dwellers. Also, as America
congestion, in particular, is prompting continues to “gray,” retired couples
more and more Americans to pay a seeking to downsize are increasingly
premium for housing near rail stations, opting to locate in walkable
even if it means living in smaller houses neighborhoods that are well served by
on smaller lots. Between 1990 and 2000, transit. (Projections are eye opening; by
the average travel time to work 2025, more than one out of five residents
nationwide rose by 13%, or almost in 27 states are expected to be 65 years
3 minutes, to 25.5 minutes. In big cities of age or over, higher than in Florida
notorious for their traffic congestion, today.6) The neighborhoods around
like Atlanta and Los Angeles, mean many rail systems are particularly
commute times rose by nearly 20%. attractive to seniors because they enable
Besides the increased stress that access to cultural and sports events,
accompanies traffic congestion, many shopping malls, and other destinations
working parents complain about what that appeal to retirees. This is only the
John Whitelegg, a transportation case, however, if TODs are perceived to
geographer from Great Britain, calls be safe and secure.
“time pollution”: being robbed of quality
time, time that could be better spent with The many public policies devoted to
children and family. smart growth in general and TOD
specifically (reviewed in the previous
Besides worsening traffic congestion, chapter) have, of course, further
the market for TOD is being driven by strengthened the market for TOD.
shifting demographics and receptive Policies that seek to increase supplies of
public policies. The “Ozzie and Harriet” affordable housing have been
84

particularly important. In many parts this could be changing. At the extreme,

of the United States, redevelopment take the GW Terrain housing project,
agencies require a set percentage of new in Amsterdam, The Netherlands (see
units built within redevelopment districts Photo 5.1). Served by several light-rail
to be below market rates. Many rail transit lines, this project is an
stations built on disused railroad “automobile-free” residence. Tenants
corridors, former industrial corridors, are not allowed to keep private
or transitional neighborhoods, where automobiles on the premises
land is cheap, happen to fall within (automobile-sharing kiosks are available
redevelopment districts. As noted in immediately adjacent to the project).
Chapter 4, redevelopment agencies bring While one might assume that
a powerful kit bag of tools to the table environmental “greens” and other
such as TIF. Other means of financing “progressives” largely inhabit the
affordable units used by redevelopment project, in truth, many tenants are
authorities include tax-exempt bonds, traditional families with children. Many
low-interest loans, loan guarantees, are drawn to the transit-oriented,
grants, and direct equity participation. automobile-free project because of its
Creating TODs, whether around superb access to Amsterdam’s many
Miami’s Overtown Station, Oakland’s cultural offerings and because the
Fruitvale Station, or Montgomery project interior is given over to gardens
County’s Silver Spring Station, offers a and playgrounds instead of asphalt
chance to redress the “twin evils” of parking. That is, the GW Terrain TOD
affordable housing shortages and travel is perceived as a safe haven for kids to
congestion. play in and grow up in. Projects like the
GW Terrain show that if site designs
A New Jersey developer interviewed that instill a sense of security by
during the course of this research providing “defensible spaces” and “eyes
confided that his firm has gotten out on the interior” are built near major
of the business of building residential transit stops, TOD can reach a more
subdivisions on suburban greenfields. mainstream demographic, including
Instead, the firm today concentrates traditional households with children.
solely on redeveloping brownfields
and grayfield sites, particularly near
commuter-rail stations and on the
waterfront with ferry connections to
Manhattan. These developments are
targeted at professional-class workers.
The state of New Jersey’s progressive
brownfield program, which reduces
some of the risks and instills greater
certainty in remediating contaminated
sites, was a decisive factor in this
developer’s reorientation.
While the market for TOD is largely Photo 5.1. Amsterdam’s GW Terrain
considered to be “niche” in nature, even “Automobile-Free” TOD.
85

The Decision to Develop much easier by creating a margin of

certainty. In the best of worlds, land
What factors drive the decision to go use ordinances reflect community
forward with a TOD? While the sentiments; however, it is sometimes the
presence of market demand is without case that neighborhood interests fight
question the overriding factor, the projects that threaten to add traffic even
presence or absence of other factors, if they fully conform to local zoning.
many outside the direct control of
developers, can also have a bearing. This was the case around the Pleasant
Interviewed developers were asked Hill BART station. Development plans
about 13 factors thought to influence the stalled in 1995 in the face of stiff
willingness to go forward with a TOD community opposition, despite a proposal
project. These factors are ranked in that fully complied with the area’s land-
Figure 5.1 in terms of their importance use plan. The addition of some 2,200
to the development decision. households to the Pleasant Hill Station
area over the past two decades led to the
The presence of supportive land-use formation of neighborhood associations
designations was rated as the most that proceeded to fight all large-scale
important factor affecting the decision projects that threatened to draw regional
to develop. This bodes well for local traffic into the community. Not until the
governments interested in attracting completion of a major community-
TOD to their communities; changes to planning process in 1999 did a new
zoning are squarely within the purview development proposal begin to find
of local government and can be changed traction. With the completion of a
with relatively little expense. One successful charrette process in 2002, a
developer indicated that supportive land- second-generation TOD is presently
use designations are particularly moving through the approvals process.
important for small parcels of land, such
as infill sites. She explained that the time The second most important factor
and effort associated with seeking a influencing willingness to develop, as
change in zoning is only justified when expressed by interviewed developers, is
there is a large potential return the potential for rent premiums due to
associated with a major development. superior location. This is not surprising
Small projects need the proper zoning to given the “location, location, location”
be already in place. Another developer cliché ingrained in the minds of most
mentioned that supportive land-use developers, and it reflects the more
designations are most important when general comment, made repeatedly by
they reflect clear community sentiment. those interviewed, that development
He noted that the most important factor decisions—including decisions to lend,
for his firm in deciding whether to invest, or build—are driven by the real-
undertake a project is whether the estate market fundamentals.
community has gone through a visioning
or community-planning process that Most developers interviewed also
expresses the kind of development most considered proximity to transit an
desired. He feels that when such plans important factor in the decision to
have been completed it makes his job develop. Admittedly, the group of
86

Supportive Land-Use Designations 5.5
Potential Rent Premium for Superior Location/

5.3
Access
Adjacent to Transit Station 5.0
Availability of Tax Incentive 4.1
Extent of Real-Estate Investment Activity in

3.9
Area or Near Site
Mixed-Use Development 3.9
Public-Sector Participation 3.8
Location in Emerging Real-Estate Market 3.4
Unsubordinated Ground Lease with Public

3.4
Agency
Brownfield Issues 3.3
Parking Below Local Standard for Product Type 3.1
Limited Developer Experience with Proposed

2.8
Product Type
Majority of Tenants are Local/Non Credit 2.8
1 2 3 4 5 6
Mean Rating of Importance to Decision to Develop
(1 = miminal; 4 = moderate; 7 = significant)
Figure 5.1. Importance of Factor in Willingness to Develop, as Rated by
Interviewed Developers.
87

developers interviewed was selected attached,” such as requirements that a

because of their affinity for doing TOD. certain percentage of housing units be
One developer noted that a high tide, or affordable to low- or moderate-income
strong real-estate market, “floats all households or requirements to pay union
boats, but when the tide goes out it is the or prevailing wages. These developers
boats in the best position relative to felt that the public sector should not
transit that continue to float.” Other assume its involvement is necessarily
developers spoke of a competitive helpful in the implementation of TOD
advantage for their TOD products, which unless it is backed by sufficiently large
are not easily duplicable because of the monetary incentives. Finally, while
limited number of transit-accessible many of the developers surveyed
sites. Finally, one developer indicated believed that mixed-use projects work
that he was willing to undertake well in certain market contexts, many
development at “marginal” sites with looked askance at planning doctrine that
good access to transit. It is notable that holds that buildings near transit stops
the developers interviewed rated transit must be vertically mixed. Vertical
as among the most important factors mixing of uses was perceived to increase
affecting their willingness to develop, insurance costs and to create potential
despite the fact (as noted later in this conflicts between tenants. Developers
chapter) that many indicated that being strongly favor allowing the private
near transit has little influence on their sector to make decisions about when it is
ability to secure a conventional loan. appropriate to mix uses within the same
building.
Other factors that influence decisions to
develop included tax incentives, public- Unsubordinated ground leases, whereby
sector participation, whether or not a private developers and their lenders
development is mixed use, and the use of absorb most of the risks should a real-
unsubordinated ground leases. Overall, estate venture fail, were not generally
tax incentives were rated to be a thought to significantly affect
moderately important inducement to development decisions. Indeed, most
development. Nonetheless, some developers had no experience in working
developers discounted their importance, with such leases. (Whether public
noting that tax breaks are not generally agencies are required to use
large enough to overcome a difficult unsubordinated ground leases is
market and are unnecessary (but still something that varies across state and
welcomed) in a strong real-estate market local jurisdictions.) Nonetheless, several
where growth happens regardless. developers spoke to the potential
Public-sector participation in difficulties associated with building on
development was regarded favorably by land with an unsubordinated ground
most developers, particularly when used lease from a public agency. Some
to spur development in down markets or indicated that unsubordinated leases can
provide assistance in the entitlement be an enormously complicating factor,
phase. On the other hand, some which has the potential to make some
developers were skeptical of public- developments impossible to finance.
sector involvement in development, Others indicated that such leases can be
noting that there may be “strings done, but they require greater equity
88

participation and reduce developer size and type (whether residential, office,
inclination to undertake the project. retail, or industrial) and the firm’s size
and credit rating. As an example,
Interviewed lenders had a somewhat affordable-housing developers7 who
different take on unsubordinated leases were interviewed indicated that they use
and public-private partnerships more a wide array of funding sources,
generally. Involving multiple parties including conventional debt, low-interest
introduces complexity in terms of loans and grants from governmental
understanding a project, its credit risks, agencies and community development
and the nature and quality of the bank’s organizations, and the sale of tax credits.
collateral. Five out of the eight lenders Although this combination of funding
interviewed noted that public-sector sources is complex and involves
involvement introduces additional considerable public participation, it is
challenges in financing a project. typical of affordable housing
Unsubordinated leases are a particularly development regardless of whether it is
sticky point in the minds of lenders. One undertaken as part of a TOD. In addition
emphatically stated: “Unsubordinated to standard financing products, a handful
ground leases make the project much of developers indicated that they do tap
more complicated due to the large into pools of funding specifically
number of parties and different available for TOD. These sources of
motivations that they have.” To the monies are generally small albeit
degree that joint development produces important in some instances.
social benefits like increased ridership
and improved air quality, lenders Debt Finance
generally believe that subordinated loans
that protect the financial interests of What private funding sources have been
private groups over those of the public used to bankroll TODs? Nearly all of the
sector are appropriate. One interviewee developers surveyed indicated that they
suggested: “When agencies do ground used conventional construction and
leases, they should look at the greater mortgage financing as the primary
public benefit of TOD and joint sources of TOD funding. The BellSouth
development.” Ultimately this debate Corporation, which has developed a
comes down to what degree the public number of office buildings along the
sector is willing to absorb near-term risk MARTA rail line in Atlanta, was one
for the purposes of reaping long-term exception; it normally self-funds its
benefits. development activity.
Private Financing Developers consistently stated that

whether or not projects are TODs does
How does being near a major transit stop not affect lending standards in terms of
affect how developers fund projects? interest rates, points for securing loans,
Interviewed developers felt it had no loan-to-value requirements, or debt
effect. A project’s status as a TOD coverage ratios. Comments such as the
generally has no bearing on the palette following from a Bay Area residential
of financing tools used. For the most developer were common: “I am not
part, financing is governed by project aware of any positive or negative impacts
89

on any of these lending standards on they have used REIT funds as an equity
TOD. The only potential issue is if there source for TOD. Firms using REIT
is no perceived market for a product equity were generally quite large. They
type, then a premium might be required.” included a developer in the Bay Area that
By virtually all accounts, proximity to has completed six residential TODs
transit is a peripheral consideration in totaling approximately 1,500 units, a
obtaining loans. Lending standards and developer in Denver currently working
the availability of financing are instead on a residential project encompassing
tied to conditions in the capital markets 15 city blocks, and mixed-use master
and whether the lending community developers from Atlanta and Boston. The
believes that there is adequate market Atlanta developer is currently working
demand for a real-estate product. on a 4.8-million-square-foot mixed-use
project, while the Boston developer has
This view was echoed by all eight completed a mixed-use TOD in excess of
lenders who were surveyed. 1 million square feet. A few developers
Underwriting decisions are based on a indicated that they use outside equity
number of factors that need to be sources such as investor pools and
considered in the context of each monies from large capital management
individual project. None of the lenders funds for TOD. Finally, one developer,
interviewed was willing to say that TOD who works exclusively with brownfield
or joint development projects have sites, indicated that his firm uses a
factors (aside from unsubordinated private equity fund targeted specifically
ground leases and, in some cases, lower at brownfield redevelopment to help
parking standards) that make them more finance TOD. While developers were not
difficult to finance than other types of specifically asked about their own firms’
projects. In large part, TODs were equity contributions toward TOD, a few
treated like any other form of urban were eager to speak to this issue,
development when subjected to banks’ indicating that most of the equity in their
financial litmus tests. projects is self-financed. This included
one developer who noted that “a major
Equity Finance obstacle to developing socially
responsible infill is predevelopment
Other owners of equity capital, such as equity and what we have to pay for it.”
pension and trust funds, also provide
potential sources of TOD monies. There was considerable agreement
Among the development firms surveyed, among developers that the availability of
14 indicated that they have used equity equity, as with debt, is primarily driven
funds from outside their company to help by capital market conditions and the
finance TOD. Of this group, nine stated marketplace, not a project’s status as a
that they had used pension or insurance TOD. Nonetheless, when asked if there
funds. This includes two developers from were any characteristics of TOD that
the Portland (Oregon)–Vancouver help in obtaining equity funds, about
(Washington) metropolitan area, each of half of the developers surveyed pointed
whom has used funds from the Oregon to at least one characteristic of TOD that
and Washington state retirement systems. is helpful, a subject taken up in the next
Additionally, four developers indicated section.
90

Public-Sector and Foundation Finance improvements adjacent to a 93-unit,

multifamily development in San
While the developers surveyed generally Francisco, near a MUNI transit station.
relied on conventional sources of debt In another instance, the firm submitted a
and equity finance for their TOD projects, joint application for TLC funds along
6 of the 35 indicated that they have with the Contra Costa County
developed projects with the assistance of Redevelopment Agency. MTC granted
public-sector grants or financing linked $231,000, which was used to pay for the
specifically to TOD or transportation. creation of a pedestrian walkway adjacent
These funds were generally earmarked to a high-density residential development
for the provision of infrastructure, transit, that was then under construction near the
or parking improvements, as discussed in Pleasant Hill BART station.
the previous chapter.
A handful of developers indicated that
The major source of grant assistance public-sector tax-exempt bond financing
related to TOD was disbursement of has been used to finance infrastructure
federal TEA-21 funds. A Chicago area components of TODs. This was most
developer indicated that the Chicago often the case where projects were built
Transit Authority used TEA-21 CMAQ on transit-agency land as part of joint
funds to pay for a bridge connecting one development efforts.
of her firm’s developments to the “El,”
the elevated municipal rail line that In addition to public-sector financial
operates in Chicago. In the Bay Area, support earmarked specifically for TOD
developers stressed the importance of or transportation, five of the developers
“seed grants” provided by the surveyed indicated that their TODs had
Metropolitan Transportation Commission benefited from public-sector support
(MTC) under its Transportation for targeted at the provision of affordable
Livable Communities (TLC) Program.8 housing, such as low-income housing tax
This program sets aside money for the credits or tax-exempt bond financing.
planning, design, and construction of Only two of the developers surveyed
small-scale, “community-oriented indicated that economic revitalization
transportation projects,” including funds such as Enterprise Zone grants or
streetscape improvements carried out in Urban Development Action Grants had
conjunction with real-estate development been used in financing a TOD.
near transit.9 On an annual basis, the
MTC channels $27.5 million dollars to Finally, foundation support was a minor
this program, most of which comes from source of TOD funding among the
the region’s TEA-21 allocation. (See developers interviewed. Only three
Chapter 18 for further discussion of this indicated that they had received
program.) A San Francisco–based non- foundation assistance. These included
profit housing developer who was community development corporations in
interviewed indicated that TLC funds the Bay Area and Chicago and a
have been helpful in paying for developer undertaking a complex reuse
infrastructure costs for two of her firm’s of a historic property in downtown
projects. In one instance, her firm Denver, which included retail, office,
received $425,000 to spend on streetscape and affordable and market-rate housing.
91

For the most part, foundation funding is proximity to transit, whether projects
not on the radar screen of most have sufficient comparables, whether
developers of TOD and it has been projects are mixed use, whether reduced
reserved for a unique subset of TODs parking standards are applied, and
undertaken as part of community whether there are environmental
revitalization efforts. concerns. Around half of the interviewed
developers indicated that there is at least
Availability and Terms of Finance one characteristic of TOD that has
helped in obtaining equity funds from
Although a project’s status as a TOD outside sources.
was generally not considered to have a
major impact on the ability to obtain Figure 5.2 presents the characteristics of
debt or equity finance, a number of TODs that, according to surveyed
characteristics associated with individual developers, aided them in obtaining
TODs that have affected the availability equity funds. Each entry indicates that
and terms of finance were identified by one of the interviewed developers
surveyed developers. These are the identified the characteristic as helpful.
Located Near Transit 8
Good Location Within

5
Metropolitan Area
TOD Characteristics
Supported Financially
4
by Public Sector
Requires Less
Parking than Standard 3
Development
Supported Politically
3
by Public Sector
Mitigates Public
Oposition to High 1
Densities
0 2 4 6 8 10
Frequency of Response
Figure 5.2. Characteristics of TOD that Enhance Ability to Obtain Equity
Funds, Based on Developer Interviews.
92

Proximity to Transit knowledge of transit’s impacts on

commute patterns is useful in talking
Although most developers indicated that with lenders. This developer explained
a project’s proximity to transit is not a that while homeowners are willing to
significant factor affecting the ability to travel longer distances to reach work,
obtain conventional loans, 8 of the renters are known to travel only about
35 developers surveyed indicated that it half an hour to work. To the extent that
has been helpful in financing the debt for transit places additional locations within
projects. Those believing that proximity a half-hour commuteshed of job centers,
to transit is helpful include office, retail, this developer believes it expands the
and residential developers. In general, market for multifamily development and
their responses to interview questions potentially increases the geography in
demonstrated an ability to explain the which lenders will make loans to build
benefits of development near transit in a apartments.
sophisticated and realistic manner, a skill
that they relied on during conversations Among for-sale residential developers,
with lenders. three brought up the topic of LEMs. As
noted in previous chapters, LEMs allow
One office developer explained: homebuyers in transit-accessible areas to
borrow more money toward the purchase
All development financing is about of a home than they would normally be
demonstrating market support for a able to borrow based on their incomes.
project. Transit access can help While the developers who spoke about
make the case for market support, LEMs did so in fairly general terms, all
especially for office uses in non-
of them felt that they improve the market
CBD [central business district]
locations. If a development is in a
for for-sale housing around transit.
pioneering location, then access to
transit becomes a primary rationale Lenders who were interviewed seemed
for market support and financing. indifferent to whether a project was near
a transit stop or not. Adjacency to transit
The developer explained that aside from stations, increased real-estate investment
these instances, when developments are in the area, and potential rent premiums
in up-and-coming locations, access to for superior access did not influence
transit is a marginal consideration. lending decisions according to those
Another developer, involved primarily interviewed. One interviewed lender did
with mixed-use projects that include note, however, that “improved access to
large retail components, noted that employment areas increases the value
proximity to transit can be helpful in of TOD residential projects because
making the case to lenders because being of lower vacancies and better rents
near transit means “additional commuter compared with non-TOD projects.” In
traffic generation.” order to make TODs more attractive
to banks, one interviewee suggested
Another interviewee, a multifamily implementing “programs or policies
developer, indicated that while it is hard that strengthen creditworthiness, put
to “sell a project to lenders” based only additional money into projects, or
on the TOD aspects of a project, create more publicity for them.”
93

Mixed Use Despite these concerns, several lenders

said they are beginning to have a more
A number of developers indicated that favorable view toward the financial
while TOD, per se, does not pose a viability and marketability of mixed-use
challenge to obtaining debt financing, products, especially in urban districts
mixed-use development does. According experiencing an economic renaissance
to one developer, this was due to the and undergoing gentrification. It is likely
lack of comparables in suburban the case (and four lenders acknowledged
locations, where single-use buildings this) that many banks have lent on
predominate. Higher insurance costs mixed-use projects near transit stations
associated with mixed uses also without ever realizing that the project
introduce risks. The challenge of doing represented a TOD. One interviewee
mixed-use projects near transit stops is stated, “TOD projects on private property
taken up in the next chapter, on barriers would never be recognized as TOD.”
to TOD implementation. TOD seems to be largely an irrelevant
concept for these lenders, distinct from
Lenders’ views on mixed uses and other financing issues. One lender
comparables were generally guarded, surveyed, for example, was the account
reflecting the uncertainties and manager for the Ohlone-Chynoweth
challenges of intermixing activities like TOD (parking-lot infill) project in
residences, shopping, and workplaces San Jose, and he did not even know what
on a single parcel, whether near a train TOD meant until it was defined for him.
station or not. Those interviewed cited For a couple of the interviewed lenders,
several factors that make lending for TOD was a negative label in that it was
such projects more difficult, even if it associated with inner-city or community
does not result in different loan pricing development type projects. One
or terms: (1) the mix of uses makes it suggested dropping the TOD label
more complicated to understand market altogether and casting these as mixed-use
support and thus estimate likely rates of projects that have the added bonus of
return, (2) there are fewer permanent being near a transit stop. This suggestion
lenders willing to provide take-out indicates that what matters is the
financing for these types of projects, combination of mixed use and accessible
and (3) the underwriting process is transit, not the notion of government-
generally more complex and takes more planned TOD (and all the connotations
time. Permanent lender requirements this brings, such as lengthy entitlement
may be more significant in determining and permit-review processes).
the potential financing for a particular
TOD or joint development project. More important than whether a project is
Technical analyses that better reflect mixed or not is developer experience, at
the benefits of mixed-use projects— least in the minds of lenders who were
such as evidence that they reduce interviewed. One stated: “Mixed-use
vehicle trip generation rates that can could be a plus or a negative; it depends
in turn be used as credits against on a particular project.” Seven out of the
development-impact fees—would also eight lenders cited limited developer
aid in making mixed-use products experience with proposed project type as
“pencil out.” a highly significant factor in deciding to
94

invest. This suggests that a TOD project according to the interviewee. What also
with an experienced developer of mixed- might help is if more and better transit
use areas will be more likely to have capitalization studies, based ideally on
financial backing than an inexperienced matched-pair comparisons (the tried-
TOD developer. and-true method of appraisers), are
published in professional journals read
Comparables by appraisers.
Having comparable projects from which Parking

lenders can assess market performance
can sway financing decisions according Below-code parking standards are
to several interviewed developers. Of another trait of TOD that some
course, whether the decision is a “go” developers believe affects their ability to
hinges on TODs exhibiting superior secure financing. Sentiment on this issue
financial performance, a topic addressed was mixed among the developers
in Chapter 9 of this report. The absence interviewed. While a few indicated that
of similar projects, particularly mixed- building projects with lowered parking
use projects that have sold near transit ratios harms their ability to get
stations, can be a stumbling block to conventional debt financing, a similar
financing, especially in smaller urban number indicated that the lowered need
settings where TOD is still a novel for parking, particularly structured
concept. parking, helps the viability of projects,
making it easy to obtain loans.
Several surveyed lenders remarked that
the views and opinions of real-estate One developer stated that a decade or so
appraisers are particularly important in ago developers had to make a forceful
establishing value for lending decisions. case to banks and city agencies as to why
Appraisers normally weigh standard a TOD project with reduced parking was
features of “comps,” like building square a good idea. Now, he feels that virtually
footage and on-site amenities, in arriving all local planning departments are very
at an estimated property value. Few familiar with TOD and that the public
think about or seriously consider benefits sector is happy to prioritize it and support
that might be associated with proximity it with public funds. The private-lending
to transit. The idea of capitalization sector, he mentioned, has been slower to
benefits, whereby the accessibility come around. As recently as 6 years ago,
advantages conferred by transit get he took a completed TOD retail project,
absorbed into land prices, is not leased to a credit tenant, to 50 different
something that usually registers among lenders before finding a lender who
most real-estate appraisers. Appraisals would provide permanent financing for
do not separately attribute value to the project. A couple of lenders initially
transit orientation or location. One committed to the project but pulled out
lender suggested that this is partially when they found that there was no
because TOD is not an established parking lot. According to the developer,
market for premium rents or valuation. lenders would not fund a retail project
Technical training of real-estate that had no parking, even though the
appraisers would help in this regard, developer had an operational project and
95

could prove that all of the customers loan, even in complex deals.
were walking in off the street or arriving Nonetheless, she noted that lending
by transit. He feels that most lenders standards tighten when brownfield issues
continue to hold suburban development are involved. Several lenders who were
up as their model and are reluctant to interviewed echoed this sentiment,
lend to projects with parking ratios below noting that brownfield sites are riskier
industry standards. Several developers and more complex.
noted that national associations whose
views carry a lot of clout, including the Summary and Lessons
Urban Land Institute and the National
Association of Homebuilders, continue Ultimately, TOD is an outcome of one or
to praise the value of ample, convenient more developers putting up their hard-
parking as a means of gaining a earned money, or the money of lenders
marketing edge over other competitors and investors, to create a new form of
almost regardless of location. urbanism around transit stations. To a
large degree, interviews reveal that
Not all the surveyed developers bought developers have a positive view of TOD
into this logic. One noted that reduced as a viable and growing market niche.
parking ratios for a TOD saved on the When asked to rate the overall financial
cost of building structured parking. As record of TOD, interviewed developers
a result, he improved the bottom line on average scored it as a 5 on a scale of
of his project, which he believes made 1 to 7, indicating that they think it
it more attractive to lenders, who performs better than most products.
understood the rationale for providing Developers were especially optimistic
fewer parking spaces. Fighting about the prospects of TOD in areas
opposition to reduced parking, whether where traffic congestion continues to
from neighborhood groups or traffic- worsen and there is a pro-TOD political
engineering departments, however, can sentiment. While there were substantial
add costs and uncertainties that some areas of agreement among developers
developers would just as soon avoid. who were interviewed, a number held
conflicting views of certain elements of
Environmental Concerns TOD. One example is parking. On the
one hand, many developers relate to the
A couple of the developers surveyed idea that parking standards should be
indicated that environmental issues have lowered to the degree that significant
affected their firms’ abilities to obtain numbers of residents, shoppers, and
debt financing for TODs. A developer workers ride transit. On the other hand,
affiliated with a large residential many have been reared on the principle
development company indicated that her that parking is an effective marking tool
company normally likes to tackle and can sometimes make or break a
complex deals because experience has project. Regardless, most favor leaving
given the company a competitive the decision of how much parking to
advantage in this area. Due to her firm’s provide to the private sector. Developers
size and credit rating, she indicated that feel that they know the market best and
it almost never has to pay a premium on will take advantage of cost savings when
the interest rates or points for securing a justified.
96

On balance, many developers feel that backed by infrastructure improvements

being near major transit stops is like undergrounding utilities and
advantageous to the degree that it upgrading road access—are likely to
provides rent premiums. Some also feel make TODs all the more attractive to
that being close to transit can improve lending institutions.
the ability to secure equity finance,
particularly for certain product types in Interviews suggest that joint development
pioneering locations (e.g., office projects are more difficult to finance
development in suburban locations). than neighborhood-scale TODs. This is
Most developers realize that more is partly due to guilt by association—the
needed than spatial proximity, however. fact that a project is directly tied,
Making sure that the walk between a symbolically and figuratively, to a
project and a station portal is safe and transit facility seems to detract from its
reasonably attractive matters to many. value. The bureaucratic component of
Putting in complementary land uses, like joint development projects, involving
convenience shops and service retailers, government institutions that are not
is particularly important to TOD always driven by the profit motive,
homebuilders. Nonetheless, developers makes some lenders uneasy as well.
realize that regardless of what they Of course, had lenders from the
think, access to funds is often dependent Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan
upon the views of lenders. While many Area been interviewed, where well-
developers embrace TOD as a concept, publicized joint development projects
when it comes to securing conventional like Bethesda and Ballston are known
debt financing, there was a general to be hugely profitable, the reactions
agreement that TOD offers little help. might have been different. Clearly,
Loan decisions, they noted, are governed the transit industry would benefit
by fundamentals, not urban-planning from well-designed and financially
concepts. Interviewed lenders echoed remunerative joint development projects
this sentiment. outside the Washington (D.C.)
Metropolitan Area. As transit properties
Most of the interviewed lenders had like Miami-Dade, MARTA, and BART
difficulty pinpointing the positive and continue to make headway on joint
negative factors that influence whether development deals, perhaps the
they invest in a TOD because banks, cumulative experiences will eventually
they contend, look at each project based cast these public-private partnerships
on its individual merits. Dealing with the in a more positive light.
innate market characteristics of TOD—
notably, mixed-use projects with the
advantage of being near transit—is Notes
generally viewed as the best way to
1
market the TOD product to the lending The largest TODs undertaken by developers
community. Factors that enhance the surveyed were Lindbergh Station in Atlanta
and the Northpoint Project in Boston. Each
connection of a parcel to a rail station— of these projects covers nearly 50 acres and
such as direct and attractive pathways, represents approximately 5 million square
well-lighted and secure portals, and a feet of space in a mix of uses. On the other
strong degree of public commitment end of the spectrum, six developers surveyed
97

indicated that their standard projects consist affordable-housing loan officers; and the
of fewer than 100 residential units. others are involved in market-rate lending.
2 The large banks where the surveyed lenders
Following residential, the next most common
work all have functional distinctions between
product type was retail; 27 of the developers
“market-rate” lending offices that serve a
indicated that their firms are involved in at
region and “community development
least some amount of retail development.
lending” offices that are involved in
Of this group, only two firms indicated that
affordable housing or other projects
retail development accounts for more than
oriented to community development.
half of their overall development activity.
5
In total, 10 firms indicated that they have U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of General
developed retail projects in excess of Demographic Characteristics: 2000 Census of
100,000 square feet. The remaining 17 firms Population and Housing (Washington, D.C.:
that have done retail development indicated U.S. Printing Office, May, 2001).
that it is usually a small component in 6
See http://www.census.gov/population/
mixed-use developments. Nineteen
www/socdemo/age.html.
developers indicated that their firms develop
7
office space, including five developers whose The term “affordable housing” is used here to
firms are primarily involved with office describe housing that is built with
development. A few developers indicated government assistance using federal income
involvement in projects with institutional tax credits. In order to qualify for such
and industrial uses. funding, developers have to agree to maintain
3
specified affordability levels over long
In some cases, where developers preferred to
periods of time, typically 55 years.
answer questions in writing rather than over
8
the phone, mail-in questionnaires were sent MTC is the Bay Area MPO, responsible for
that solicited the same information as was programming federal transportation dollars
being collected through the interviews. allocated through TEA-21.
4 9
The profile of those surveyed was as follows: Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
all work for large banks providing construction Transportation for Livable Communities
or short-term financing (i.e., no permanent Program Overview (Oakland, California:
lenders); two lenders interviewed are 2002).
98

Chapter 6
Barriers to TOD: What They Are and How to Overcome Them
Types of Barriers many barriers are interrelated—for

example, the higher densities of TOD
The literature cites many obstacles to might prompt politicians to downzone,
TOD, just as it does to most forms of unleash citizen opposition, and prompt
compact, mixed-use development.1 lenders to reject loan requests. Others are
Some barriers are financial in nature embedded in these larger categories—
(e.g., lender skepticism), while others automobile-oriented development
are quintessentially political and patterns form barriers to TOD in large
institutional (e.g., zoning restrictions due part because overcoming them (i.e.,
to opposition). While some barriers can creating denser, more transit-friendly
be overcome through local actions and environs) raises costs and political flak.
policies (e.g., restrictive zoning), others
(e.g., automobile-oriented development The barriers reviewed in this chapter and
patterns) are largely outside the sphere discussed in the literature explain, in part,
of local influence (e.g., cheap gasoline why projects are not built, but, as some
prices set through the global marketplace observers note, they are less useful for
encourages automobile dependence), at explaining why many of the projects
least in a direct sense. This chapter billed as TOD fall short of expectations.
discusses these and other barriers to In a recent Brookings Institution white
TOD implementation. Initiatives that paper on TOD, Dena Belzer and Gerald
might help overcome impediments are Autler note: “The barriers people
also discussed. A combination of associate with TOD tend to parallel the
literature reviews, developer interviews, barriers associated with building types of
and survey results of stakeholder groups high-density infill projects, regardless of
informed the discussion of this chapter. proximity to transit.”2 While this is true,
unless the factors discussed in this
The literature sorts barriers to TOD into chapter are dealt with at some level, TOD
three basic categories: fiscal (factors that will remain more of an exception than the
detract from the financial feasibility of rule in most U.S. rail-served cities.
TOD projects, such as questionable Regardless, barriers that are particularly
market viability and lack of conventional unique to transit station settings are also
financing); organizational (structural given attention in this chapter.
impediments lodged in the institutional
fabric of transit agencies and other Fiscal Barriers
governmental entities responsible
for projects); and political (land-use The higher construction costs,
policies and NIMBY forces that development fees, and risks that
impede multifamily housing and infill accompany dense, nodal development
development more generally). Of course, like TOD form significant financial
99

obstacles. Mid-rise, multistory structures development have been successful on

require strong foundations and footings, the residential side, but the project
steel-frame construction, elevators, and managers have struggled to find
lobby areas, all adding cost and cutting financing for the commercial
down on net leasable space. Infill development that will agree to a TOD
development might incur expenses plan (see Photo 6.1). The absence of an
for site clearance, environmental anchor tenant for the project hampered
remediation, and infrastructure the developer’s ability to obtain
upgrading. Many developers weigh such financing. As long as the developer is
risks and costs against building single- able to provide loan guarantees, banks
story structures on greenfields or the typically loan up to 70% of the money
suburban edge where neighborhoods are for a shopping center development.4 The
stable and crime rates are low. In anchor tenant typically provides the loan
California, a series of lawsuits holding guarantees for the project, promising to
condominium builders liable for faulty continue paying rent even if the business
construction up to 10 years after units at that site fails. Without an anchor
were sold has frightened some tenant, banks are usually unwilling to
developers from the high-density provide loans.5
housing market altogether. Perhaps the
trickiest part of high-density TOD is Similar difficulties have been encountered
the pricey structured parking that among non-profit/affordable housing
accompanies it. A real-estate economist groups trying to build TOD projects on
involved with TOD planning along the transit-agency land in the San Francisco
T-REX corridor in Denver has remarked: Bay Area.6 Since lenders often require
ownership of the land being built on to
You have to get the land values up be put up as collateral to secure the
to support structured parking. That project loan, financially strapped
costs at least $15,000 a parking nonprofit housing builders must often
space, but add special features like make concessions to lenders in terms of
a ‘retail wrap’ to the garage and
streetscape improvements, and
you’re looking at $23,000 to
$25,000 a space. Development
interests will be there as long as
there are partnerships with the city.
But it’s not instantaneous. It can
take 10 to 15 years to evolve.3
Lining up financing for TODs in

economically stagnant areas can be
particularly challenging. While a host of
public and private programs exist for
financing affordable residential units,
similar programs for commercial
development are rare. In the case of San Photo 6.1. Barrio Logan, Mercardo
Diego’s Barrio Logan neighborhood, Apartments, Near San Diego Trolley
efforts to create a mixed-use Station.
100

project design. In the process, the promise to generate the most sales and
delicate details of good transit-oriented property-tax revenues, even if property
design may be sacrificed in order to lies within a walkable distance of a rail
satisfy the lending institution. station. Fiscal zoning has been
particularly rampant in states like
While projects like Barrio Logan in San California that have imposed ceilings on
Diego have been successful at building local property-tax rates. In a study of
residences near transit, Atlanta has had 232 southern California rail stations with
some difficulties attracting residential commuter-rail and light-rail services,
development near its MARTA stations Boarnet and Crane found that fiscal
because of the high demand for office zoning thwarted efforts to build
development there. Consequently, while affordable units around rail stations.
there is a great deal of dense development California municipalities that rely
around MARTA stations, it is mostly heavily on sales-tax and property-tax
suburban-style office towers with lots of proceeds were found to have high shares
parking and poor pedestrian connectivity of citywide commercially zoned land
to nearby stations. This “dysfunctional within 1⁄4-mile rings of rail stops.7
density” is in part a result of density
entitlements provided by the zoning Many other barriers to TOD might be
code, which have increased property put under this fiscal category, such as
values in station areas. Since property automobile-oriented development
values are so high, only high-value patterns (which cost money to
office and retail developments are overcome), mixed-use TOD designations
financially feasible. These fiscal (which might not have a market base of
pressures result in monocultures of high- support), and the process of permitting
end office or retail that must draw on and entitlement (which increases
large market areas that are not easily “transactive” costs). Many of the
served by transit, placing automobile developers interviewed for this study
site access above transit accessibility. were critical of what they viewed as the
unnecessarily cumbersome and fickle
From the public-sector side, financial process of entitlement and permit
considerations also influence the review, even with TOD. Uncertainty and
likelihood that TOD will take form. red tape add risks and costs. Some
Many recent-generation light-rail transit developers simply move on, almost
systems have followed the path of least literally, to greener pastures. Developers
resistance, seeking out disused freight and, perhaps more importantly, those
lines, power transmission easements, and who often bankroll projects—lenders—
freeway medians where right-of-way know that they can make a nice profit
acquisition and disruption costs are building single-family tract housing and
minimal. Such cost minimization also sprawling subdivisions oriented to
means development minimization. A highways. They have been doing it
station tucked in a freeway median quite successfully over much of the
largely precludes TOD. post–World War II period. TOD, on the
other hand, has a spotty track record, and
Fiscal realities might prod some local in some parts of the country, it is
governments to zone land for uses that virtually nonexistent.
101

Political Barriers Furthermore, the component of

rental housing was eliminated, such
Many residents equate transit-based that individuals and families who
housing and infill office development cannot yet afford to purchase a
with more traffic, crowded schools, and house or prefer the flexibility and
convenience of rental housing have
longer lines at grocery stores. Less often
no option to do so, especially along
voiced but still in the minds of some is
a transit line. So, the demand for
the prospect of people with lower alternative development continues
incomes moving into the neighborhood. unmet thanks to projects like
NIMBY opposition has stopped mixed- Whitman Station.9
use, infill development near rail stations
in Oakland, Miami, Atlanta, and most
likely every U.S. city that has built rail Organizational Barriers
systems over the past century.
The difficulty of coordinating TOD
Frightened by the prospect of additional among many actors and stakeholders is
traffic generated by the planned mixed- often a stumbling block to success. By
use development at Atlanta’s Lindbergh one account:
Station, a neighborhood group filed
multiple suits against MARTA to block In today’s typical TOD project, the
construction. While the project is moving public sector builds the transit (often
forward, these suits have put it behind with the involvement of multiple
schedule. Because of community agencies), local governments try
pressures, the 512 housing units recently to control development, and
built near Santa Clara County’s Whisman developers look for opportunities to
light-rail station—“representing the make profits. Transit agencies also
biggest housing development Mountain become involved as property owners
View has seen in at least 20 years”— in joint development projects. All
of these entities—not to mention
contained no rental units and were built
transit riders, neighbors, and the
at less than half the density originally
public at large—have different ideas
proposed.8 While the addition of more
about what the project should
than 500 units near the Whisman Station accomplish. . . . Too often, projects
might be considered a success by many, are implemented without a clear
Inam views it as a promising TOD co- vision of desired outcomes, the
opted by NIMBY resistance: different goals of the actors, and the
ways in which those goals may
The developers proposed a high work at cross-purposes and lead to a
density project because they project that, while perhaps superior
perceived that there was a demand to traditional development, falls
for that number of units on this site. short of the potential of TOD.10
Now, the 500 families who might
have been housed through the
original density have not only had TOD coordination between transit
their residential choices further agencies and localities can be especially
reduced, they do not even realize difficult in areas with strong traditions of
that they have reduced choices small, independent governments, like
because their units were never built. greater Philadelphia, where several
102

hundred municipalities govern land-use In the case of WMATA, years of joint

matters via local zoning. Similarly, development experience has resulted in
successful TOD projects often require lease agreements that provide the agency
changes in thinking and organization with legal and financial protections.
within the government agencies involved WMATA’s initial lease terms vary from
in the process. Struggles over turf and 50 to 60 years, with an option renewal to
resistance to change within public a 99-year term. Rent is guaranteed, even
agencies are legendary and present if the developer declares bankruptcy.
major obstacles to effective project The rents also “bump up” when
implementation. The classic conflict surrounding properties increase in value.
is between city architects and planners Consequently, WMATA stands to
who argue for traffic-calming and benefit from increases in land values that
neotraditional design standards may occur after a lease with the
(e.g., “skinny streets,” and intersection developer is invoked.
bulb-outs) and fire marshals and police
chiefs who insist on generous and Sometimes it is the private side that feels
unrestricted road geometries for alienated by the process. The structure of
emergency vehicles. For liability reasons the land development agreement for
alone, the interests of protective services Miami-Dade Transit’s Dadeland South
many times win out. project proved problematic from the
developer’s perspective. Since the land
Lack of technical expertise within the for the project was leased to the
public sector is sometimes cited as developer and the county retained the
another barrier to TOD. This can be the property’s rights of ownership, the
case particularly with jointly developed developer needed to comply with
public-private projects. In Miami, Atlanta, government equal-opportunity laws,
and other rail cities, transit agencies have adding to costs.13 The process of putting
“gotten the short end of the stick” when together a standard lease following the
dealing with business-savvy, seasoned Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
developers who know how to negotiate a Program and other government
favorable deal.11 Bad experiences have at requirements can also be time-
times turned transit board members consuming.
against potentially lucrative joint
development deals when opportunities Barriers Unique to TOD
have arisen. One analyst recommends that
transit properties entering into lease As mentioned earlier, many of the
agreements insist on contractual language barriers outlined above are generic to
that ensures a percentage of gross any form of higher-density development.
revenues from the development, not net This section builds on the previous ones
revenues (profit). Since accountants have by focusing on four areas that are
a number of “creative” ways to calculate particularly troublesome when trying
costs so that a venture never shows a to move forward with a TOD: (1) the
profit on paper, the public entity needs to congestion conundrum, (2) logistical
protect itself and its revenue stream with dilemmas (caused by the conflict
contractual language that has very little between “node” and “place”), (3) the
“wiggle room.”12 parking puzzle, and (4) getting the
103

mixed-use formula right, particularly in jealously guarded property rights. TOD

relation to retail components. that threatens to add traffic to local streets
(not to mention more kids in public
The Congestion Conundrum schools, shoppers at outlets, and so on)
does not fall in this category in the minds
In creating TODs, planners face a of most suburbanites. Elected officials
paradox. Development concentrated in who are beholden to their constituents do
one area invariably adds more traffic and not always have the patience to wait until
lowers levels of service. The threat of the longer-term benefits of TOD reveal
traffic build-up can unleash a community themselves. Downzoning or building
backlash against TODs with the very moratoria are easier ways of heading off
best of intentions. Thus, while TODs are traffic problems.
presumed to increase transit ridership,
they are also equated with more traffic Logistical Dilemmas: the Conflict
congestion. Between “Node” and “Place”
There are no easy solutions to this Transit stations are “messy places.”
dilemma; higher densities in a They are expected to accommodate the
concentrated land area invariably bring interface of feeder buses, park-and-ride,
more spot congestions, particularly at key walk-on traffic, cyclists, passenger drop-
intersections. Planners often plead that off, taxicabs, paratransit vans, goods
these short-term “disbenefits” must be delivery, and other access functions.
weighed against the longer-term Movement conflicts, circuitous travel
“benefit” of less regional traffic. While paths, and less-than-optimal usage of
the levels of service might deteriorate in space are inevitable. Creating a
and around a station as a result of TOD, comfortable human-scale environment
overall regional vehicle miles traveled that transforms a station into the
(VMT) and congestion levels will fall centerpiece of a community can be
with time. Some planners also make the next to impossible.
case that added traffic is a sign of an
active, rejuvenated community. They At a more basic level, Belzer and Autler
distinguish between “good” and “bad” call this a conflict between the role of a
congestion (a distinction like that transit station as a “node” and its role as a
between good and bad cholesterol). “place.”14 Transit officials think in terms
Traffic, in the form of both people and of nodes—points on the network where
automobiles, characterizes all vibrant customers can access trains and buses.
places with stellar transit services, Function takes precedence over form
(e.g., 42nd Street in Manhattan, (e.g., parking is sited as close to a station
Leicester Square in London, or Tokyo’s as possible even if it means creating a
Shinkansen district). The “good dreadful walking environment). City
congestion” of TOD helps to reduce the planners, New Urbanists, and TOD
“bad congestion” elsewhere. Such logic advocates tend to view a station as a
does not always resonate with local place—a focal point for marshalling
residents, however. Doing what is within community resources so as to create an
the broader good of the region is fine as attractive, vibrant neighborhood that
long as it does not infringe on peoples’ promotes sustainability, social interaction,
104

economic development, affordable they believe that much more TOD would
housing construction, and other ideals. happen if the public sector could deliver
Transit managers judge any projects that preassembled parcels.
take place on their property on the basis
of whether they are financially self- The Parking Puzzle
supporting, increase ridership and farebox
receipts, and help keep trains and buses If there is any spot on the map where it
on schedule. Neighborhood activists look makes sense to revamp parking
at joint development as an opportunity for standards, it is neighborhoods in and
“place making.” around transit stops. Many station-area
residents buy into neighborhoods near
To ensure that transit managers “keep rail stops because they want to shed one
their eye on the ball,” some transit or more automobiles, thus freeing up
boards have banned their agencies from money for other purposes, such as
the business of property development, all buying a nicer house or traveling more
but ensuring that a station is treated as a often. At the Alma Place housing project
node, not a place. While it can own and in upscale Palo Alto, just two blocks
reserve land, the DART authority cannot from the Caltrain commuter rail station,
develop agency-owned property. This is peak-hour parking demand is just four-
considered outside of, and potentially tenths of a parking space per unit, even
distracting to, the agency’s central though parking is free.15 Nonetheless,
mission of running a transit business. lenders and local planners often insist
Dallas’s much-heralded Mockingbird on two parking spaces per residential
Station TOD would not have happened unit (this is what lenders’ financial
had the developer not been able to spreadsheets tell them is necessary, and
purchase property from DART. most planners follow time-honored
parking codes that say this is what is
Another type of logistical challenge needed). In dense areas, podium or tuck-
facing many station areas is land under parking spaces can add $20,000 or
assemblage. This is partly because many more to the cost of a unit. Rigid parking
rail lines are built in older parts of the standards can make TOD financially
city and occupy former streetcar infeasible. For some developers, the
corridors or disused tracks. Land plots problem is not excessive parking
tend to be small in such settings. A lack minimums but rather insufficient parking
of developable parcels was cited by caps. They complain that jurisdictions
many of the developers interviewed for that are particularly sympathetic to TOD
this study as a major obstacle to TOD, can impose maximum parking limits that
particularly parcels of sufficient size to fall below market demand. Getting
attract large development firms with lenders to invest in such projects is
significant financial resources. One virtually impossible.
developer indicated that his firm needs
parcels that are at least 5 acres in size to One way to get the parking ratios right is
make infill development worthwhile. to replace regulatory codes with market
Developers indicated that the cost and prices. This can most easily be done by
risk of negotiating to assemble land is decoupling, or unbundling, the price of
ordinarily too great to justify the reward; housing from the price of parking
105

spaces. Most ownership housing and

apartments have parking included in the
base price of a unit. Those who do not
own or need an automobile must pay for
a space anyway, driving up the cost of
housing. Unbundling parking can thus
promote affordable-housing objectives
and create a more walking-friendly
environment. Below-grade parking
nearly sunk the Pentagon Row mixed-
use TOD in Arlington County, Virginia,
because of cost inflation; the project
continues to struggle financially despite
high occupancy levels. Arlington County
planners learned their lesson, decoupling
parking and housing codes for the
Market Common mixed-use project at
the Clarendon Station. The project’s site
design was changed to make extensive
use of surface and curbside parking and
in so doing improved the project’s
“bottom line.” (See Photo 6.2.)
Parking dilemmas also surface within

the boundaries of a station, again Photo 6.2. Contrasting Approaches to
reflecting a clash between a station’s role Mixed-Use TOD Parking in Arlington
as a node versus a place. Across the County, Virginia. Pentagon Row, in the top
United States, suburban rail stations are photo, relied heavily on below-surface podium
enveloped by huge surface parking lots, parking, inflating construction costs. Market
catering to riders with automobile access Common, in the bottom photo, put parking on
rather than the desire of some to create the street, complemented by nice landscaping,
an attractive civic space (as found to save costs, even though its building profile
around many suburban European rail is similar.
stations) and serve the needs of walk-on
users and cyclists. Park-and-ride patrons
often have staunch supporters within
transit agencies, creating barriers to the San Francisco Bay Area, BART’s
transformation of park-and-ride lots into policies protect the park-and-ride patrons
transit-supportive developments. Some by requiring “one-to-one” replacement
board members of U.S. rail-transit of any surface parking removed for the
agencies have been voted into office purposes of development on BART land.
largely on the platform of working to Consequently, only those projects able to
increase parking supplies. produce sufficient revenues to cover
replacement-parking costs are permitted
These political fault lines have both to proceed. In practical terms, this means
fiscal and physical consequences. In the that ground-lease income must equal or
106

exceed the debt-service costs for a projects together on a single parcel can
parking structure. This is rarely the case. create confusion. Few financiers
understand mixed-use development.
The hard line taken on parking deters John Gosling cautions that “mixed-use
TODs by creating a built form that is development has many moving parts,
hardly conducive to pedestrian access. making it geometrically more difficult to
Broad expanses of surface parking finance, which translates directly into
separate stations from surrounding higher costs; recognize that there is no
neighborhoods and create an urban such thing as a mixed-use development
landscape that encourages people to flee industry—very few players have deep
transit stations as quickly as possible. enough pockets.”18
Shared parking between transit agencies
and adjoining development is often seen Further complicating the mixed-use
as one way to shrink the footprint of challenge is the lack of comparables.
TOD parking. However, this does not The “comps” that do exist do not always
always work in practice. Efforts were have distinguished track records. Mixed-
made to strike a shared-parking use TODs, such as Palm Court near the
arrangement between the Mockingbird Blue light-rail transit line in Long
Station TOD and DART; however, the Beach, California, fell into arrears,
deal fell through when it became clear forcing banks to take over. Often it has
that the agency’s generous parking been the ground-floor retail component
standards did not square with the of TODs that have suffered the most.
developer’s more restrained views on (See Text Box 6.1).
parking. John Gosling, a designer of
mixed-use TODs, says “shared-parking Developers interviewed for this study
reductions in mixed-use settings are not took a fairly cautious stance toward
what they are cracked up to be.” He mixed-use TODs. One developer
cautiously recommends 3% to 5% for indicated that because insurance costs
housing and office mixes, 7% to 9% for are higher when uses are vertically
housing and retail mixes, and 9% to 12% mixed, it affects the bottom line and
for housing, office, and retail mixes.16 harms the ability to get financing. Still
another developer noted that it is
All sides agree that sorting out the extremely difficult to do vertically
parking puzzle is crucial to forming TOD. mixed-use development when
In the words of one rail planner, “If the ownership components are involved.
parking requirement doesn’t reflect the Multiple-use structures are also hard
transit resource, it’s not TOD; it’s just to build. Developers are generally
development close to a transit station.”17 more comfortable with a mix of uses
in close proximity but on separate lots
Getting the Mixed-Use Formula Right (i.e., “horizontal” versus “vertical”
mixed uses).
Mixed land uses are a defining trait of
TOD. Yet, mixed uses can be difficult to Expressing this preference for horizontal
realize. Often, each real-estate type has mixed-use development, one developer
different lenders, investors, contractors, said he hoped he was beginning to see a
and financing parameters. Bundling slow shift in thinking on the part of city
107

Getting the Retail Component of a Mixed-Use TOD Right
The piece of mixed-use TODs that has often struggled the most is retail. TOD retail is
market driven, not transit driven (i.e., it is nearby residents, workers, and passersby
who generally support the retail portion of a TOD, not transit riders). Retail is
successful because of fundamentals—location, market, and design. Being near transit
is secondary. In its recent publication, Ten Principles for Successful Development
Around Transit, the Urban Land Institute warns: “It is misguided to believe that just
because there is transit, if you build retail ‘they will come.’” (See Note 19 at the end
of this chapter.)
TOD designer John Gosling offers the following advice on the retail component of
mixed-use TODs, based on years of experience: determine retail mix, critical mass,
and merchandizing strategies early, and design the project accordingly. Understand
that retail tenants need good “presentation” and snazzy environmental graphics and
keep the retail layout simple with a singular, continuous design that maximizes visual
impact and invites foot traffic. Try to get it right because failing retail stigmatizes an
entire development. Part of getting it right is making sure that ground-floor retail
opens onto the street, clearly within the viewshed of passing motorists and that
sufficient short-term parking within easy reach of the front entrance (a must for
convenience retail) is available. Many TOD retail shops are inwardly focused in their
designs, buffered from the street. This minimizes drive-by shopping and impulse-
buying, both of which make up a growing part of the retail marketplace. If not
designed properly, retail gets associated, visually and symbolically, with the “turf” of
the upper-floor office and residential tenants.19
The Pacific Court mixed-use transit village in Long Beach, California, is a textbook
example of a retail component that went awry. Pacific Court, with nearly 100,000
square feet of ground-floor retail and 142 above-ground apartments, opened in 1992
as a joint venture between the Long Beach Redevelopment Agency and a private
developer. Many of the small retail shops are situated on the project’s exterior, away
from the interior courtyard where the biggest draw, a 16-screen movie multiplex, is
located. Moreover, there is no short-term parking next to the shops, meaning they
depend entirely on walk-in traffic. Retailers complain that the layout also prevents
movie-goers from passing by. As a result, many storefronts are empty. According to
some observers, high retail vacancies may have pushed the project into foreclosure.
In 1993, Pacific Court was valued at $53 million. After foreclosure in 2000, the
developer sold the project for $13.5 million.
Pacific Court, Long Beach, on MTA’s Blue Light-Rail Line
Text Box 6.1

planners to be more willing to recognize reduce traffic congestion—two products

single-use infill development in mixed- of automobile-oriented land uses—and
use neighborhoods as a desirable way to yet TOD is impeded by the same
strengthen pedestrian-oriented automobile-dependent forces.
neighborhoods. This developer focuses
on multifamily infill housing and argues Ranked next as obstacles to TOD were a
that developers should not be forced to series of “lacks”—minimal lender and
do mixed uses if it will only serve to developer interest, limited local expertise
“dilute” the market for commercial real in planning and implementing TOD, and
estate in an area sufficiently served by questionable market demand. In the
retail. Instead, he argues that single-use views of higher levels of government,
residential buildings bring new patrons MPOs and state DOTs, local zoning
to existing commercial activities and restrictions are also to blame.
should be encouraged. (Predictably, respondents from local
government did not see this as a problem,
Public-Sector Perspective on just as they discounted the view that
TOD Barriers limited local expertise thwarted TODs.)
Factors like community opposition, local
The many barriers cited in this chapter skepticism over the value of TOD,
form a veritable laundry list of hurdles inadequate transit services, and location
to overcome. Which barriers are most of transit stations were generally rated as
serious? The national survey of five moderate barriers. (Again, higher levels
public-sector stakeholder groups shed of government were harsher in their
some light on this question, at least from criticism of factors that fall largely under
a government perspective. Survey the purview of local governments and
respondents from transit agencies, local transit agencies.) Legal barriers and
governments, redevelopment agencies, replacement parking requirements were
MPOs, and state DOTs were asked: “To mostly viewed as having minimal effects
what degree has each of the following on whether TODs take form.
factors been an impediment to transit
joint development in your agency’s It bears noting that many of these cited
service area?” Respondents rated the obstacles fall within the public sector’s
factors on a scale of 1 (minimal) to sphere of influence. Some require
7 (major). Figure 6.1 summarizes the institutional strengthening (e.g., better
responses for the five stakeholder interagency coordination) and resource
groups combined. reallocations (e.g., enhanced transit
services). Tackling other problems,
Stakeholders consistently ranked the notably automobile-dependent
automobile-dependent landscapes of landscapes, is a much tougher challenge.
many U.S. rail cities as the biggest While compact, mixed-use zoning and
obstacle to TOD. Automobile dependency automobile-restraint programs will help
was the largest factor in deterring TOD in in this regard, market realities will be
the minds of those working in the public far stronger determinants of whether
sector. This presents a “chicken-and-egg” America’s future built environments
problem or a “Catch-22,” wherein TOD is become relatively more transit or
needed to increase transit usage and automobile dependent. Public policies
109

Automobile-Oriented Land Uses
Lack of Lender Interest
Lack of Local Expertise
Lack of Market Demand
Lack of Developer Interest
Local Zoning Restrictions
Lack of Political Support
Skepticism in Local Govts.
Community Opposition
Inadequate Transit Services
Lack of Govt. Collaboration

Transit Agencies
Location of Transit Stations Local Governments
Redevelopment Agencies
MPOs
Replacement Parking Mandates State DOTs
Legal Barriers
2 3 4 5 6 7
Mean Rating (1=minimal; 4=moderate; 7=significant)
Figure 6.1. Rating of Impediments to TOD Among Five Stakeholder Groups.
like zoning affect market realities to the TOD enterprise and the role of the
some degree; however, exogenous public sector in shepherding this effort.
factors like rising affluence and gasoline Most view public agencies as supportive
prices exert far stronger influences. and possibly even important partners in
While not an insurmountable barrier, advancing TOD. Few are of the opinion
the prevalence of automobile-oriented that planners should “get out of the way.”
development makes the enterprise of Figure 6.2 shows the percentage of
TOD more difficult in the United States developers interviewed who view various
than anywhere else in the world. public agencies as either partners,
supporters, indifferent or obstacles when
Overcoming Barriers: The it comes to advancing TOD.
Development Community’s
Perspective As might be expected, developers see the
appropriate role of the public sector as
Despite the many hurdles to TOD, incentivizing private development. Most
developers interviewed for this study believe they can make money in the TOD
generally had a positive outlook about marketplace as long as they can avoid
110

27%
Local Elected 53%
Officials 10%
10%
18%
Local Planning 68%
Department 11%
4%
Partner
24% Supporter
41%
Transit Agency 24% Indifferent
10%
Obstacle
29%
Redevelopment 58%
Agency 13%
0%
Metropolitan 4%
61%
Planning 32%
Organization 4%
10%
State Department of 21%
Transportation 59%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Figure 6.2. Developer Views of Public Agency TOD Roles, Based on
Developer Interviews.
excessive red tape and minimize improving the practice of TOD in the
uncertainties. What often bothers them United States. For purposes of
most is when governments “change the discussion, their recommendations can
rules of the game” at the last moment. be grouped broadly into four categories:
Accordingly, developers support good land assembly and infrastructure, the
planning that provides a more predictable regulatory environment for TOD, public-
environment for development. Without a sector financing of TOD, and public-
good station-area plan, there are no private partnerships.
guarantees that neighbors and public
officials will accept a real-estate proposal, Land Assembly and Infrastructure
nor is there a good handle on what a
neighborhood is apt to look like 10 years In general, developers were interested in
down the road. Good plans increase the seeing a more active role played by the
odds of good returns on investments. public sector in completing activities
that “lay the groundwork” for TOD.
The developers interviewed eagerly They were particularly enthusiastic
offered a number of suggestions for about seeing public authorities such as
111

transit agencies and redevelopment processes, particularly for fast-track

agencies assemble land. Help with land projects near transit stations.
assembly is particularly important for
large-scale mixed-use projects in big, Interestingly, developers more often cited
built-out cities, where land prices are streamlining regulatory processes as a
high and developable parcels are few needed policy reform than increasing
and far between. subsidies or tax incentives. This stands in
contrast to the views of public-sector
In addition to assistance with land stakeholders, who generally thought
assembly, some developers were also streamlining measures were ineffective at
eager to see public-sector investments in promoting TOD (as noted in Chapter 4).
infrastructure around transit stations, Some developers drew a distinction
including installation of parks and between development review and
roads in greenfield locations and planning processes, questioning the
implementation of streetscape efficacy of the former while expressing
improvements in existing urban locales. enthusiasm for increased public-sector
These investments were seen as being efforts to create community plans for
particularly effective at attracting areas around transit stations. Developers
development. Most developers who were explained this apparent paradox by
interviewed felt that the public sector asserting that a carefully crafted
should concentrate on investing in good, community plan adds certainty to
workable mass transit systems. Running development review by establishing a
clean and modern trains on time and lucid vision for development around a
expanding transit systems to grow the transit node. Having broad-based
network of transit-accessible locations community buy-in is also essential.
are things they actively support. In the
minds of many, neighborhoods around In addition to a desire to see increased
stations that enjoy world-class transit community planning, some developers
services create their own markets for were interested in seeing the public
TOD, with little government intervention sector complete environmental impact
necessary beyond permissive zoning. reports (EIRs) focused on areas around
transit stations. Examples provided
The Regulatory Environment included the focused EIRs done for rail-
served portions of downtown Oakland
While in some respects developers and San Diego, California. These EIRs
welcomed additional public-sector served to expedite the environmental
involvement, not surprisingly, many of review process for developers building
those interviewed equated this with more in areas where a city agency had already
red tape. To a developer, the clock starts completed preliminary environmental
ticking once land is acquired and impact assessment work. Although
financing costs begin to accrue. Two California’s Transit Village Act exempts
things critical to the developer’s TODs from “level-of-service” standards
schedule are certainty and timeliness.20 under the state’s Congestion Management
The most commonly heard policy Act (see Chapter 3 for more on this),
recommendation from developers was none of the 10 interviewed developers
to streamline the development review from California were aware of any
112

projects that took advantage of this downs, assistance with land assembly,
provision. and equity partnerships are among the
expected “perks.” Many developers also
Public-Sector Financing insist on loan subordination to protect
them against potential creditors should
Some developers were interested in TOD projects fail. Still, developers
seeing more public-sector financial generally view the challenge of creating
support for TOD in the form of subsidies, TODs in less attractive urban settings as
tax incentives, and below-market-rate a partnership, with both risks and rewards
loans. A developer at a nonprofit shared among public and private
community development organization interests. Defining exactly how much of
believes that additional subsidies are the risk gets shifted to the public sector,
needed for the retail components of of course, is often a bone of contention.
mixed-use projects in order to attract Most TOD developers believe a
retail outlets as a community substantial share of the burden should fall
revitalization strategy. A for-profit on the shoulders of local agencies since
developer feels that the public sector the developers are taking unnecessary
needs to be ready with subsidies when it risks as long as opportunities for
requires vertically mixed uses in places automobile-oriented development on
where market forces do not justify them. greenfields exist. One mechanism to
A brownfield developer believes that the offset risk that was advocated by a
public sector should step forward with developer was for the public sector to
money to pay the insurance premiums on make equity funds for predevelopment
environmental insurance policies, which activities available for developers
would indemnify developers for cleanup working on risky infill sites where
costs in excess of an agreed-on dollar development serves a public purpose.
figure. While developers were certainly
willing to accept public-sector financial Public-Private Partnerships
incentives when they were available,
they were not usually the factor driving The sentiment of developers toward
decisions to develop. In instances where public-private partnerships can best be
subsidizes or the lack thereof drove summarized by the following comments
development decisions, there was a from one interviewee:
sentiment that the public sector should
“put its money where its mouth is,” so to As a private developer, my first
preference is a project near [the
speak, by paying to support policy goals
local subway] totally controlled by
such as community revitalization or to
us with no public entity partner. The
offset disincentives to development public entity partner makes a project
created by policies that run counter to longer, more complicated, and more
market forces. management intensive . . . unless the
public relationship brings an
Of course, in highly depressed inner-city economic advantage.
neighborhoods, real-estate developers
expect (and usually insist on) direct While developers favored more
financial assistance from the public sector involvement from the public sector in
in building TOD projects. Land write- certain activities, like land assembly,
113

they, not surprisingly, prefer that land be (for projects such as parking lots) to be
turned over to private control before sold to private developers for TOD
development begins. Reasons for without returning proceeds to the federal
reticence toward public-private treasury, has opened the way for fee-
partnerships generally hinge on the slow simple transactions in the Washington,
pace of decision making within the (D.C.) Metropolitan Area, the San
public realm. Public agencies, many feel, Francisco Bay Area, and other regions
are too bureaucratic to make good actively seeking to infill surface park-
development partners. Also, developers and-ride lots.
are leery of public counterparts because
of their general lack of real-estate Summary and Lessons
expertise, particularly in the case of
transit agencies and their governing Many roadblocks stand in the way of
boards. One interviewee suggested that TOD, just as they do with most forms of
the real-estate operations of transit compact, mixed-use development. Some
agencies might be outsourced to a private barriers are fiscal in nature, such as the
entity with more real-estate knowledge. higher costs and risks of dense, infill
development, the alignment of rail lines
Some developers did, however, recognize along low-cost corridors that have
the economic advantage of partnerships, minimal development potential, and
including one developer who works fiscal/exclusionary zoning policies that
almost exclusively with public-private restrict housing production. Others are in
partnerships, often relying on the public the form of political roadblocks, like
sector to pay for parking construction. In NIMBY opposition to infill. Still others
theory, these arrangements lower overall are institutional and organizational in
development costs by allowing public character, such as the difficulty of
facilities such as a parking garage to be coordinating TOD activities among
built concomitantly with privately owned multiple actors and stakeholder groups
buildings. Construction staging areas can with divergent interests.
be shared, and efficiencies of scale can
be achieved. While it is possible that While many of these barriers are generic
such cost-sharing benefits exist, few to all forms of dense, infill development,
developers seemed to believe that they some are unique to TODs. One is the
adequately offset the red tape involved in “congestion conundrum”: the fact that
partnering with a public agency. nodal development around a transit
station increases spot congestion,
From a developer perspective, arguably prompting some jurisdictions to
the most bothersome elements of downzone. Another is the logistical
working in public-private partnerships dilemma of accommodating multi-modal
are requirements that land be leased access needs, which often results in
rather than sold. Developers felt that station road designs and parking layouts
financing would be easier and therefore that detract from the quality of walking.
more TOD would happen if land were More fundamentally, this represents a
available fee-simple rather than through conflict between the role of a station as a
a ground lease. FTA’s new joint functional “node” (particularly in the
development rulings, which enable land minds of transit managers) and a
114

desirable “place” (particularly in the While the developers interviewed for this
minds of urban planners). Still another study were enthusiastic about TOD, their
stumbling block unique to TODs is the views on what is “transit oriented” did
rationalization of parking. By their very not always square with urban design
nature, transit stations offer “location principles that call for mixed-use
efficiency,” enabling residents to get by buildings clustered in close proximity to
with fewer automobiles than they might a transit station. Notably, a handful of
otherwise own. Yet lenders and planners developers felt strongly that TOD design
often insist that code-standard parking be guidelines should not overemphasize
provided in station areas regardless. One vertically mixed uses, such as ground-
mediating approach is to unbundle the floor retail and upper-level residential.
price of housing and parking, creating They explained that outside of dense
separate markets for each. Within transit urban locations, building mixed-use
station boundaries, clashes are also found products in today’s marketplace can be
between the preferences of professional- a complex and risky proposition; few
class suburbanites who park-and-ride and believe that being near a train station
other groups who would prefer more fundamentally changes this market
human-scale station designs. Many transit reality. Those interviewed did welcome
officials side with automobile-using certain public-sector efforts to incentivize
patrons, invoking one-to-one replacement development including land assembly,
policies to ensure parking is in ample infrastructure provision, strategic
supply. Lastly, mixed land uses, which investments to improve neighborhood
are a characteristic trait of TODs, pose image, and expedited development
difficulties in lining up funding, investors, review processes. In general, developers
and contractors. Vertical mixing is cautioned against over-regulation and
particularly problematic; most developers identified actions that could be taken well
call for horizontal mixing instead. Quite in advance of development that would
often, the ground-level retail component reduce risks and encourage more TOD.
of mixed-use TODs suffer the most, in
part because they are poorly laid out. Nothing will do more to surmount the
obstacles to TOD than success stories. A
The national survey of public-sector developer active in north Dallas’s TOD
stakeholders shed light on what barriers scene remarked: “Density used to be a
are perceived to be the most onerous and dirty word, but now that there are built
difficult to overcome. Most problematic, examples on the ground of TOD and
according to survey respondents, are higher density, everybody is getting on
automobile-oriented development the bandwagon.”21
patterns. The lack of lender and
developer interest in TOD, along with
limited local expertise in planning for Notes
TOD and questionable market demand,
1
are also generally seen as significant See R. Cervero, M. Bernick, and G. Gilbert,
Market Opportunities and Barriers to Transit-
stumbling blocks. Factors like NIMBY Based Development in California, Working
opposition, inadequate transit services, Paper 621 (Berkeley: Institute of Urban and
and poor siting of transit stations were Regional Development, University of
generally rated as moderate barriers. California, 1994); E. Deakin, T. Chang, and
115

M. Bernick, Implementation of Residential suburban, automobile-oriented development,

Development at Rail Transit Stations in but they also place pressures on public
California: Case Studies and Policy Options, institutions to do the same.
Working Paper 736 (Berkeley: University of 6 G. Ohland, Transit-Oriented Development in
California, Institute of Transportation Studies,
Four Cities (Santa Fe, New Mexico, The
1992); M. Boarnet and R. Crane, Travel by
Great American Station Foundation, 2001).
Design: The Influence of Urban Form on
7
Travel, New York, Oxford University Press, M. Boarnet and R. Crane, “Public Finance
2001); and D. Belzer and G. Autler, Transit and Transit-Oriented Planning: New Evidence
Oriented Development: Moving from Rhetoric from Southern California,” Journal of
to Reality (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Planning Education and Research,
Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Vol. 17 (1998): 206–219.
Policy, 2002). 8
Inam, A., “Who Is Responsible for
2 Belzer and Autler, 2002, op. cit. Alternative Development ?” (paper presented
3 at the 43rd Annual Conference of the
M. Leccese, “Will T-REX Meet TOD?”
American Collegiate Schools of Planning,
Urban Land, Vol. 62, No. 5 (2003): 87.
Cleveland, Ohio, 2001), 24.
4
G. Ohland, Barrio Logan: Natural-Born 9 Inam, 2001, op. cit., pp. 26–27.
Transit Village (Santa Fe, New Mexico, The
Great American Station Foundation, 2001). 10 Belzer and Autler, 2002, op. cit, pp. 19–20.
5
Since the retail portion of the Barrio Logan 11 Price Waterhouse LLP, TCRP Report 31:
project qualified the lender for Community Funding Strategies for Public
Redevelopment Act credits toward state- Transportation—Volume 2: Casebook
mandated minimum investments in (Washington D.C.: Transportation Research
economically depressed communities, the Board, National Research Council, 1998).
bank was willing to provide the loan without 12 Cushman, K., “Joint Development at Transit
an anchor tenant willing to guarantee the loan.
Stations,” in Transit, Land Use & Urban
The character of the Barrio Logan shopping
Form, ed. W. Attoe (Austin, Texas, Center for
center will be decidedly suburban in design,
the Study of American Architecture, 1988).
making it more of a “transit-adjacent” than a
“transit-oriented” development. Due to the 13 Price Waterhouse LLP, 1998, op. cit.
eagerness of the lending institution and the 14 Belzer and Autler, 2002 op. cit, p. 24.
redevelopment agency to begin construction
and start receiving the sales-tax revenues, the 15 M. Tumlin and A. Millard-Ball, “How to
city’s TOD planning guidelines are being Make Transit-Oriented Development Work,”
overlooked in favor of suburban strip-mall Planning, Vol. 69, No. 5 (2003): 14–19.
development. The community and the 16 J. Gosling, “Development Around Transit:
developer have compromised at 3.5 parking
Bringing Community Back to the City,”
spaces for every 1,000 feet of retail space,
mimeo (Baltimore, Maryland: RTKL
well above the 2 spaces recommended by the
Associates, Inc., 2003).
city’s TOD guidelines but well below the
suburban standard of 5 spaces, which is what 17 Tumlin and Millard-Ball, 2003, op. cit.
the developer wants. While the site currently 18
Gosling, 2003, op. cit.
has a street running through its center—a
feature that could be useful as a conduit for 19
Gosling, 2003, op. cit.
pedestrian site access—the current plans call 20
R. Dunphy, D. Myerson, and M.
for its removal. Current designs also call for
Pawlukiewicz, Ten Principles for Successful
the rear of the grocery store to face a main
Development Around Transit (Washington,
street adjacent to the site and the truck
D.C.: The Urban Land Institute, 2003).
delivery bays to face the trolley station.
Consequently, it seems that fiscal pressures 21 S. Newberg, “TOD in Dallas,” Urban Land,
not only cause private institutions to press for Vol. 62, No. 5 (2003): 105.
116

PART 3
THE IMPACTS OF TOD
TOD is in a position to produce a wealth of benefits, although impacts vary considerably,

and some disagreement is found in the literature. Still, evidence continues to accumulate
showing that, under the right conditions, TOD can produce real and meaningful benefits,
especially with regard to ridership increases and improved economic conditions in
neighborhoods surrounding stations. Chapter 7 reviews evidence on the breadth of
benefits attributed to TOD, drawing from the literature and secondary sources. The views
of various local stakeholders regarding TOD’s potential benefits are also presented.
Chapter 8 zeros in on TOD’s ridership impacts, reviewing experiences to date and
presenting original research on how development around rail stops gets translated into
additional passengers in the San Francisco Bay Area and Arlington County, Virginia.
Chapter 9 looks at the benefits of TOD from a private-sector perspective in terms of land-
value and real-estate market impacts. Experiences show that various factors, some within
the sphere of public-sector influence and others outside it, have a strong bearing on
whether development near transit gets translated into price premiums.

Chapter 7
Benefits of TOD
TOD’s Range of Benefits often used as an umbrella term for some

of the less tangible benefits of TOD.
TOD has attracted the interest of Living in a neighborhood that allows one
politicians, environmentalists, real-estate to drive less and walk, bike, and use
developers, and other groups in recent public transit more, some feel, reduces
times because it yields benefits. TOD, as stress, enables one to meet neighbors
one of the more visible forms of smart more often and spend more time with the
growth, is increasingly viewed as an family, increases physical activity, and
antidote to traffic congestion, the offers a safer living environment (i.e., it
isolation and detachedness felt in many increases the quality of life). By one
suburban communities, affordable- account, “when people say ‘livability,’
housing shortages, and inner-city decline they mean clean air and water, safe
and disinvestment. TOD, proponents streets, positive race relations, affordable
maintain, can contribute toward creating homes, quality public schools, greenery
a sustainable built form, functioning as a and open space, uncongested roads, and
counter-magnet to automobile-induced low taxes.”1 Finding pathways to such
sprawl. Under the right conditions, TOD lofty goals and reconciling conflicts
can be a boon to local communities, (e.g., between quality public schools and
especially when coupled with proactive low taxes) is no easy task; nonetheless,
public assistance. TOD can spur the TOD is increasingly being looked on as
redevelopment of declining a promising approach to providing a
neighborhoods (e.g., downtown Long more livable and sustainable future.
Beach, California, and Arlington
Heights, Illinois), spawn new suburban The literature is replete with platitudes
villages (e.g., Pleasant Hill, California, that have been heaped on the TOD
and Orenco, Oregon), breathe life into concept; however, relatively few serious
older suburban downtowns (e.g., studies have been carried out that assign
Bethesda, Maryland, and Plano, Texas), benefits to TOD in any quantitative or
and speed up the transition of places monetary sense. For the most part,
suffering from slow commercial anecdotes and story lines are relied on
encroachment (e.g., Ballston, Virginia, instead. Two benefits for which
and Rutherford, New Jersey). quantitative impacts have been
measured—ridership increases and
Even larger aspirations have been property value gains—receive special
attached to TOD, such as its potential treatment as their own chapters in this
for building human capital by increasing report (Chapters 8 and 9, respectively).
day-to-day social interaction and Methodologically, the challenge in
strengthening the bond between residents gauging the payoff of TOD is
and their community. Quality of life is attribution—how much of a change in
119

traffic congestion, property values, or the public and private spheres to some
open-space consumption is due to TOD degree. Moreover, quite a few of the
versus all the other (confounding) benefits attributed to TOD are
factors that could account for the associated with any form of compact,
change. Presently, the state of mixed-use development (e.g.,
knowledge on the benefits that can be neotraditional neighborhoods), not just
assuredly attributed to TOD is fairly TOD. Benefits like reduced road
limited. expenditures, preservation of open
space, and lower parking costs are
Table 7.1 organizes TOD’s purported generic to any program that reduces
benefits into several categories, sprawl and automobile usage (and more
providing the structure for much of the specifically VMT).
discussion in this chapter. Some benefits
are public in nature, accruing to society Table 7.1 also divides benefits into
at large.2 Others are largely private, primary and secondary categories.
conferred on selective individuals, Primary benefits are those that represent
businesses, or property owners. Some a direct cause and effect between TOD
benefits, such as increased affordable- and impacts. Secondary benefits spin off
housing opportunities, accrue to both largely from primary ones and thus are
Table 7.1. Classes and Recipients of TOD Benefits

Primary Recipient of Benefit:
Class of Benefit: Public Sector Private Sector
Primary 1. Increase ridership and farebox 5. Increase land values,
revenues rents, and real-estate
performance
2. Provide joint development 6. Increase affordable-
opportunities housing opportunities
3. Revitalize neighborhoods
4. Economic development
Secondary/Collateral A. Less traffic congestion and G. Increase retail sales (1,
VMT-related costs, like pollution 2)
and fuel consumption (1)
B. Increase property- and sales- H. Increase access to labor
tax revenues (5) pools (A, 6)
C. Reduce sprawl/conserve open I. Reduced parking costs
space (1, 3, 6) (C, 2)
D. Reduce road expenditures J. Increased physical
and other infrastructure outlays activity (C, E, F)
(1)
E. Reduce crime (3, 4)
F. Increased social capital and
public involvement (3, 4)
Note: Values in parentheses represent primary benefits and/or secondary benefits that are the
source(s) of the secondary/collateral benefit listed.
120

collateral. Many secondary benefits are corridors to rail stations; however, total
financial in nature, representing numbers of households and employment
“accounting transfers” (i.e., shifts from in a region will not be affected (whether
the bank accounts of one group to the the rail system is built or not).4 While
bank accounts of another). transit construction might fail to lure
new companies and big-dollar
Another important distinction to make investments to a region that would not
regarding benefits is whether they are otherwise occur, not building transit, not
redistributive or generative. linking it with land use, and allowing
Redistributive impacts involve transfers traffic congestion and quality of life to
and accordingly are mainly financial and slip are likely to be “de-generative.”
pecuniary. Higher sales-tax receipts This was brought to light in Atlanta
from increased retail-sales activities in a when several large employers threatened
TOD community are offset by lower tax to leave the region because of worsening
receipts from the loss of retail sales (to traffic congestion. This proved to be a
the TOD) in another community with an wake-up call, prompting the governor of
automobile-oriented shopping center. the state to appoint a powerful oversight
Generative impacts represent net agency, GRTA, whose principle charge
efficiency gains that stem from improved is to ensure that land use and
resource allocations and accordingly are transportation are closely coordinated
economic (versus financial) in nature. every step of the way. GRTA uses its
Any reduced traffic congestion and thus financial authority (i.e., control of state
travel time savings afforded by TOD is transportation grants) to enforce its
an unmistakable economic benefit. Time agenda. Mega-scale mixed-use
has scarcity value, thus motorists and developments near rail stops, such as the
others who save time as a result of mode Atlantic Steel Project and Lindbergh
shifts spurred by TOD are able to use Station in Atlanta, are taking shape in
their time more productively, whether large part because automobile-dependent
at work or with friends and family. Of sprawl is no longer viewed as
course, attributing travel time savings to economically sustainable.
TOD is exceedingly difficult without an
incredibly rich and extensive time-series One other point needs to be made about
database. Factors like induced travel TOD benefits. One cannot simply sum
demand (whereby short-term gains in the items listed in Table 7.1 as the
average travel speeds are eventually totality of benefits because there is a
eroded as motorists switch routes, fair degree of overlap among them.
modes, and when they travel) can To do so would be double-counting.
further complicate the analysis. Touting the multiplicity of benefits
attributed to TOD without acknowledging
A 1998 study, Economic Impact such double-counting can discredit
Analysis of Transit Investments, TOD by giving nay-sayers an easy
concluded that transit’s impacts on cities target for launching their critiques. It
and regions are largely redistributive, is fair to say that many of transit’s
with few, if any, generative effects.3 benefits are co-dependent and mutually
Building a rail system, for instance, reinforcing, with a fair amount of
might shift growth from highway overlap between them.
121

Primary Benefits over the past 15 years underscore the

ridership payoff of TODs:
This section reviews the primary benefits
associated with TOD from both a public- • At the Randolph Towers near
and a private-sector perspective. Arlington County’s Ballston
Station, 69% of residents
Public Sector commuted to work via transit,
compared with a regionwide
Below, the four primary public-sector transit mode share of just 9%;9
benefits—ridership increases, joint • Near the Pleasant Hill BART
development opportunities, station, 55% of those living in
neighborhood revitalization, and Wayside Plaza and 37% of those
economic development—are reviewed. living in Park Regency regularly
commuted via BART versus a
(1) Ridership Increases. On the public citywide average of 16%;10 and
side of the ledger, one of the primary • Nearly 80% of residents who
benefits of TOD is higher ridership. moved to the Orenco TOD in
What have been referred to as the Hillsboro, Oregon, reported in a
“4 D’s”—density, diversity, design, survey that their transit usage had
and distance to transit—have a strong increased since moving into their
bearing on travel behavior in general new residences.11
and rates of transit ridership in
particular. TODs, of course, score Virtually all other public benefits
high on all four Ds: density—a related to TOD stem from its
doubling of density is associated with ridership bonus. The ridership
nearly a 60% increase in transit impact of TOD is considered so
boardings according to one study;5 important that a separate chapter is
diversity—transit ridership rates at devoted to the topic in this report.
mixed-use suburban employment Chapter 8 presents original research
centers are on average 5% to 10% probing the link between TOD and
higher than they are at single-use rail patronage in the Bay Area and in
employment centers (i.e., offices Arlington County, Virginia. As
only);6 design—grid-like street discussed in the chapter, high
patterns and pedestrian-friendly ridership is in large measure a result
designs have been associated with of “self-selection”—those who wish
transit-usage levels that are as much to commute via transit make being
as 20% higher than usage levels at near a rail station a key factor in their
typical suburban subdivision residential location choice.
designs;7 and distance to transit—
in the Bay Area, those living near Increased ridership represents a net
transit are generally five times as economic benefit to the degree that it
likely to commute via transit as other translates into the conservation of
residents, and in the Washington resources with scarcity value, such as
(D.C.) Metropolitan Area and less fuel consumption, and reduced
Toronto the likelihood increases to negative externalities, such as less
seven to eight times as high.8 Surveys pollution (air, noise, and “time”). A
122

financial benefit that is pecuniary in that an even greater benefit was the
nature is higher farebox revenues to increased patronage, and thus
transit agencies. (It’s a transfer farebox revenue, that it spurred.
benefit in the sense that money goes Interdependencies between office
from the pockets of consumers, or development and ridership were
transit riders, to the pockets of found—jointly developed office
producers, or transit agencies; the space atop or near a rail stop spurred
generative, or economic, benefit of ridership, and ridership in turn
increased revenues is found in the spurred office development.
ridership shifts and consequent
congestion relief discussed below, (3) Revitalize Neighborhoods. TOD
not in the financial transfers.) can be a catalyst to inner-city
redevelopment, breathing new life
(2) Joint Development Opportunities. and economic vitality into once-
TOD provides a financial benefit to dormant neighborhoods. Ballston in
transit operators who are able to Arlington County, Virginia, is a
capitalize on the ability to generate textbook example of this, as
revenue (e.g., through air rights or discussed in Chapter 12. In the
ground leases) or reduce cost outlays 1970s, before Metrorail arrived,
(e.g., through sharing the costs of Ballston was a neighborhood in
parking lots) from private transition, with an odd mix of low-
development at or near a station. density apartments, fast-food outlets,
As discussed in Chapter 2, there are automobile-repair shops, and other
more than 100 instances of transit marginal land uses. Fortuitous
joint development currently circumstances, like the extension of
underway in the United States. They the Orange Line to Vienna (which
are found mainly among rail freed up land previously used for
properties in big cities, but some parking), coupled with proactive
smaller bus agencies have managed planning on the County’s part
to co-develop (and shed costs for) (e.g., density bonuses and targeted
multimodal transfer facilities with infrastructure enhancements),
private commercial projects as well. triggered the transformation of
Ballston into a vibrant mixed-use
Today, WMATA, serving the center. Today, it is one of Northern
Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Virginia’s most prestigious addresses
Area, collects around $6 million for offices, restaurants, and hotels.
annually in joint development
revenues, a figure the agency hopes The extension of Boston’s Red Line
to triple over the next decade. At the subway from Cambridge to
Bethesda Station alone, the agency Somerville sparked a similar
receives $1.6 million in ground-lease transformation of Davis Square, a
revenues from the Bethesda Place once-thriving commercial district
mixed-use project. A statistical that gradually declined during the
analysis of joint development post–World War II era. Streetscape
projects in the Washington (D.C.) improvements and storefront
Metropolitan Area and Atlanta found upgrading, funded through
123

Community Development Block The Fruitvale transit village in

Grants, accompanied the subway Oakland has sparked an economic
extension. Soon after the subway renaissance in the once-declining
was opened, two new office neighborhood; however, it is unlikely
buildings with a total of 170,000 that this would have occurred were it
square feet were added to Davis not for heavy subsidies, drawn from
Square. Today, both are fully leased. 20 separate funding sources, that
have gone into the neighborhood.
Capitalizing on the potential Several million dollars in grants
community benefits conferred by went to façade improvements and
TOD can be an uphill struggle in building renovation for more than
many inner-city areas. Research 100 properties along International
shows that even in good economic Boulevard, Fruitvale’s main street.
times, the mere presence of transit Before the program, vacancies had
cannot, by itself, catalyze a been as high as 40% in the area; now
miraculous transformation of they are less than 1 percent.15 So far,
depressed inner-city neighborhoods.12 the Fruitvale transit village has been
A delphi panel study of professionals credited with adding several hundred
involved with TOD underscored the new jobs to the area, a figure that is
particular difficulties of bringing expected to grow when the project
projects to fruition in inner-city reaches build out over the next
settings. The panel agreed that few years.
difficult-to-surmount barriers include
high financial risks, negative images, Private Sector
fear for safety, class and racial
prejudices, and sometimes concern Two primary benefits of TOD that
among residents that their accrue principally to private interests are
neighborhoods will be gentrified.13 increased land values and rents and
increased affordable-housing
(4) Economic Development. Closely opportunities.
related to neighborhood revitalization
is the ability of TOD to attract new (5) Higher Land Values and Rents.
investments and businesses to Those owning properties and
marginal or declining neighborhoods, businesses near transit stations can
thereby creating new and better- reap financial gains from rising land
paying jobs. New employment, of prices and rent. This is presumably a
course, has a multiplier effect, pecuniary impact in that relative
spinning off other local jobs. Union gains around transit stations are
Station in Washington, D.C., a matched by relative losses for
bustling facility for 50,000 daily train properties and businesses that lie
and bus riders, has sparked an urban away from stations. As reviewed in
renaissance. Retail sales have Chapter 9, some evidence suggests
increased at an annual rate of 5%, and, that parcels near rail stations that are
according to one analysis, between part of a TOD or joint development
1,200 and 1,500 new jobs have been project enjoy even higher premiums
created at the station itself.14 due to factors such as better
124

circulation and architectural income renters to afford the higher

integration. Land-value impacts rents found in many rail-served
vary considerably by setting and cities.
circumstances; however, in buoyant
real-estate markets, such as the case Secondary Benefits
of light-rail-served Santa Clara
County in the late 1990s, premiums This section reviews secondary benefits
in the range of 25% to 100% are not that spin off of the primary ones
unheard of. reviewed in the previous section. The
notation in each subheading links each
(6) More Affordable-Housing secondary benefit to one or more
Opportunities. Many American primary ones—“reduce sprawl/conserve
cities with rail transit systems, San open space (1, 3, 6),” for instance,
Francisco, Washington, D.C., Los denotes that the secondary benefit of less
Angeles, Chicago, and New York, sprawl and open-space conservation
to name a few, face an affordable- stems from the primary benefits of
housing crisis. In San Francisco and increased ridership (1), neighborhood
Los Angeles, for example, only one revitalization (3), and affordable housing
out of four households can afford a production (6). The numbers correspond
median-priced owner-occupied to those shown in Table 7.1 for the listed
home.16 TOD provides an primary benefit. In some instances, so-
opportunity to increase the stock of called secondary benefits are largely
affordable units mainly because of products of other secondary benefits, for
its “location efficiencies.” Studies instance, the private secondary benefit of
show that those living in TODs “reduced parking costs (C, 2)” is partly a
need to own and use fewer product of the public secondary benefit
automobiles. This frees up income of reduced sprawl (C).
for housing purchases. Reduced
parking also lowers the cost of Public Sector
housing. Researchers found that in
San Francisco the average increase (A) Less Traffic Congestion and Other
in the price of a housing unit with a VMT-Related Costs (1). A primary
parking space compared with a unit second-order benefit of TOD, or so
without parking is $39,000 to backers claim, is relief of traffic
$46,000.17 Such numbers lend congestion and other “ills” of
support to the LEM program, which single-occupant automobile travel
is based on the very principle of like high fuel consumption and air
households being able to trade off pollution. (This is an outcome of
lower transportation costs for higher the primary impact of increased
housing payments. TODs also help ridership, enumerated as the first
rental markets. The poorest 20% of public benefit in Table 7.1.)
American families spend 40% Reduced traffic congestion is
of their take-home pay on clearly a generative benefit. In the
transportation. By reducing driving chain of TOD increasing ridership
costs by $3,000 to $5,000 per year, that in turns relieves traffic
TODs make it easier for low- congestion, travel-time savings are
125

the hoped-for “outcome” of the transit riding does little good if most
TOD “output.” people use their automobiles to reach
stations. For a 3-mile automobile
The Texas Transportation Institute trip, the typical distance driven to
estimates that traffic congestion costs access a suburban park-and-ride
the nation $68 billion in time delay lot in the United States, 84% of
and extra fuel consumed per year, hydrocarbon emissions and 54% of
wasting 3.6 billion hours and nitrogen oxide emissions are due to
5.7 billion gallons of fuel.18 The cold starts (inefficient cold engines
increasing unpredictability of traffic and catalytic converters during the
congestion (e.g., not knowing when first few minutes of driving) and
and where one will get stuck in hot evaporative soaks.21 That is, a
traffic) likely adds deadweight sizeable share of tailpipe emissions
economic loss through disruptive of the two main precursors to the
effects (e.g., having to cancel formation of photochemical smog
meetings at the last minute). occur from turning the automobile
engine on and driving a mile and
Is TOD an effective palliative to turning it off. Drive-alone access
traffic jams? There is no direct causal trips to rail stations, regardless of
evidence that can be found in the how short they are, emit levels of
literature; however, research has pollutants that are not too much
made a link between TOD and VMT below those of the typical 10-mile
reduction. In as much as VMT solo commute. Thus, relying on an
declines occur in peak hours, it automobile to access a metropolitan
follows that TOD reduces congestion rail service can reduce the air quality
levels to some degree. A study of benefits of patronizing transit.
residents living in TOD-like Accounting for the impacts of TODs
neighborhoods in the San Francisco in reducing VMT and promoting
Bay Area found that they averaged walk-and-ride access, the recent
around half the VMT per year as California study claims that “TODs
residents of suburban subdivisions, can help households reduce rates of
controlling for factors like median greenhouse gas emissions by 2.5 to
household incomes.19 Drawing from 3.7 tons per year.”22 Because of its
its own literature review, the recent location, design, and density, the
California TOD study maintains that Uptown District TOD in San Diego
TOD can “lower annual rates of was estimated to have 20% less
driving by 20 to 40 percent for those emissions per household compared
living, working, and/or shopping with households in nearby
near major transit stations.”20 developments.
Part of the environmental benefit of (B) Increase Property- and Sales-Tax

TOD comes not just from reducing Revenues (5). A secondary by-
VMT but also from substituting product of rising land prices and
walk-and-ride and bike-and-ride rents from TOD is increases in
access/egress for park-and-ride. property- and sales-tax revenues to
From an air quality standpoint, host communities. From a regional
126

perspective, however, this is a financially participates in the land-

financial transfer, for it means less value premiums enjoyed by rail-
property- and sales-tax revenues in served properties, resulting from
(presumably more automobile- accessibility improvements.
oriented) communities that would
have housed these uses if the TOD Evidence on the tax benefits of TOD
did not exist. Still, property-tax is also found in California. More
income is an indirect form of value than 60% of customers going to the
capture whereby governments share San Francisco Center and Horton
in some of the added value created Plaza in San Diego (both regional
by infrastructure investments like rail retail centers near downtown rail
systems. By reducing the windfall stops) take transit.24 Without rail
that land speculators might enjoy, transit connections, a substantial
property-tax transfers score high on share of these retail sales
equity as well as efficiency grounds. transactions would occur at
And to the degree that TODs boost automobile-served suburban
land-value premiums above those shopping malls. The 55-acre La
associated with being near transit, Mesa Village Plaza TOD in San
they yield even greater value-capture Diego is estimated to have generated
returns to jurisdictions with the over $3.2 million in additional tax
political foresight and wherewithal to revenues over the past decade as a
promote transit-supportive growth. result of stepped-up retail activities.
It should be noted that subsidies—in
As a case in point, take the Pentagon the form of redevelopment financing,
City Fashion Center in Arlington discounted land costs, and site
County, Virginia. Surveys show that remediation grants—were needed to
around half of the shoppers and produce these tax gains.
customers going to the Fashion
Center arrive by Metrorail. Many are (C) Reduce Sprawl/Conserve Open
federal workers who come from Space (1, 3, 6). By encouraging infill
Washington’s Federal Triangle area, and accommodating small-lot
a 5- to 10-minute train ride away. projects, TODs can reduce pressures
Every time they make a purchase, to convert farmland and open spaces
they produce sales-tax revenues for into tract housing and other land-
Arlington County, which by hungry suburban development. The
conservative estimates are several seeds of greater Portland’s ambitious
million dollars annually. Overall, TOD initiatives lie in state-mandated
Arlington County’s Rosslyn-Ballston Urban Growth Boundaries (UGBs)
TOD corridor has been credited with whose principle purpose is to
generating 32.8% of the County’s preserve open space and farmland
real-estate tax revenue, even though (see Chapter 17). TCRP Report 74:
it makes up just 7.6% of the Costs of Sprawl—2000 concluded
County’s land area.23 While this that contiguous, compact
added value is mainly redistributive, development could save the United
one could argue that some of it is States nearly 2.5 million acres of
generative since the County land—much of it agricultural and
127

environmentally sensitive—over that effectively curbed sprawl would

the next 25 years.25 Sprawl-like likely save the United States over
development uses 10 to 40% more $10 billion annually in public
land than compact development.26 infrastructure expenditures.
By one estimate, switching to higher-
density development patterns could (E) Reduce Crime and Increase Safety
save as much as 350,000 acres of (3, 4). By creating active places that
farmland by 2040 in 11 counties are busy throughout the day and
of California’s Central Valley evening, providing “eyes on the
agricultural belt.27 Besides saving street,” TODs increase safety for
land and money, reducing sprawl pedestrians, transit users, and the
through TOD can produce other community at-large. Mixed-use,
environmental benefits. One is compact, and pedestrian-friendly
improved water quality through places near transit nodes are very
reducing the amount of impermeable much in keeping with Jane Jacobs’s
surface runoff. Another is preserving prescription for livable, vibrant,
biodiversity by reducing the uplifting, and safe-feeling cities as
fragmentation of natural habitat poignantly described in her book,
and grazing grounds. The Life and Death of Great
American Cities.29 TOD can also
(D) Reduce Road Expenditures and create “defensible spaces” that instill
Other Infrastructure Outlays (1). a sense of safety and well-being,
Among the highest costs associated particularly for families with kids,
with low-density, automobile- through a tacit form of neighborhood
supported patterns of growth are policing. A review of transit stations
outlays for roads, sewer- and water- in Tucson, Corpus Christi, and New
line extensions, and other York City found that street life in
infrastructure expansions. TCRP combination with lighting
Report 74 suggests that improvements, addition of retail
developments like TOD can reduce kiosks, street art, and a police
fiscal outlays for water, sewage, and presence were associated with
roads by as much as 25%.28 Overall, declines in both perceived and actual
a savings of 188,300 lane-miles of crime rates.30
local roads (valued at $110 billion)
and some $12 billion in reduced Another way TODs can increase
water- and sewer-line extensions safety is by providing less hazardous
could be achieved by redirecting settings for pedestrians and cyclists.
growth to compact centers over the One study estimated that accidents
2000 to 2025 period. While some of involving pedestrians cost the state
these savings would be offset by of California $4 billion in lost
additional outlays for regional transit productivity and medical expenses
systems and higher service costs in in 1999.31 The various streetscape,
other sectors (e.g., for fire protection traffic-calming, and integrated-
as a result of more buildings in dense pathway networks that accompany
settings), on balance a stepped-up many TODs can reduce accidents by
transit investment and TOD program slowing down moving cars and
128

shielding pedestrians and cyclists to light-rail transit. To create a

from harm’s way. Countries with pedestrian scale, $500,000 in federal
world-class transit services and clean air funds were “flexed” to
transit-supportive land-use patterns, finance the project’s main promenade.
like Germany and the Netherlands, Orenco’s interconnected street system
have witnessed dramatic reductions shortens walking distances, and tree-
in pedestrian and bicycle accidents lined roads, combined with on-street
through such design treatments.32 parking, have created a comfortable
sidewalk environment. Surveys show
(F) Increased Social Capital and Public that the primary reason people have
Involvement (3, 4). Robert Putman, bought new homes in Orenco has been
in his highly acclaimed book, “community design and amenities.”35
Bowling Alone, makes the point that Orenco’s human-scale “community
less automobile-dependent settings, feel” has no doubt increased social
like TODs, spur volunteerism, social capital by strengthening the bond
interaction, and community between residents and their
engagement.33 Because they neighborhoods. The diverse stock of
regularly come into face-to-face housing has also given consumers a
contact, “chat across the fence,” and wide array of choices in how to spend
get to know their neighbors and their disposable income for the two
neighborhoods, Putman contends “big-ticket items”: housing and
that those living in TOD-like places transportation.
get involved in community affairs
(expressed by higher levels of Private Sector
participation in neighborhood clean-
up drives, PTA meetings, voting, and (G) Increase Retail Sales (1, 2). By
the like). He estimates that for every concentrating walk-on and walk-off
10% decrease in driving time there is traffic around rail stops, TODs are
a 10% increase in civic participation. thought to increase shopping activities
Some critics cringe at such physical- at nearby retail outlets. Those passing
determinist talk; however, the flip by when exiting transit stations after
side of the coin is research showing work, for example, might be inclined
that living in automobile-dependent to pick up small items at nearby
sprawling suburbs is associated with stores. Increased retail sales, however,
commuting stress and higher rates of are a pure financial transfer—from the
absenteeism.34 pockets of consumers and merchants
of automobile-oriented shops to the
The award-winning mixed-use TOD pockets of those doing business near
built at the Orenco light-rail station in transit stops.
Hillsboro, Oregon, features a wide
range of housing options, from Chicago’s Union Station, the second
multifamily rowhomes to small-lot, busiest railroad station in the United
detached single-family units (see States, is home to several hundred
Photo 7.1). The Orenco project was locally owned and operated
designed to encourage walking, both businesses. In the mid-1990s, the
within the community and for access station’s food retailers were
129

Photo 7.1. Variety of Housing Products and Communal Spaces at Orenco Station,
Hillsboro, Oregon. Various amenities and streetscape improvements have drawn many
homebuyers to the rail-served community and promoted social interaction, something
that many new suburban communities lack.
generating more than $12.5 million only nationwide, but also within the
in sales annually, which is about fairly intensively transit-served
$600 per square foot of rentable San Francisco Bay Area. Bay Area
space.36 This sales figure ranks the communities with high levels of
station as one of the top food retail transit accessibility (which TOD
locations in the country. contributes to) were found to have
higher levels of economic output per
(H)Increased Access to Labor Pools worker when controlled for factors
(A, 6). Placing more workers within like population size and employment
easy reach of jobs via transit can densities. The flip side of poor access
increase the pool of labor and to labor is economic losses. The
specialized skills from which San Francisco Bay Area Economic
employers can draw, providing Forum estimates that local
transit-accessible businesses a businesses lose some $2 billion
competitive advantage. Recent annually in lost productivity because
research demonstrates that higher of employees sitting in traffic jams.38
levels of accessibility during commute
hours are associated with higher (I) Reduced Parking Costs (C, 2).
labor productivity.37 This held not Businesses and homeowners located
130

near transit stops are able to data from the San Francisco Bay
economize on parking, partly because Area, found that mixed land-use
larger shares of trip ends are by transit patterns, like those found at most
and also because of shared-parking TODs, significantly increased the
possibilities. The Commons mixed- odds of walking for non-work trips
use TOD in downtown Denver, for of 2 miles or less, controlling for
example, has below-standard parking factors like rainfall and slope that
(2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of might deter foot travel.41
commercial space compared to a
norm of 2.5 to 3 spaces). Shared Debates
parking has further lowered supplies.
At around $25,000 per space for Not everyone sees TOD in a positive
underground parking, reduced light. A spirited debate has surfaced
parking afforded by TOD saved the about the pros and cons of TOD, with
developer several million dollars. environmentalists and transit advocates
Part of these savings, presumably, is praising TOD and skeptics criticizing it.
passed on to consumers (especially
when there is a “buyer’s,” or price- Portland’s experiences are often cited to
elastic, real-estate market). underscore TOD’s beneficial side.
Chapter 17 discusses Portland’s many
(J) Increased Physical Activity (C, E, F). TOD successes. Portland’s MAX light-
America currently faces a serious rail system opened in 1986, and by 2000
obesity problem in part because so more than $2.4 billion in development
many teenagers and adults live a had occurred within walking distance of
sedentary lifestyle. The U.S. Surgeon the Eastside and Westside stations.42 Job
General recommends accumulating access has been materially enhanced by
30 minutes of moderate physical MAX—the Westside line today serves
activity per day. However, 74% of 24,000 high-tech jobs, providing
U.S. adults do not get enough mobility to what is increasingly a vital
physical activity to meet public part of the region’s economy. More than
health recommendations, and about 1,800 multifamily housing units have
one in four U.S. adults remains been built on infill sites along light-rail
completely inactive during their and streetcar lines. Numerous accounts
leisure time.39 Public health officials and studies have chronicled the rising
contend that walking has been land values and rents in neighborhoods
engineered out of everyday life served by Portland’s light rail system.43
because of automobile-dependent
landscapes. As walking-friendly Not all interpretations of Portland’s
environments, TODs can play a role experiences are so generous. In a
in increasing physical activity. A critique of the idea that transit’s benefits
recent national study found that get translated into higher land values that
those living in more compact settings can be recaptured, one Portland observer
were 10% less likely to be obese commented:
than those living in low-density
neighborhoods, all else being equal.40 Instead of value capture, Portland is
Another study, based on travel-diary having to subsidize transit oriented
131

development at light rail stations by Most of (Orenco’s) earliest

means of property-tax abatements, construction took place adjacent to
zoning bonuses, and permit Cornell Road, while the land
expediting. Transit oriented immediately surrounding the rail
development was not occurring stop remained vacant . . . In terms
naturally in Portland and subsidy of transit use, Orenco Station
is being used to jumpstart it. The has largely proven to be a
major obstacle is that land prices disappointment. Most people who
are not high enough to justify the take the train . . . arrive there by car.
densities and structured parking Three large employers . . . provide
that are desired by transit oriented free shuttles for their employees to
development planners. However, get to and from the light-rail station.
rationalizing the subsidy is difficult. This inflates light rail ridership, but
TOD is supposed to yield benefits, adds to local traffic—shuttles
not costs. Assurances about circulate for hours, often times
reducing urban sprawl, increasing empty—thereby diminishing the
use of alternative modes, and alleged environmental benefits
reducing pollution are not of rail.48
substantiated. In Portland, there
appears to be a continuing need Based on a separate survey of Orenco’s
for subsidy.44 residents, another critic claims that
“Three-quarters . . . always drive; and
Even at the level of a specific light-rail only one out of six use transit (including
station, opinions differ markedly bus) more than twice a week.”49 She
regarding net impacts. Take the much- further notes that “Orenco Station fails
vaunted Orenco Station, discussed the housing affordability test, with
earlier in this chapter. On the rosy side housing going around 30% higher
are surveys showing that nearly 80% of than the county average.”50
residents living near the Orenco Station
said that they ride transit more since Another critic challenges the very
moving to their new residence.45 Another premise that TOD relieves traffic
researcher estimated that 22% of Orenco congestion. In a paper written for the
commuters regularly use public transit, Heritage Foundation, Wendell Cox wrote
higher than the 5% average for the
region.46 The Orenco TOD’s popularity Transit-oriented development
increases congestion. The
is underscored by the fact that, according
overwhelming majority of travel
to one observer, homes are selling 60%
to proposed transit-oriented
faster than comparable units in non-TOD developments will be by
projects.47 As a further testament to its automobile. This will strain road
success, TOD boosters point out that space, slowing traffic and increasing
Orenco was voted America’s Best pollution as a consequence.51
Planned Community by the National
Association of Home Builders in 1999. This last comment speaks to the
protracted nature of TOD’s impacts.
In striking contrast, a critical perspective By attracting park-and-riders, passenger
on Orenco is offered by analysts from drop-off traffic, pedestrians, and others to
the Cascade Policy Institute: a concentrated area, transit stations are
132

often surrounded by congested agency professionals involved with TOD

intersections. Also, in the near term, at some level have formed their own
TODs unquestionably add more traffic to opinions. The national survey of
nearby city streets. Over the longer run, stakeholder groups asked respondents to
however, one expects less overall traffic rate, on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 7
congestion as TODs mature and win over (highest), the importance of TOD in
more customers, and VMT is certainly achieving various benefits. Figure 7.1
less with growth around transit stops than shows that the highest marks generally
without it. In modeling transportation went to TOD’s prospects for boosting
and land-use scenarios for metropolitan ridership. TOD also generally scored
Sacramento, California, using state-of- well on its ability to improve
the-practice simulation approaches, neighborhood and housing conditions.
researchers found that the addition of TOD’s contributions to livability and
TOD to transit scenarios reduced VMT holding sprawl in check were rated most
by up to 9% compared with baseline highly by respondents from large east-
conditions.52 This translated to an coast rail cities. There generally
economic benefit of 15 cents per trip, appeared to be the least amount of
with benefits accruing to all income confidence that TOD could do much to
groups. The researchers further found relieve traffic congestion. Respondents
that TOD helped reduce the regressive from MPOs were particularly skeptical
income effects of higher road pricing as of TOD’s congestion-relieving benefits.
part of a balanced transportation strategy. Overall, there was the highest confidence
in TOD’s ability to improve local
Suffice it to say, many different “spins” conditions like neighborhood quality and
have been placed on the impacts of TOD. housing affordability, and less faith in its
For this very reason, TOD was called “a role in stemming acute regionwide
much-hyped concept” in a recent national problems like sprawl and traffic
publication, “with a predictable amount congestion.
of misinformation and misrepresentation
within the policy and development The 90 survey respondents from transit
worlds.”53 Conflicting interpretations and agencies were further asked to rate the
research findings stem in part from impacts of joint development projects
methodological differences and vagaries, based on their own community’s
but they also reflect the ideological experiences. Figure 7.2 presents the
leanings of analysts. Polarized research results. Transit-agency respondents felt
findings make it difficult to inform joint development was most effective at
policy-makers about the benefits of TOD. spurring redevelopment and creating
Invariably, decisions regarding TOD get better-designed (e.g., architecturally
driven more by political and ideological integrated) projects. They assigned
considerations than by objective research. moderate credit to joint development’s
abilities to increase public-sector
Perceptions of Benefits revenues and transit ridership. They
were least confident that it raised
Notwithstanding what the literature and property values or contributed
research say (or don’t say) about TOD’s significantly to smart-growth
benefits and disadvantages, many public- agendas.
133

Increase Ridership
Improve Neighborhood
Quality
Increase Housing
Choices
Increase Political
Support for Transit
Reduce Sprawl
Relieve Traffic
Congestion
2 3 4 5 6
Mean Rating (1=minimal; 4=moderate; 7=significant)
State DOTs MPOs Redevelopment Agencies Local Governments Transit Agencies
Figure 7.1. Rating of Impact of TOD in Achieving Benefits Based on Experiences in

Stakeholder’s Community.
Conclusion residents living near stations are five to

six times more likely to commute via
The potential benefits of TOD are wide- transit than are other residents in a
ranging, spanning across social, region. Other primary benefits include
environmental, and fiscal concerns. the revitalization of declining
Focusing growth around transit stations neighborhoods, financial gains for joint
capitalizes on expensive public development opportunities, increases in
investments in transit by producing local the supply of affordable housing, and
and regional benefits. TOD, proponents profits to those who own land and
say, can be an effective tool in curbing businesses near transit stops. Among
sprawl, reducing traffic congestion, and TOD’s secondary benefits are congestion
expanding housing choices. relief, land conservation, reduced outlays
for roads, and improved safety for
The most direct benefit of TOD is pedestrians and cyclists. Many of these
increased ridership and the associated benefits feed off of each other, and quite
revenue gains. Research shows that a few are redistributive in nature—gains
134

Spurs 50.0%
37.5%
Redevelopment 12.5%
Improves Urban 47.7%

50.0%
Design 2.6%
Significant
Increases Public- 46.2% Moderate
30.7%
Sector Revenues 23.1% Minimal
44.1%
Increases Ridership 41.4%
11.8%
Promotes Smart 39.0%

56.1%
Growth 4.9%
Increases Property 34.1%

56.1%
Values 9.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Percent Rating
Figure 7.2. Rating of Joint Development Impacts by Transit-Agency
Respondents.
by some are matched by losses neighborhood and housing conditions.

experienced by others. Its greatest benefit, according to national
survey respondents, is in increasing
Impacts of TOD no doubt vary by time ridership. It is to the potential ridership
and circumstances. In a boom economy, benefits of TOD that we now turn.
when highways are jam-packed, the
benefits of living, working, and running
a business near a grade-separated, high- Notes
performance transit line are likely much
greater than during an economic 1 Project for Public Spaces, Inc., TCRP Report
downturn. TOD is also likely to be more 22: The Role of Transit in Creating Livable
highly valued in big congested cities Metropolitan Communities (Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board,
than in small uncongested ones. It is
National Research Council, 1997), 5–6.
because of such variation that our
2
knowledge of benefits remains partial. The economist definition of “public” is non-
exclusivity, non-rivalness, and often natural
Such variation has also given rise to
monopoly properties (like economies of
harsh debates and conflicting signals on scale).
TOD benefits, especially in “best case” 3 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., R. Cervero, and
settings like Portland, Oregon. D. Aschauer, TCRP Report 35: Economic
Impact Analysis of Transit Investments:
Those working for transit agencies and Guidebook for Practitioners (Washington,
local, regional, and state governments D.C.: Transportation Research Board,
generally give TOD a moderate rating in National Research Council, 1998).
terms of its ability to produce benefits. 4 Transit investments certainly increase
TOD gets high marks for contributing to employment in the form of construction jobs
135

and other project-related activities; however, Journal of Planning Education and Research,
these are redistributive not generative in Vol. 17 (1998): 206–219; A. Loukaitous-
nature. That is, they represent financial Sideris and R. Bannerjee, “Blue Line Blues:
impacts in the form of shifting money from Why the Vision of Transit Village May Not
national taxpayers to local (or imported) Materialize Despite Impressive Growth in
construction firms courtesy of federal, state, Transit Ridership,” Journal of Urban Design,
and local grants, in addition to other financial Vol. 5, No. 2 (2000): 101–125.
sources. 13 A. Loukaitous-Sideris, “Transit-Oriented
5 Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglass, Development in the Inner City: A Delphi
Inc., R. Cervero, Howard/Stein-Hudson Survey,” Journal of Public Transportation,
Associates, and J. Zupan, “Regional Transit Vol. 3, No. 2 (2000): 75–98.
Corridors: The Land Use Connection,” 14 Project for Public Spaces, Inc., 1997, op. cit.
TCRP Project H-1 (Washington, D.C.:
15
Transportation Research Board, National T. Parker, G. Arrington, M. McKeever, and
Research Council, 1995). J. Smith-Heimer, Statewide Transit-Oriented
Development Study: Factors for Success in
6
R. Cervero, “Mixed Land Uses and California (Sacramento: California,
Commuting: Evidence from the American Department of Transportation, 2002), 94–95.
Housing Survey,” Transportation Research A,
16
Vol. 30, No. 5 (1996): 361–377. California Building Industry Association,
Where Will They Live? (Sacramento: 2001).
7
R. Cervero, “Built Environments and Mode
17
Choice: Toward a Normative Framework,” Calthorpe Associates, Wasatch Front Transit
Transportation Research D, Vol. 7 (2002): Oriented Development Guidelines (Salt Lake
265–284. City, Utah: Envision Utah, 2002).
18
8
R. Cervero, “Transit-Based Housing in G. Sciara, “Traffic Congestion: Issues and
California: Evidence on Ridership Impacts,” Options” (conference summary, Conference
on Traffic Congestion, Washington, D.C.,
Transport Policy, Vol. 3 (1994): 174–183;
June 26–27, 2003).
Survey I (Washington, D.C.: Washington 19 J. Holtzclaw, “Using Residential Patterns and
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 1987); Transit to Decrease Auto Dependence and
JHK and Associates, Development-Related Costs” (San Francisco: Natural Resources
Survey II (Washington, D.C.: Washington Defense Council, 1999). http://
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 1989); www.smartgrowth.org/library/cheers.html.
M. Stringham, “Travel Behavior Associated 20 T. Parker et al., 2002, op. cit., p. 6.
with Land Uses Adjacent to Rapid Transit
21
Stations,” ITE Journal, Vol. 52, No. 1 R. Cervero, BART @ 20: Land Use and
(1982): 18–22. Development Impacts, Monograph 49
(Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional
9
JHK and Associates, 1987, op. cit. Development, University of California,
10
R. Cervero, Ridership Impacts of Transit- 1995); Barry and Associates, Air Quality in
Focused Development in California, California (Sacramento: California Air
Monograph 45 (Berkeley: Institute of Urban Resources Board, 1999).
and Regional Development, University of 22 Parker et al., 2002, op. cit., p. 43.
California, 1993). 23 Arlington County Department of Community
11 Portland TriMet Transit Agency, “Transit- Planning, Housing and Development,
Oriented Development Research Associated Development in the Metro Corridors 2000
with Westside MAX Opening” (Portland, (Arlington County, Virginia, 2002).
Oregon: 1999). 24 Cervero, 1993, op. cit.; Air Resources Board,
12 M. Boarnet and R. Crane, “Public Finance The Land Use-Air Quality Linkage
and Transit-Oriented Planning: New (Sacramento: California Environmental
Evidence from Southern California,” Protection Agency, 1994).
136

25 38
R. Burchell, G. Lowenstein, W. Dolphin, Local Government Commission, Building
C. Galley, A. Downs, S. Seskin, K. Still, Livable Communities: A Policy Maker’s Guide
and T. Moore, TCRP Report 74: Costs to Infill Development (Sacramento: 1995).
of Sprawl—2000 (Washington, D.C.: 39
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Transportation Research Board, Services, Center for Disease Control and
National Research Council, 2002). Prevention, National Center for Chronic
26 J. Landis, “Imagining Land Use Futures: Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,
Applying the California Urban Futures Activity DoNaP, Promoting Physical
Model,” Journal of the American Planning Activity—A Guide for Community Action
Association, Vol. 61, No. 4 (1995): 438–457. (Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, 1999).
40
27 B. Muller and T. Bradshaw, Central Valley R. Ewing, T. Schmid, R. Killingsworth, A.
Alternative Growth Futures: Options for Zlot, S. Raudenbush, “Relationships Between
Preserving California’s Agricultural Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity,
Capacity (University of California at and Morbidity,” American Journal of Health
Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Promotion, Vol. 18, No. 1 (2003): 47–57.
Development Working Paper, 1995). 41 R. Cervero and M. Duncan, “Walking,
28 Burchell et al., 2002, op. cit. Bicycling, and Urban Landscapes: Evidence
from the San Francisco Bay Area,” American
29
J. Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No. 9
American Cities (New York: Vintage Books, (2003): 1478–1483.
1961). 42
G. B. Arrington, “The End of the Suburbs?”
30
Project for Public Spaces, Inc., 1997, op. cit., Community Building Sourcebook (Portland,
pp. 65–83. Oregon: 1999).
31
Surface Transportation Policy Project, 43 See http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/alts/tod/
Dangerous by Design: Pedestrian Safety portland.htm.
in California (San Francisco: 1999). 44 K. Duecker, “A Critique of the Urban
http://www.transact.org/Ca/design/toc.htm.
Transportation Planning Process—The
32
J. Pucher and L. Dijkstra, “Making Walking Performance of Portland’s 2000 Regional
and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe,” Transportation Plan,” Transportation
Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54 (2000): Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 2 (2002): 20–21.
25–50. 45 G. B. Arrington, Reinventing the American
33
R. Putman, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Dream of a Livable Community: Light Rail
Revival of American Community (New York: and Smart Growth in Portland (paper
Simon & Schuster, 2000). presented at the 8th Joint Conference on
34
Light Rail Transit Investment for the
R. Navaco, R. Stokols, and L. Milanesi, Future, Transportation Research Board,
“Subjective and Objective Dimensions of Washington, D.C., 2000).
Travel Impedance as Determinants of
46
Commuting Stress,” American Journal of B. Podobnik, “Portland Neighborhood
Community Psychology, Vol. 18 (1990): Survey: Report on Findings from Zone 2,
231–257. Orenco Station,” unpublished (Portland,
Oregon: Lewis and Clark University, January
35 L. Weigand, “Orenco Station,” Livable 2002).
Oregon Case Study, brochure (June 1999).
47 Transit Alliance, On the Move, newsletter
36 Project for Public Spaces, Inc., 1997, op. cit., (February 2000).
p. 62. 48 M. Barton and J. Charles, The Mythical
37 R. Cervero, “Efficient Urbanisation: World of Transit-Oriented Development:
Economic Performance and the Shape of the Light Rail and the Orenco Neighborhood,
Metropolis,” Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 10 Hillsboro, Oregon (Portland, Oregon:
(2001): 1651–1672. Cascade Policy Institute, 2003).
137

49 C. Bae, “Orenco Station, Portland, Oregon: Regional Land Use Policies: Final Report
A Successful Transit Oriented Development for the Environmental Protection Agency
Experiment?” Transportation Quarterly, (Davis, California: Department of
Vol. 56, No. 3 (2002): 9–18. Environmental Sciences and Policy,
50
University of California, Davis,
Ibid., p. 12.
February 2000).
51 T. Still, “Transit-Oriented Development: 53 D. Costello, R. Mendelsohn, A. Canby, and
Reshaping America’s Metropolitan
J. Bender, The Returning City: Historic
Landscape,” On Common Ground
Presentation and Transit in the Age of Civic
(Winter 2002): 47.
Revival (Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit
52 R. Johnston, C. Rodier, M. Choy, and Administration, National Trust for Historic
J. Abraham, Air Quality Impact of Preservation, 2003), 10.
138

Chapter 8
Evidence on Ridership Impacts
TOD and Ridership accessed by walk-and-ride and bike-and-

ride can reduce the need for parking,
If there is any single benefit of TOD that improve air quality, and promote
all sides agree is beneficial to society as physical activity. All transit trips involve
a whole, it is increased ridership. TOD some degree of walking; however, recent
is poised to relieve traffic congestion, research makes clear that attending to
improve air quality, cut down on tailpipe the mobility and design needs of those
emissions, and increase pedestrian safety who exclusively walk to and from
in transit-served neighborhoods by stations is especially important.2
coaxing travelers out of their
automobiles and into trains and buses. Another important ridership dimension
However, congestion relief and of TODs is their mixed-use attributes.
environmental benefits accrue to an Some destinations, like offices and
appreciable degree only if TODs result residences, produce trips during peak
in people making the switch from hours when trains and buses are often
driving alone to using transit. While full. Others, like entertainment
some critics charge that rail transit complexes, restaurants, and retail shops,
investments generally lure bus riders to generate trips mainly during off-peak
rail, experiences show that TOD can hours, helping to squeeze efficiencies
attract significant shares of former into the deployment of costly rail
motorists. A California study found that services. When mixed-use TODs are
among those who drove to work when aligned along linear corridors—like
they lived away from transit, 52.3% “pearls on a necklace”—trip origins and
switched to transit commuting on destinations are evenly spread out,
moving within a 1⁄2-mile walking producing efficient bi-directional flows.
distance of a rail station.1 On balance, This has been the case in world-class
research to date shows that TOD yields transit metropolises like Stockholm,
an appreciable ridership bonus: well- Copenhagen, and Curitiba, Brazil, where
designed, concentrated, mixed-use mixed-use TODs have given rise to
development around transit nodes can 55%–45% directional splits.3 This is in
boost patronage as much as five to contrast to many U.S. settings, where
six times higher than comparable peak-period trains and buses are filled
development away from transit. to the brim in one direction but nearly
empty in the other. Mixed and balanced
While the chief environmental benefit of land uses ensure mixed and balanced
TOD comes from coaxing motorists over traffic flows.
to mass transit, a secondary benefit is
more walking and bicycle trips to and Why is it important to know about the
from transit. Larger shares of rail trips ridership impacts of TOD? The main
139

reason is that evidence can be useful in uses. Past studies have mostly compared
informing public policy. One application transit modal shares between those
is the setting of credits and waivers living within a walkable distance of a
against transportation impact fees. station and those who live farther away.
Los Angeles, Orlando, and Santa Clara Among the research findings to date are
County (CA) currently employ sliding- the following:
scale programs, adjusting impact fees
downward for TODs. The Santa Clara • Surveys from 1992 and 1993 of Bay
County Congestion Management Agency Area workers living near BART found
recommends a 9% reduction in estimated that, on average, 32% commuted by
trip generation levels when setting rail; this is more than six times the
impact fees for new housing projects that regional average of just 5%.
lie within 2,000 feet of a light-rail or Automobile availability and parking
commuter-rail station. Research can also prices had a huge bearing on
help inform policy initiatives like LEM ridership rates. Station-area residents
programs by shedding light on the from households with no automobiles
commuting cost savings of transit-based were 14 times more likely to rail
housing. It can also be of value to long- commute than those from three-
range modeling whose outputs weigh automobile households. And 42% of
heavily on how scarce transportation station-area residents who paid for
dollars are allocated in Transportation parking commuted by rail compared
Improvement Programs (TIPs). The with just 4.5% who received free
recent scenario testing in Sacramento, parking.5 Further, if a commute was
California, using an integrated land-use to downtown San Francisco and a
and transportation model, for example, station-area resident from a one-
showed that rail investments combined automobile household had to pay for
with TOD and road pricing was more parking, there was an 82% likelihood
cost-effective and environmentally he or she would take transit; if, on
benign than a beltway scenario.4 The the other hand, the person commuted
region’s TIP followed suit by giving high to a non–San Francisco destination
priority to several major transit projects. and could park for free, the
probability plummeted to just 4%.
Reviewing the Evidence Recent research updating this study
similarly found that the probability
Research to date has measured ridership of workers who live near California
impacts of residences, offices, and retail rail stops taking transit to work
shops that are within walking distance varied dramatically according not
of transit stations, normally defined as 1⁄4 only to parking policies at the
to 1⁄2 mile away. Below, key findings workplace but also whether they
based on U.S. experiences are were able to flex their work
summarized. schedules (see Figure 8.1).
Residences • The highest transit capture rates

among those living near rail stops
Most of the evidence on the ridership have been recorded for the
impacts of TOD is for residential land Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan
140

1.0
0.9
Flextime, Paid Parking
Probability of Choosing Transit 0.8
0.7
Flextime, Free Parking
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
No Flextime,
Paid Parking
0.1
No Flextime, Free Parking
0.0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Travel Time Ratio = (Travel Time Highway/Travel Time Transit)
Figure 8.1. Sensitivity of Rail Commuting to Parking Prices, Availability

of Flextime Work Schedules, and Travel Time Ratios via Highway versus
Transit, Based on Model for Predicting the Likelihood of California
Station-Area Residents Commuting by Rail Transit in 2003.
Source: H. Lund, R. Cervero, and R. Willson, Travel Characteristics of Transit-Focused Development in
California (Oakland, California: Bay Area Rapid Transit District and California Department of
Transportation, 2004).
Area.6 Surveys from the late 1980s origins and destinations, making
show the share of work trips taken by efficient use of available capacity.
rail ranging from 18% to 63%, with (See Chapter 12 for further
the highest rates among residents discussions on TOD ridership
heading to jobs in the District of impacts in Arlington County.)
Columbia. More recent surveys of
those living along the • A study of Santa Clara County’s
4-mile long, 1⁄2-mile-wide Rosslyn- light-rail corridor found TOD
Ballston corridor reveal that 39% use residents patronized transit as their
transit to get to work and 10% walk predominant commute mode more
or bike; these rates are three times than five times as often as residents
higher than the average for Arlington countywide.8
County as a whole.7 Also, 64% of rail
patrons who live along the corridor • At the Center Commons mixed-
walk to stations. Moreover, because income TOD in Portland, transit
of the mixed-use nature of TODs mode share increased nearly 50% for
along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor, work trips (from 31% before moving
counts of station entries and exits are into the project to 46% after) and by
fairly similar during peak hours—that 60% for non-work trips (from 20%
is, stations handle a balance of trip to 32%).9
141

Offices by rail than other Bay Area

commuters.13 Living near transit
Many offices enjoy high rates of transit made a difference. On average,
ridership by virtue of the fact that they 19.3% of those who lived in a city
are located downtown where levels of served by BART and who worked
transit accessibility are the highest. The near BART commuted by rail
availability of free parking at most non- compared with 12.8% of those who
downtown workplaces erodes transit worked in a similar setting but did
ridership. Evidence on the ridership not live in a BART-served city.
rates of offices near rail stops
(summarized below) comes mainly from Retail
California and the Washington (D.C.)
Metropolitan Area. Retail shops and consumer services can
be particularly attractive additions to
• Surveys of rail commuting in the TODs because they often generate off-
Metropolitan Washington (D.C.) peak and weekend trips. Thus, they help
Area found that nearly 50% of those to fill trains and buses during periods of
working in offices within 1,000 feet underutilized capacity. As all-day, all-
of downtown Metrorail stations rail week trip generators, they improve the
commuted; in the case of offices that cost-effectiveness of expensive rail
were comparable distances from the investments. At least three studies have
more suburban Crystal City and documented ridership rates among those
Silver Spring stations, the shares shopping at retail stores near rail
were 16% to 19%.10 Place of stations. Findings include the following:
residence was a particularly
important explainer of whether office • For retail centers near Washington
workers patronized transit. In the (D.C.) Metrorail stations, location
case of the Silver Spring Metro and time of day of trips were the
Center, a 150,000-square-foot office most important determinants of
tower 200 feet from the Metrorail mode choice: well over 50% of
portal, 52% of workers who lived in shopping trips made to large
Washington, D.C., rail commuted; downtown retail stores or made to
among those living in surrounding other close-by malls at midday were
Montgomery County, Metrorail was made by Metrorail.14
used by just 10%.11
• A 1993 survey found that over 60%
• At one of San Diego’s most of customers surveyed at downtown
prominent joint development San Diego’s Horton Plaza, two
projects, the Metropolitan Transit blocks from the Trolley line, arrived
System (MTS)/James R. Mills by transit or on foot.15
Building, surveys show that 18% of
building users arrive by transit.12 • Experiences in the San Francisco
Bay Area reveal that location of
• Surveys of those working in offices retail centers has a strong bearing on
near BART found that workers were rail capture rates.16 Surveys from
2.5 times more likely to get to work 1993 show that 33.8% of patrons at
142

the San Francisco Centre in station portal. In California, the ridership

downtown San Francisco, which has gradient is even steeper. Surveys of
a direct portal connection to BART, residents of 27 housing projects near rail
arrived by transit. For two suburban stops in the Bay Area, San Diego, and
malls also within an easy walk to Sacramento showed that ridership fell by
BART, the shares were below 20%. 0.85% for every 100-foot increase in
walking distance.18
Proximity and Built Environments
Also Matter In addition to relative proximity to a
station, built-environment characteristics
Research also shows that proximity to of TODs also influence transit ridership.
transit matters a lot. Table 8.1, based on The study of 27 transit-based housing
1987 experiences in the Washington projects in California found density to be
(D.C.) Metropolitan Area, reveals that the most important land-use predictor of
commuting by transit erodes rapidly ridership rates.19 Findings were similar
with distance from rail stations. For for offices: on average, every addition of
instance, 63% of residents of The 100 employees per acre was associated
Consulate apartment complex, 300 feet with a 2.2% increase in rail commuting.
from the Van Ness-UDC Station, The California surveys of residences and
commuted via Metrorail; at the offices within 1⁄2 mile of stations found
Connecticut Heights project, 3,800 feet land-use mixes and the quality of the
away from the same station, 24% rode walking environment had relatively little
Metrorail to work.17 In the Washington impact on transit usage after controlling
(D.C.) Metropolitan Area, the share of for density: “It could be that within a
trips by transit fell by around 0.65% for quarter to a half mile radius of a station,
every 100-foot increase in the distance features of the built environment
of a residential site from a Metrorail (ignoring issues of safety and urban
Table 8.1. Modal Splits for Residential Projects Near Metrorail Stations, Washington (D.C.)
Metropolitan Area, 1987
Metrorail Station Housing Project Distance to Percent of Commute
Station (ft) Trips by:
Rail Auto Other
Rosslyn (VA) River Place North 1,000 45.3 41.5 13.3
River Place South 1,500 40.0 60.0 0.0
Prospect House 2,200 18.2 81.9 0.0
Crystal City (VA) Crystal Square Apts. 500 36.3 48.8 14.9
Crystal Plaza Apts. 1,000 44.0 45.0 11.0
Van Ness-UDC (DC) The Consulate 300 63.0 32.6 4.4
Connecticut Heights 3,800 24.0 56.0 20.0
Silver Spring (MD) Twin Towers 900 36.4 52.3 11.4
Georgian Towers 1,400 34.7 43.1 22.2
Note: “Other” consists of bus, walking, cycling, and other travel modes.
Source: JHK and Associates, Development-Related Survey I (Washington, D.C.: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority, 1987).
143

blight) matter little—as long as places within an easy walk of a transit node.
are near a station, the physical That is, being near transit and being able
characteristics of the immediate to regularly get around via trains and
neighborhood are inconsequential.”20 In buses weighs heavily in residential
their comprehensive review of empirical location choice. High ridership rates are
studies on travel and built environments, simply a manifestation of this lifestyle
Reid Ewing and Robert Cervero preference.
concluded: “transit use depends
primarily on local densities and A study of Santa Clara County’s
secondarily on the degree of land use Guadalupe light-rail corridor, for
mixing.”21 Still, several studies show example, found TOD residents got to
that the influences of mixed uses and work via transit five times as often as the
urban design on transit ridership are not typical employed resident of the
inconsequential, although these studies county.25 Self-selection was evident in
were conducted across all land-use that 42% of respondents stated that being
settings, not just TOD. A study of six close to transit was a big factor in the
large suburban employment centers choice of a home or apartment. As
found that the existence of a retail further evidence of self-selection, a 1993
component in an office building survey of San Francisco Bay Area
increases transit commute shares by residents living near rail transit found
3%.22 Additionally, using data on over that 56.2% got to work by trains or buses
15,000 households from the 1985 at their previous Bay Area residence that
American Housing Survey, another was far away from a rail stop.26 That
study found that the presence of retail study concluded that many TOD
shops within 300 feet of one’s residence residents have a proclivity to patronize
increased the probability of transit transit, whether to avoid the stress of
commuting by 3% (on average) commuting, for reasons of personal
ostensibly because transit users could taste, or to make more productive use of
pick up convenience items when heading time spent getting to work.
home after work.23 Recent research using
data from rail-served Montgomery A recent study explicitly examined
County, Maryland, reached a similar residential self-selection as a primary
conclusion: mixed uses at origins and determinant of ridership rates among
destinations induce rail travel for all trip TOD residents.27 Using data on travel
purposes, with elasticities between diaries and locations of residences and
transit usage and land-use diversity workplaces from the 2000 Bay Area
ranging from 0.45 to 0.62.24 Travel Survey, a nested logit model was
estimated. The selection of rail transit
Self-Selection and Rail Commuting for commuting was nested within the
choice of whether to reside within 1⁄2
Ridership gains tied to TOD are mile of a rail station. Factors used to
significantly a product of self-selection. explain whether someone lived near
Those with a lifestyle predisposition for transit included workplace location, job
transit-oriented living conscientiously accessibility via highway and transit
sort themselves into apartments, networks, and household and personal
townhomes, and single-family units characteristics (e.g., type of household,
144

type of occupation, and automobile From the nested logit results of the Bay
ownership levels). Using records for Area study, a sensitivity test was
more than 11,000 individuals, it was conducted to show how probabilities of
found that 19.6% of those living within rail commuting varied as a function of
1
⁄2 mile of a rail stop got to work by rail three policy variables: residential location
transit; among those living beyond the (within 1⁄2 mile of a station or beyond);
1
⁄2-mile radius, the share was 8.6%. For workplace location (within 1⁄4 mile of a
the residential-location component of station or beyond); and household
the nested choice model, whether one automobile-ownership levels (0, 1, 2, 3+).
worked within 1⁄4 mile of a rail station The resulting sensitivity plot, Figure 8.2,
was the most significant predictor of shows probabilities of rail commuting are
whether one lived near transit. In very high among all groups when the
addition to residential location, worker lives in a household with no
automobile-ownership levels were found automobiles. Adding one automobile
to have a strong bearing on whether results in probabilities plummeting; they
workers commuted by rail. All three fall most precipitously for those residing
factors—residential location, and working away from stations. For
automobile-ownership levels, and rail residents of transit-based housing,
commuting—were found to be closely probabilities fall more gradually with
interdependent. Using conditional automobile-ownership levels. For those
probabilities, the study suggested that living away from transit, the likelihood of
upwards of 40% of the ridership bonus rail commuting is not much different in
associated with TOD is a product of two-automobile and three-or-more-
residential location (i.e., self-selection). automobile households. And for those
0.9
Probability Commute by Rail
0.8
Reside Near/Work Near Rail
0.7 Reside Near/
Work Away from
0.6 Rail
0.5
0.4
Reside Away/
0.3 Work Near Rail
Reside Away/
0.2 Work Away from
Rail
0.1
0
0 1 2 3+
Number of Automobiles in Household
Figure 8.2. Sensitivity Plots of Rail-Commute Probabilities by Number of
Automobiles in Household for Those Living and Working Near and Away
from Stations.
Note: Reside Near = 1⁄2 mile or less; Work Near = 1⁄2 mile or less.
Source: R. Cervero and M. Duncan, Residential Self Selection and Rail Commuting: A Nested Logit Analysis,
Working Paper 604 (Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center, 2002).
145

living and working away from a rail stop, Holtzclaw and a team of collaborators
the odds of commuting by a non-rail recently studied travel behavior and
mode is about the same for a one- and a automobile-ownership levels as
three-or-more-automobile household— functions of land-use and transit-
less than 1 in 10. accessibility characteristics of
neighborhoods in three regions with
Figure 8.2 also reveals that working near LEM programs: Chicago, Los Angeles,
transit interacts with automobile- and San Francisco. A doubling of
ownership levels to produce different residential density was found to reduce
probabilities among station-area household automobile ownership and
dwellers and their counterparts. Working VMT per capita in the 32% to 43%
near transit and having no automobiles range. The influence of transit
means there is a very high likelihood, accessibility on automobile ownership
well over 80%, of rail commuting for was less than that of density, but it was
both groups. Adding an automobile to still appreciable.28
the household results in the probability
dropping far more sharply for non- Self-selection in no way diminishes the
station-area residents, however, to below importance of planning for and building
the probability (0.28) for station-area transit-oriented residences. If the
residents who work beyond 1⁄4 mile of marketplace was perfectly functioning,
the station. This suggests that an then a case might be made for
appreciable share of station-area governments to get out of the way so
dwellers who rail commute do so out of that producers and consumers could sort
choice rather than necessity, further themselves into station areas unfettered.
hinting that self-selection has taken However, marketplaces are not perfect;
place. Adding a second automobile to a factors such as NIMBY resistance to
station-area household, however, lowers new construction, exclusionary zoning,
the probability of rail-commuting imperfect information, or negative
sharply, below that of a non-station-area externalities affect them. Accordingly,
worker from a two-automobile findings of self-selection underscore the
household whose job site is near a rail importance of breaking down barriers
stop. This indicates that the transit- to residential mobility and introducing
ridership benefits of transit-based market-responsive zoning in and around
housing comes from those with transit nodes—zoning that acknowledges
relatively few (i.e., under two) that those living near transit tend to
automobiles in the household. In terms be in smaller households with fewer
of public policy, this argues for flexing automobiles. Flexible parking standards
parking standards for housing projects and LEMs would further encourage self-
near rail stations. selection of TODs.
More recent research has confirmed that Transit Joint Development

those living in compact, transit- and Ridership
accessible locations tend to own fewer
automobiles and log fewer vehicle miles Some evidence suggests that joint
of travel per year. As part of an development projects, such as air-rights
evaluation of the LEM concept, John development on transit-agency property,
146

yield among the highest ridership studied more in the San Francisco Bay
dividends of any form of TOD. In a 1983 Area than anywhere. Surveys of
study of nine transit joint development residents, office workers, and shoppers
projects in the United States, Keefer in the early 1990s showed that being
found that every 1,000 square feet of near transit significantly boosted
new commercial floor space near a rail ridership levels, as documented in the
station generated an additional six transit 1993 monograph, Ridership Impacts
trips per day, yielding an additional of Transit-Focused Development in
$11.4 million (in 1982 dollars) in annual California. This study was recently
farebox receipts.29 Case studies from the updated based on travel-diary surveys
early 1980s estimated that fully realized conducted in May 2003; the recent
joint development at rail stations with surveys found that TOD’s ridership
buoyant real-estate markets could bonus has held steady.33
increase ridership by 10% to 25%.30
An empirical investigation of joint To further probe the connection between
development projects in the Washington land development and transit usage in
(D.C.) Metropolitan Area and Atlanta the Bay Area, research was carried out,
found more modest impacts, although as part of the TCRP Project H-27 study,
interdependencies between office using recently released data from
development and ridership were found Census 2000 on journey-to-work travel
statistically. Jointly developed office and neighborhood attributes. Using the
space on top of or near a rail stop census data and Geographic Information
spurred ridership, and ridership in turn System (GIS) tools, an aggregate
spurred office development.31 analysis of proximity to transit and
Statistically, a 10% increase in a rail modal splits was conducted using each
station’s share of regional office growth of the 129 rail stations in the San
was associated with around a 1% Francisco Bay Area as a data
increase in that station’s share of observation.34 The Bay Area features
systemwide ridership. High rates of three types of rail services—heavy rail
transit usage have also been found (BART), commuter rail (Caltrain and
among patrons of joint development Altamont Commuter Express), and
projects in San Diego and Miami.32 light rail (VTA)—thus the breadth of
The ridership boost offered by joint rail offerings enriched the analysis.
development projects could be due to (Map 8.1 shows the extent of regional
design factors, such as architectural rail services in the urbanized portions
integration of transit stations and of the Bay Area.)
adjoining buildings, improved pedestrian
circulation, and transit’s visible The analysis that follows uses
presence. commuting, socio-demographics, and
neighborhood characteristics of
TOD-Ridership Case Study: households within 1 mile of each of the
San Francisco Bay Area 129 Bay Area rail stations to probe how
station-area land-use characteristics
As revealed by discussions so far in this influence transit commute modal splits.
chapter, the ridership impacts of GIS tools allowed census-tract-level data
development around transit have been to be interpolated for 1-mile rings
147

commutes by transit among station-area

residents and each of the “3Ds”—
specifically, residential densities,
numbers of retail and service jobs, and
city block patterns. Figure 8.3
summarizes the results of simple
bivariate regression equations that
estimate shares of motorized commutes
by transit as a function of each of the
“D” dimensions.37 In general, Year 2000
transit commute shares among those
residing within a mile of a station rose
with residential densities, with the
relationship exhibiting a slight
logarithmic bend. From the equation, the
likelihood that a Bay Area station-area
resident rail commuted was 24.3% at
densities of 10 units per gross acre.
Doubling densities to 20 units per acre
increased the likelihood to 43.4% and
quadrupling them to 40 units per acre
catapulted the probability to 66.6%.
Map 8.1. Rail Transit Coverage in The second “D” in Figure 8.3 relates to
the San Francisco Bay Area. diversity, or land-use mix. The index
used here is the number of retail and
service jobs per gross acre within a mile
around rail stations. On average, the radius of a station. From the perspective
share of motorized commute trips made of modeling modal shares among
by transit among those residing within residents, the addition of retail and
1 mile of the 129 Bay Area rail stations service activities represents a
in the year 2000 was 12.6%. This diversification of land uses. Virtually all
compares to a regionwide transit modal TODs, even if they are predominantly
split of 9.7%, based on Census 2000.35 residential in nature, include retail and
service uses. As noted earlier, several
Ridership and the 3Ds: studies suggest that the presence of
Density, Diversity, and Design shops, eateries, and other services in
a station area can boost transit patronage
Simple bivariate regression plots reveal by several percentage points since riders
that among those living within a mile of can easily pick up convenience items
a Bay Area rail stop, the “3 Ds” of the when en route to home in the evening,
built environment—density, diversity, just as they often do by automobile.38
and design—matter greatly.36 For the The regression equation shown in Figure
129 Bay Area rail stations that were 8.3 shows that transit modal shares rise
studied, a strong positive relationship with numbers of retail and service jobs
was exhibited between shares of up to a point; at 80 or more jobs per
148

.6
Figure 8.3. Transit Commute
Modal Splits and the “3Ds” of TODs
.5
(Influence of Density, Diversity, and
Prop. Motorized Commutes by Transit
Design on Proportion of Commutes

.4
DENSITY by Transit for Bay Area Station-

Area Residents, 2000).
.3
.2
.1 BIVARIATE
REGRESSIONS
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
Dwelling Units per Gross Acre

DENSITY:
.6
Prop. Commutes by Transit =
.0015 + .0266(Housing Density)
.5
– .00025 (Housing Density)2
.4
R2 = .738
.3 DIVERSITY
DIVERSITY:
.2
Prop. Commutes by Transit =

.1
.0510 + .0121 (Retail & Service
0.0
Jobs) – .000071 (Retail & Service
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Jobs)2
Retail & Service Jobs per Gross Acre
R2 = .566
.6
DESIGN:
.5
DESIGN Prop. Commutes by Transit =

.4
.0830 – .844 (No. City Blocks per
Acre) + 6.130 (No. City Blocks
.3
per Acre)2
.2 R2 = .817
.1 Note:
N = 129 for all equations.
0.0
0.0 .1 .2 .3 .4
All predictor variables are
significant at the .01 probability
No. City Blocks per Acre
level.
149

acre, transit modal splits trend Weighing Factors in Combination:

downward, possibly representing the fact Multiple Regression Results
that these are different residential
markets given that residences generally While revealing, a limitation of the
represent a small share of land uses at simple plots and equations discussed
such high employment densities. From above is that built environment factors
the equation, the likelihood of a station- are correlated—dense settings, for
area resident rail-commuting was 11% example, also tend to be the most land-
with five retail/service jobs per gross use diverse. Moreover, other factors
acre. Raising this to 20 jobs per acre that might be associated with built-
boosts the transit commute modal share environment variables, like parking
to 26.5%, and increasing it to 60 jobs per supplies and median household income
acre shoots the share up to 52.1%. levels, could also be significant
predictors. Failure to account for these
The third “D” in Figure 8.3 gauges the other relevant variables can bias the
design features of neighborhoods around statistical results. In this spirit, a
Bay Area transit stations. Specifically, it multiple regression equation was
measures the average number of city estimated that predicts the influences of
blocks per acre within a 1-mile radius of the three built-environment variables in
stations. It gets at the general scale, land combination with other “control”
platting, and street connectivity of station variables.
areas. The larger the number, the more
blocks per acre and correspondingly, the Table 8.2 presents the best-fitting
more walkable a neighborhood generally multiple regression results. Including
is. The average number of blocks per characteristics of stations and
acre ranged from a low of .028 per acre neighborhoods resulted in the removal
in BART-served Orinda, an affluent of some of the built-environment
suburb in Contra Costa County, to a high variables presented in Figure 8.3 due to
of .353 per acre for areas around the multi-collinearity. Still, the results are
Embarcadero BART station in downtown revealing. Notably, residential densities
San Francisco. (Stated another way, within a mile of a station still matter
the average block size in Orinda was when it comes to transit commuting
35.7 acres compared with 2.8 acres among station-area residents.
around the Embarcadero Station.) Controlling for other factors, every
Among any single built-environment 10 additional units per gross acre (which
variable, average block size (expressed on a net residential acre basis generally
in quadratic form) was the strongest corresponds to 3 to 4 additional units)
predictor of transit modal shares, is associated with a 3.7% increase in
indicated by the R-squared statistic of transit commute modal shares. Of
0.817. The equation predicts that at an particular note, however, is the fact that
average city block size of 6 acres (for the density and design positively interact
1-mile radius around a station), the with each other. That is, higher
likelihood that residents rail-commuted residential densities combined with
was 11.2%; shrinking the average block small city blocks boost transit commute
size to 3 acres increased the probability shares up even higher. For example,
of taking transit to work to 48.2%. accounting for interaction effects, a
150

Table 8.2. Multiple Regression Results for Predicting Share of Year 2000
Motorized Commute Trips by Transit as Functions of Built Environment,
Transportation, and Household Variables (for 129 San Francisco Bay
Area Stations and 1-Mile Rings, Ordinary Least Squares Estimation)
Coefficient T-Statistic Probability
Built-Environment Variables
Residential Density: Housing
Units per Gross Acre .0037 3.226 .002
Density*Design Interaction:
(Housing Units per Gross
Acre; * No. City Blocks per .0351 3.659 .000
Acre)
Transportation Variables
Transit Job Accessibility:
No. of Jobs (in 100,000s)
Accessible over Transit .0857 10.972 .000
Network During Peak Hours
Highway Job Accessibility:
No. of Jobs (in 100,000s)
Accessible over Highway –.0035 –4.689 .002
Network During Peak Hours
Parking Supply: No. of
spaces (in 1,000s) at station .0234 3.613 .000
Household Variables
Automobile Ownership:
Mean No. of Vehicles per –.0851 –4.689 .000
Household
Income: Mean Household
Income (in $10,000s) .0359 2.085 .039
Constant .1880 5.096 .000
Summary Statistics
N = 129
R2 = .928
F-ratio (F) = 224.1 (probability = .000)
doubling of mean residential densities Other variables in Table 8.2 also reveal
from 10 to 20 dwelling units per gross something about ridership rates among
acre leads to a rise in transit commute station-area residents. Enhancing job
mode share from 20.4% to 24.1% for a access over the transit network increases
typical Bay Area station setting with an the share of work trips by transit;
average block size of 6 acres; the predictably, doing so over the highway
commute mode share rises to 27.6% network has the opposite effect.40 Park-
if higher residential densities are and-ride supplies further increase the
combined with a smaller average odds of rail commuting, even among
block size of 4 acres.39 those living within a mile of a station.
151

While density exerts a stronger influence TOD-Ridership Case Study:

on transit modal splits than do parking Arlington County, Virginia
supplies, it is notable that even among
those living within walking distance of a No place in the United States has
station, availability of parking is still an witnessed more high-rise, mixed-use
inducement to transit riding. The final development along a rail corridor over
set of control variables in Table 8.2 the past three decades than Arlington
captures socio-demographic attributes County, Virginia. Accordingly, there is
of station areas. All else being equal, the no better place to examine the ridership
share of motorized commutes by transit bonus associated with TOD. As
falls as average automobile-ownership discussed in Chapter 12, Arlington
levels rise in station areas. This is to be County’s two major rail corridors—
expected. Perhaps more surprising is the Rosslyn-Ballston and Jefferson Davis—
positive association of household income have witnessed an explosive growth in
with transit modal splits. Given that Bay building activity since 1970, when
Area rail systems converge on central Metrorail planning got underway: 24.4
business districts that contain large million square feet of office space, 3.8
shares of the region’s professional office million square feet of retail space, some
sector, the positive influence of income 24,000 mixed-income dwelling units,
is not unexpected. This relationship and over 6,300 hotel rooms.41 These
probably reflects self-selection: office additions were hardly the results of good
workers with downtown jobs and fortune or happenstance. Rather, the
comparatively high incomes are more transformation of once-rural Arlington
likely to reside near rail stops for County into a showcase of compact,
purposes of economizing on mixed-use TOD has been the product of
commute trips. ambitious, laser-focused station-area
planning and investment.
Overall, the model shown in Table 8.2
was a very good predictor, explaining For purposes of examining the
over 90% of the variation in modal relationship between building activities
shares of transit commutes among and rail ridership in Arlington County,
neighborhoods surrounding the 129 Bay a cross-sectional/time-series database
Area rail stations. The results suggest was built using annualized counts
that building housing around rail stops of development activities for the
is positively associated with transit 1985-to-2002 period. Data were
commuting; doing so at higher densities compiled only for seven station areas—
bumps up transit’s market share even Ballston, Clarendon, Court House,
more. Combining higher densities with Crystal City, Pentagon City, Rosslyn,
a more walkable scale design of city and Virginia Square—where building
streets and block patterns draws even activities had occurred. (See Map 8.2
larger shares of employed residents to on Arlington County’s Metrorail
transit. In combination, these results stations.) In combination, 18 time
underscore the importance of creating points of data for seven stations
and redeveloping neighborhoods around provided a pooled database of 126
rail stops that are transit-supportive in observations. Building-activity data
their designs. were obtained from the Arlington
152

Map 8.2. Washington Metrorail Rail Stations in Arlington County. The

station areas of the seven Metrorail stations with significant development activity
since 1970 are shaded.
County Department of Community Station Counts and Development

Planning, Housing, and Development; Activity
summary information can be found in
the report titled Development in the As expected, there was a fairly strong
Metro Corridors—2000.42 association between the number of
boardings and alightings at Metrorail
Supplemental data on Washington stations and the amount of development
Metrorail service levels were obtained that existed. Figure 8.4 shows that
from the regional transit agency, ridership gains closely tracked increases
WMATA, and additional information in the number of dwelling units and the
such as mean regional gasoline prices amount of commercial square footage in
(for each time point) were obtained from the seven station areas over the 1985-to-
various secondary sources.43 For the 2002 period. From the simple linear
1985-to-2002 period, the average count regression equations, every additional
of daily station entries and exits was dwelling unit added slightly more than
7,840 for the Arlington County stations one additional boarding and exit. Given
that were studied. The mean amount of that residents usually enter and leave a
development activity within the seven station during the same day, this
station areas was 3,920 dwelling units corresponds to roughly one daily
and 4.2 million square feet of office and Metrorail trip for every two housing
retail space. units added—still a respectable number.
153

18,000
Figure 8.4. Station Boardings
16,000
and Exits as Functions of
Development Activity in
Average Daily Station Boardings and Exits
14,000 Arlington County, Virginia,

12,000
1985–2002.
10,000
8,000
BIVARIATE
6,000
REGRESSIONS
4,000
HOUSING UNITS:
2,000
0 Station Boardings & Exits =

0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
3204.9 + 1.173 (Housing
No. of Housing Units in Station Area Units)
18,000 R2 = .680
16,000
Average Daily Station Boardings and Exits
OFFICE & RETAIL

14,000
DEVELOPMENT:
12,000
Station Boardings & Exits =
10,000
3603.6 + 1.018 (Square Feet of
Office & Retail Space, in
8,000
1,000s)
6,000 R2 = .723
4,000 Note:
N = 126 for both equations.
2,000
All predictor variables are
0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000
significant at the .01 probability
Square Feet of Office & Retail Space level.
Metrorail ridership was equally the same station, this corresponds to one
responsive to office and retail additional Metrorail journey per 2,000
construction. The bivariate equation additional square feet of commercial floor
suggests that each additional 1,000 square space.) In very general terms, these
feet of commercial floor space was relationships correspond to an elasticity of
associated with an additional station around 0.5; that is, a doubling of building
boarding or exit. (Again, to the degree that activity was associated with a 50%
employees or customers entered and left increase in Metrorail ridership.
154

Arlington County Ridership Model of the predictor variable “rail service

frequency.” The second stage of
A limited set of variables was available estimation involves using these predicted
to estimate the Arlington County values, along with other variables, to
ridership model because annual data, explain Metrorail boardings and
such as the data obtained for building alightings. This technique is often
activities, are rarely compiled for other referred to as two-stage least squares
potential predictor variables (e.g., census estimation.45
data are available only once every
10 years). Fortunately, annual data were Table 8.3 presents the best-fitting
available from WMATA on rail service multiple regression results. As expected,
levels, as represented by the amount of Metrorail boardings and alightings rose
passenger space in rail cars (assuming with service intensities over the 1985-to-
four passengers per square meter of floor 2002 period. Office and retail building
space) passing through stations per day. activities were even more influential.
Given that transit ridership is highly Because of the close association of
sensitive to transit service levels (with commercial and residential construction,
elasticities typically in the range of 0.7 both variables could not enter the
to 0.8), the availability of this variable equation at the same time; office-retail
on an annual basis for all stations, along development was the strongest predictor
with boardings and exits, enabled a of the two; therefore, it was used in the
streamlined model to be estimated.44 model. Residential development did
Other annualized data that were enter the model; however, it entered as
candidates for entry into the model an interactive term with the service
included mean regional gasoline, station frequency variable. That is, Metrorail
parking supplies, and dummy variables station boardings and alightings
for time points (to control for secular increased through the combined
trends) and station areas (to control for influences of increases in residential
idiosyncratic characteristics of particular construction and service levels. Because
stations not captured by other variables of the multicollinearity of factors like
in the equation). development and service levels,
including this interactive term enabled
In estimating a model of ridership as a the model to be expanded without
function of service levels and other contaminating the results.
explainers, ordinary least squares
estimation can produce biased results. The model reveals the following
This is because of the endogeneity, or relationships. Holding all else constant:
interrelatedness, of transit supply and
demand. Over time, service levels • Every 1,000 additional passenger
influence ridership, and, assuming that spaces passing through a station per
transit planners are doing their job, day attracted, on average, 210
ridership influences how much service additional passengers;
is delivered. To account for this
simultaneous relationship, instrumental • Every 100,000 square feet of
variables, representing exogenous additional office and retail floor
influences, were used to estimate values space increased average daily
155

Table 8.3. Multiple Regression Results for Predicting Metrorail Station Boardings
and Exits as Functions of Transit Service Levels and Building Activities (for
Seven Arlington County Metrorail Stations, 1985 to 2002, Two-Stage Least
Squares Estimation)
Coefficient T-Statistic Probability
Transit-Service-Level Variable
Rail Service Frequency: No. of Passenger
Seats Passing Through Metrorail Station .2096 1.190 .236
per Day**
Building-Activity Variable
Office-Retail Development: Square
Footage of Office and Commercial Floor
Space (in 1,000s) in Station Area .4740 2.186 .031
Residential Development-Service
Frequency Interaction: Dwelling Units,
in 1,000s * Rail Service Frequency .0055 2.124 .036
Constant 1239.3 0.748 .456
Summary Statistics
N = 126
R2 = .772
F = 137.3 (probability = .000)
**
Instrument variables used to estimate predicted value were mean regional gasoline price ($);
office-retail development; time-series dummy (1985=1, 1986=2, etc.); and station-area (0–1)
dummy variables for Ballston, Clarendon, Court House, Crystal City, Pentagon City, and Rosslyn
Stations.
boardings and alightings by nearly ridership in Arlington County. Along

50; and with the strong general influence of
real-estate development on patronage
• Every 100 additional residential counts (as discussed in Chapter 12),
units, when combined with 100 Arlington County’s balance of housing
additional railcar passenger spaces and employment growth along
per day, led to more than 50 Metrorail corridors has given rise to
additional Metrorail boardings and balanced flows. Also, the extensive
alightings per day. pedestrian and landscaping
improvements made to station areas
For a streamlined equation, the model have encouraged many passengers to
had fairly good predictive powers, walk-and-ride.
explaining over three-quarters of the
variation in Metrorail boardings and Conclusions
exits across the seven Arlington County
stations between 1985 and 2002. A considerable body of research shows
Clearly, a fairly robust and well- that under the right conditions, TODs
functioning relationship exists between can increase transit ridership and its
building activities, service levels, and associated environmental benefits. This
156

is partly a product of self-selection: of stations in the San Francisco Bay

those with a lifestyle preference for Area and Arlington County lends further
transit-oriented living move into TOD support to past studies. For the Bay
neighborhoods and act on their Area, transit commute shares increase
preference. Higher transit ridership is with density, land-use diversity, and
also a product of the compact, mixed- pedestrian-oriented design of
use, and walking-friendly attributes of neighborhoods around rail stops.
many TODs. From a public policy Significant interaction effects were
perspective, evidence on TOD’s found between residential density and
ridership bonus gives credence to city block size. In Arlington County,
programs, like sliding-scale impact fees, office-retail development was the most
that reward dense, mixed-use projects, powerful predictor of ridership at seven
and flexible parking standards that Metrorail stations. Housing construction
reflect the below-average automobile interacted with transit service levels to
ownership rates among TOD residents. give ridership a further boost.
Research shows that those living in Given the preponderance of evidence,

TODs usually patronize transit five to six the ridership benefits of TOD are
times as often as the typical resident of a unassailable. Society at-large reaps the
region. There is some evidence that size dividends of people traveling in efficient
and connectivity of a rail system has and sustainable modes like public transit.
some bearing on the ridership impacts of Whether private interests similarly
TOD. The highest recorded rail capture benefit from TOD, as reflected by real-
rates are found in the Washington (D.C.) estate market conditions, is the topic of
Metropolitan Area, which could be the next chapter.
because Metrorail has the most extensive
network of any recent-generation rail
system in America, providing good Notes
accessibility to many parts of the region.
Transit capture rates of those working 1 R. Cervero, Ridership Impacts of Transit-
and shopping in TODs tended to be Focused Development in California,
lower than those of residents partly Monograph 45 (Berkeley: Institute of Urban
because self-selection is not as prevalent. and Regional Development, University of
California, 1993).
Still, capture rates can be appreciable for
2
non-residents of TODs, as high as nearly R. Cervero, “Walk-and-Ride: Factors
50% in the case of those working in Influencing Pedestrian Access to Transit,”
Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 3,
offices near central-city stations. Joint
No. 4 (2001): 1–23.
development projects sometimes can
3
boost transit’s modal shares even higher, R. Cervero, The Transit Metropolis: A Global
Inquiry (Washington, D.C.: Island Press,
mostly likely because of conducive
1998).
design factors like good pedestrian
4
connectivity between rail stations and J. Hunt, R. Johnston, J. Abraham, C. Rodier,
G. Garry, S. Putman, and T. de la Barra,
adjoining buildings.
“Comparisons from Sacramento Model Test
Bed,” Transportation Research Record:
Research conducted using recent data on Journal of the Transportation Research
transit usage and land-use characteristics Board, No. 1780 (2001): 53–63.
157

5 R. Cervero, “Transit-Based Housing in Record: Journal of the Transportation

California: Evidence on Ridership Impacts,” Research Board, No. 1780 (2001): 92.
Transport Policy, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1994A): 22
R. Cervero, “Land Uses and Travel at
174–183.
Suburban Activity Centers,” Transportation
6 JHK and Associates, Development-Related Quarterly, Vol. 45 (1991): 479–491.
Survey I (Washington, D.C.: Washington 23
R. Cervero, “Mixed Land-Uses and
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 1987);
Commuting: Evidence from the American
Housing Survey,” Transportation Research
Survey II (Washington, D.C.: Washington
A, Vol. 30, No. 5 (1996): 361–377.
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 1989).
24
7 R. Cervero, “Built Environments and Mode
Arlington County Department of Community
Choice: Toward a Normative Framework,”
Planning, Housing and Development,
Transportation Research D, Vol. 7 (2002):
Arlington County Profile 2003 (March 2003).
265–284. Elasticities gauge the percent
8 Gerston & Associates, Transit-Based change in the probability of rail commuting
Housing (San Jose, Santa Clara County given a 1% increase in the land-use diversity
Transportation Agency and the Santa Clara index.
Valley Manufacturing Group, 1995). 25 Gerston Associates, 1995, op. cit.;
9 C. Switzer, The Center Commons Transit G. Richards, “Housing, High-Tech Offices
Oriented Development: A Case Study, Spring Up Along New Light-Rail Line,”
unpublished student report prepared for MURP San Jose Mercury News, December 15,
degree (Portland, Oregon: Master of Urban 1999, p. B1.
and Regional Planning Program (MURP),
26
Portland State University, Fall 2002). Cervero, 1994A, op. cit.
27
10
JHK and Associates, 1987, op. cit. R. Cervero and M. Duncan, Residential Self-
Selection and Rail Commuting: A Nested
11
JHK and Associates, 1989, op. cit. Logit Analysis, Working Paper 604,
12 J. Martin, MTS Joint Development Site Transit (Berkeley: University of California
Surveys (San Diego: San Diego Association of Transportation Center, 2002).
Governments, September 1996). 28 J. Holtzclaw, H. Dittmar, D. Goldstein, P.
13
R. Cervero, “Rail-Oriented Office Haas, “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood
Development in California: How Successful?” and Socio-Economic Characteristics
Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 1 Determine Auto Ownership and Use-Studies
(1994B): 33–44. in Chicago, Los Angeles, and San
14
Francisco,” Transportation Planning and
JHK and Associates, 1989, op. cit. Technology, Vol. 25, (2002): 1–27.
15 N. Bragado, “Transit Joint Development in 29 L. Keefer, A Review of Nine UMTA-Assisted
San Diego: Policies and Practices,” Joint Development Projects (Washington,
Transportation Research Record: Journal of D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation,
the Transportation Research Board, No. 1669 Urban Mass Transportation Administration,
(1999): 22–29. 1983).
16
Cervero, 1993, op. cit. 30 S. Cooke, “Joint Development,” Urban Land,
17
JHK and Associates, 1987, op. cit. Vol. 43, No. 7 (1984): 16–20.
31
18 Cervero, 1993, op. cit. R. Cervero, “Rail Transit and Joint
19
Development: Land Market Impacts in
Ibid.
Washington, D.C. and Atlanta,” Journal of
20 the American Planning Association, Vol. 60,
Cervero, 1994A, op. cit., p. 181.
21 No. 1 (1994C): 83–94.
R. Ewing and R. Cervero, “Travel and the
32
Built Environment: A Synthesis (with R. Cervero, P. Hall, and J. Landis, Transit
Discussion),” Transportation Research Joint Development in the United States,
158

Monograph 42 (Berkeley: University of Versus Automobile-Oriented Neighborhoods,”

California, Institute of Urban and Regional Transport Policy, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1996):
Development, 1992). 127–141.
33 39
H. Lund, R. Cervero, and R. Willson, Travel In this scenario, mean values are used for all
Characteristics of Transit-Focused other variables in the regression equation in
Development in California (Oakland, Table 8.2 as follows: parking supply = 350
California: Bay Area Rapid Transit District spaces, mean household income = $76,000,
and California Department of Transportation, highway accessibility = 895,200, transit
2004). accessibility = 88,900, and mean vehicles
34
Other rail stops exist in the city of San per household = 1.6.
Francisco, including streetcar, cable car, and 40
Isochronic measures of accessibility were
light-rail MUNI stops; however, these were estimated by accumulating census-tract job
omitted because they are unrepresentative of totals within 30-minute centroid-to-centroid
rail stops for the region as a whole. Many of travel distance ranges using peak-period
these stops consist of on-street medians network travel times obtained from the MTC,
served by trains operating in mixed traffic. the regional planning organization for the
Also, Amtrak and Capitol Corridor Express nine-county San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
trains serve the Bay Area, operating on Consolidated Metropolitan Area.
mixed-freight corridors; however, station
41
data were also omitted for these intercity Arlington County Department of Community
services because they were not considered Planning, Housing and Development,
to be representative of transit operating Development in the Metro Corridors—
conditions for the region as a whole. 2000 (July 2002).
42
35
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census Ibid.
Transportation Planning Package, San 43 Mean gasoline prices, for instance, were
Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Metropolitan obtained from the Metropolitan Washington
Statistical Area (Washington, D.C.: 2001). Council of Governments’s gasoline-price
36
For review of the “3 Ds” principle, see database, which is used to estimate long-
R. Cervero and K. Kockelman, “Travel range regional transportation models.
Demand and the 3D’s: Density, Diversity, 44 For a summary of empirical evidence on
and Design,” Transportation Research D, transit service elasticities, see M. Wachs,
Vol. 2, No. 3 (1997): 119–129; and Cervero, “Consumer Attitudes Towards Urban Transit
2002, op. cit. Services: An Integrated Review,” Journal of
37
Proportions of Year 2000 commutes made by the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 42,
residents residing within a 1-mile radius of No. 1 (1976): 90–102.
stations are for trips made by motorized 45 For further discussions on two-stage least
nodes only (i.e., exclusive of walking,
squares estimation, see R. Pindyck and
bicycling, and work-at-home options).
D. Rubinfeld, Econometric Models and
38 Economic Forecasts (New York:
Cervero, 1996, op. cit.; R. Cervero and
C. Radisch, “Travel Choices in Pedestrian McGraw-Hill, 1997).
159

Chapter 9
Real-Estate Market Impacts of TOD
TOD and Real-Estate Markets retail space today rent for $40 per square
foot, some 40% above market rates.
If transit investments create benefits, Even higher premiums have been
real-estate markets tell us. As long as recorded for office and retail space near
there is a finite supply of parcels around Washington Metrorail stations in
stations, those wanting to live, work, or Arlington, Virginia, and Bethesda,
do business near transit will bid up land Maryland.3 Rising land values have
prices. The benefits of being well occurred not only in rail-served edge
connected to the rest of the region cities but also transitional inner-city
(i.e., being accessible) get capitalized neighborhoods. In the District of
into the market value of land. As the Columbia, land prices near the U Street
cliché goes, rail-served properties enjoy and 14th Street Metrorail Station, in a
good “location, location, location”: predominantly minority neighborhood
residents can more easily reach jobs and known for its jazz clubs and night-time
shops; more potential shoppers pass by entertainment, have nearly doubled in
retail outlets; and for employers, the the past 3 years.
laborshed of workers is enlarged. For
some, stress reduction is perhaps also The idea that transit confers benefits
part of the attraction of being near transit. to local real-estate markets is hardly
A developer of transit-based housing in new. After all, some of the toniest
St. Louis remarked: “The MetroLink neighborhoods developed at the turn of
station adds value to the project as part of the 20th century—Shaker Heights in
the ‘no hassle’ lifestyle we are selling.”1 Cleveland, Chestnut Hill in Boston,
Roland Park in Baltimore, and
Because the benefit conferred by being Riverside near Chicago—were served
near transit is improved accessibility, by streetcar lines. While the fortunes of
looking at the land-value premiums is a neighborhoods skirted by rail corridors
good way to gauge the benefits of TOD. suffered during the ascendancy of
While research findings are varied, most automobiles and freeways during the
of the evidence suggests that being near middle and latter parts of the century, in
transit enhances property values and the 21st century, the tables once again
rents. At the Orenco Station in Hillsboro, appear to be turning. In Dallas, San Jose,
Oregon, absorption of housing averaged Portland, Northern Virginia, Northeast
eight units per month in 2001, and prices New Jersey, and other rail-served
were running 20% to 30% above the settings, residential properties within an
area’s average, according to brokers with easy walk of light-rail stops are once
Costa Pacific Homes, one of Orenco’s again hot commodities. Many are fully
homebuilders.2 Near the Mockingbird leased and quite a few command top-
light-rail station in Dallas, office and dollar rents.
161

Evidence on Market Performance Francisco Bay Area found that heavy-

rail systems conferred the highest
Most studies on the land-value benefits capitalization benefits to single-family
of transit have evaluated the influence of housing because of faster speeds, more
proximity to or distance from stations, frequent services, and wider spatial
not whether a parcel of land is in a TOD. coverage than light-rail and commuter-
Research findings on the effects of rail systems.5 The study found that for
proximity to transit on land values are every meter closer a single-family home
not very consistent in part because was to a BART station, its sales price
impacts vary depending on severity of increased by $2.29, all else being equal.
traffic congestion, local real-estate Alameda County homes several blocks
market conditions, swings in business from BART stations sold, on average,
cycles, and other factors. Some of these for 39% more than otherwise
issues are addressed further in this comparable ones 20 miles from the
chapter. nearest station. In the case of light-rail
systems, however, capitalization benefits
Below, empirical evidence on the land- (i.e., value-added) were far smaller, and,
value and market-performance impacts in some instances, single-family homes
of transit systems is reviewed, first within 900 feet of a station actually sold
for residential housing and then for for less because of transit’s “nuisance
commercial properties. Relatively little effect.” A study of Atlanta’s MARTA
research has been conducted on the system suggested impacts also varied
land-value impacts of transit on other by type of neighborhood: transit
uses, like industrial activities; however, accessibility increased home prices in
this should not be a concern since such Atlanta’s lower-income census tracts
uses are not particularly prominent but decreased values in upper-income
in TODs. areas.6
Residential Properties It is not hard to find conflicting signals

on transit’s residential property impacts.
Most, although not all, studies of A study of Portland’s MAX light-rail
transit’s impacts on residential properties system found positive land-value effects
have recorded premiums or net benefits. only within a 500-meter walking
Studies over the past two decades show distance of stations.7 A different study
average housing value premiums of both light-rail-served Portland and
associated with being near a station heavy-rail-served San Francisco Bay
(usually expressed as being within 1⁄4 Area suburbs found residential property
to 1⁄2 mile of a station) are 6.4% in values were lower within a few blocks of
Philadelphia, 6.7% in Boston, 10.6% in rail stops than five or six blocks away.8
Portland, 17% in San Diego, 20% in A study of single-family sales prices
Chicago, 24% in Dallas, and 45% in found no disamenity effect when homes
Santa Clara County.4 were within 300 meters of BART
stations.9 The same study, however,
The type of transit technology has some found a huge effect for commuter-rail
bearing on land-value premiums. A services: in 1990, homes within
study of experiences in the San 300 meters of the Caltrain stations
162

sold at an average discount of $51,000. It to the fact that, at the time, BART was
seems plausible that whereas disamenity too new for meaningful accessibility
effects exist from being “too close” to benefits to have accrued, along with the
rail transit in suburban settings, in fairly fact that few zoning changes had been
dense, mixed-use environments (with introduced. A study in Washington,
Manhattan as an extreme), ambient noise D.C., found evidence of benefits to
levels are so high and streets are so busy commercial properties in anticipation
that there are no perceived nuisances of heavy-rail services: property values
from living within a block or so of a rail fell by 7% for every 10% increase in
stop. The alignment also comes into play: distance from a Metrorail station, up to
because of noise levels, elevated a radius of 2,500 feet.14 No follow-up
structures depress residential values the work was conducted to see if value
most, whereas the effects of below- gains held over time, although
ground systems are often negligible. numerous subsequent case studies
suggest that Metrorail has materially
Commercial Properties benefited nearby commercial
properties.15 Two studies of MARTA
Evidence on land-value benefits exists heavy-rail service reached opposite
for office and commercial-retail parcels conclusions on impacts to commercial
near heavy-rail systems in the properties. One found that offices within
Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area, 1 mile of highway interchanges
the San Francisco Bay Area, and greater commanded office rent premiums;
Atlanta.10 Comparable or even larger however, those within a mile of
premiums have been found for MARTA stations typically leased for
commercial properties near light-rail less than comparable space farther
stations in Santa Clara County, away.16 Another concluded that
California, and suburban Dallas.11 Even commercial properties were “influenced
bus malls, experience shows, confer positively by both access to rail stations
substantial benefits on commercial and policies that encourage more
properties. Office rents along Denver’s intensive development around those
downtown transit mall, for example, stations.”17
were 8% to 16% higher than comparable
space off the mall in late 2002. Sixty- Although theory suggests light-rail
percent premiums were found for retail systems confer smaller benefits to
shops on the mall relative to the typical commercial properties, some researchers
downtown retail outlets.12 have reported otherwise. A study of the
DART system compared differences in
Most evidence on commercial property land values of “comparable” retail and
comes from heavy-rail systems, and, as office properties near and not near light-
in the case of residential properties, it is rail stations.18 The average percent
not altogether consistent. An early study change in land values from 1994 to 1998
of BART found no evidence that rail’s for retail and office properties near
presence increased commercial property DART stops was 37% and 14%,
rents around a suburban station and two respectively; for “control” parcels, the
inner-city stops.13 The absence of average changes were 7.1% and 3.7%,
appreciable gains could have been due respectively. For retail uses, this study
163

suggested a value-added premium of use projects in walking-friendly settings

30%. Anecdotally, the authors noted that served intensively by transit produce
North Park, the only regional mall healthy real-estate results.
served by DART, generally
outperformed other malls in the A study of experiences in the San
Metroplex area, remaining 100% Francisco Bay Area in the mid-1990s
occupied during the 1994-to-1998 period found that multifamily units within
while rents increased 20%. A follow-up TODs commanded higher rents than
study found office properties increased otherwise comparable projects not
in value 53% faster than control sites within TODs. Besides being near transit,
from 1997 to 2001; however, no these multifamily projects also had fairly
premiums were recorded for retail high densities (over 50 units per net
properties over this period.19 acre) and featured convenience retail
shops and various pedestrian amenities,
Several California studies of light rail’s thus taking on the attributes of a
impacts on commercial properties have compact, mixed-use TOD. In 1994, rents
been more rigorous in their research for one-bedroom units near the Pleasant
designs; however, findings were Hill BART station were $1.20 per square
generally inconclusive. A study of Santa foot compared with an average of $1.09
Clara County’s light-rail system found for similar projects (in terms of size, age,
that properties within 1⁄2 mile of stations and amenities) that were in the same
commanded premiums, although those geographic submarket but away from
that were 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile away were worth BART. Two-bedroom units near the
even more.20 Compared with other Pleasant Hill Station leased for $1.09 per
properties in the county, the estimated square foot compared with $0.94 per
monthly lease premium within 1⁄4 mile of square foot for comparable units away
a station was 3.3 cents per square foot, from BART. On average, rents for
and for properties 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile away, it one- and two-bedroom units in TOD
was 6.4 cents per square foot. Sales apartments in the East Bay were 10% to
premiums of $8.73 and $4.87 per square 15% higher than non-TOD units in the
foot, respectively, were found, though same municipality that were otherwise
models of sales values had poorer comparable.
statistical fits.
At Dallas’s Mockingbird Station, TOD
TODs and Land-Value Premiums residential rents were going for $1.60
per square foot per month in mid-2003;
The studies cited above looked at the other comparable nearby properties not
effect of proximity to transit stations on served by transit were getting $1.30, or
land values and rents as opposed to the 20% less. In Englewood, Colorado,
affects of TOD per se. Few studies have apartments rented at CityCenter—a
looked specifically at differences in rents transit-oriented village with civic uses, a
and land values between projects that are cultural and performance center, and
in TODs and those that are not. Studies retail—are more than twice as expensive
that have looked at differences have as comparable units elsewhere in the
often used matched-pair comparisons. In city. CityCenter’s Class A office space is
general, experiences show that mixed- also leasing at a premium: gross annual
164

lease rates of $21 to $25 per square foot in property values and overall real-estate
in mid-2002 compared with $13.50 to market performance.
$17 per square foot for Class A space
elsewhere in the city.21 Joint Development and
Land-Value Premiums
Moreover, CityCenter’s office occupancy
rate is close to 100%, compared to 90% What about the joint development
for the Denver metropolitan area. The projects? Do projects physically linked
project’s retail sector is also out- to transit stations, like air-rights towers
performing its competitors: annual rents or passageway connections, out-perform
for stores averaged $18 to $20 per other markets? A comprehensive study
square foot in 2002 versus $8 to $14 per of transit joint development projects in
square foot for the city of Englewood. the Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan
About 90% of CityCenter’s retail space Area and Atlanta suggested that they
was leased and occupied in mid-2002 do.22 The study of five rail stations in
compared with a citywide average of Washington, D.C., and Atlanta over the
80%. Another good example of TOD’s 1978-to-1989 period found jointly
added value in the Denver region is developed projects were better
16 Market Square in Denver’s central performers: in addition to average rent
business district (CBD). The project premiums of 7% to 9%, physically
lies next to the Market Street Station, integrated projects tended to enjoy lower
Denver’s “100% transit location,” vacancy rates and faster absorption of
where all of the city’s downtown-bound new leasable space. On average, joint
bus lines converge. In late 2002, 16 development projects added more than
Market Square—with ground-floor $3 per gross square foot to annual office
retail and five stories of renovated rents over the 1978-to-1989 period.
office space—enjoyed a 60% premium Moreover, Atlanta’s and Washington’s
over comparable downtown office joint development projects, the study
space. Also, its commercial space was found, were generally “better” projects
100% leased; no other commercial (i.e., they were architecturally integrated,
building in downtown Denver can they enjoyed better on-site circulation
lay such a claim. [of both people and automobiles], and
they made more efficient use of space
What these experiences tell us is that through resource-sharing such as shared
while proximity to good-quality transit is parking). In addition, the research
an important trait of TOD, this is not the showed that average office rents of
only factor that adds value. When transit joint development projects rose
combined with higher-than-typical with increases in systemwide ridership.
densities, consumer retail and services, Other matched-pair studies of joint
and pedestrian amenities, proximity to development in the Washington (D.C.)
transit can confer land-value benefits Metropolitan Area have reported
that are well above those of competitive comparable rent premiums of up
markets. TOD’s synergy of proximity, to 10%.23
density, mixed uses, and walking-
friendliness, under the right conditions, A matched-pair comparison between
gets expressed through geometric gains projects near rail stations and freeway
165

interchanges further substantiated these located within reach of its stations.”27

research findings.24 Office projects in Statistically, homes within 300 meters (a
Atlanta’s and Washington’s TODs little less than 1⁄5 mile) of a light-rail
showed modest rent premiums over station sold for $31,424 (in 1990
their freeway-oriented counterparts. currency) less than homes more than 300
Premiums were attributed, in part, to meters away, all else being equal.
rail-served neighborhoods being more
pedestrian-friendly and having more net The Landis study from the early 1990s
leasable space (due mainly to lower stands in marked contrast to several
parking requirements). Whether adjacent recent studies that have recorded
commercial properties are physically positive and appreciable premiums
integrated with rail stations, such as associated with being near light rail in
through air-rights development or direct both the city of San Jose and Santa
passageway connections, was also found Clara County as a whole.28 A study by
to have a bearing on market Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan
performance. Evidence likewise shows examined relationships in 1999, when
that renovation of stations improves the Santa Clara County’s economy was on
market performance of retail both within a roll, using land-sales data from the
and close to stations. A recent study of county assessor’s office to study the
older neighborhoods and business effects of proximity on single-family
districts in the Northeast found rail- homes, rental properties, and
station rehabilitation was positively condominiums. Hedonic price models,
associated with increases in retail rents based on multiple regression estimation,
and surrounding commercial property were used to net out the effects of
values, with benefits increasing with proximity to transit from other factors
city size and urban densities.25 that influence land values.29 This study
found that in 1999 substantial benefits
The Importance of Business Cycles, accrued to residential parcels within
System Maturation, and Timing a 1⁄4-mile distance of a rail station,
whether it was light rail or commuter
More studies on the link between rail (see Figure 9.1). Large apartments
proximity to transit and land values have that were within a 1⁄4-mile distance
been carried out in the San Francisco of light-rail stops, for example,
Bay Area than anywhere else. A study commanded a premium of around $9
led by John Landis of Bay Area real- per square foot. Compared with parcels
estate market conditions in the early that were within 4 miles of a light-rail
1990s found that for every meter that a station, this translated into an overall
BART-served Alameda County home land-value premium of 28%.
was closer to a BART station, its 1991
sales price rose by $2.39, all else being What explains the huge difference in
equal.26 However, no premium was recorded land-value impacts between
found in the city of San Jose, and, in 1991 and 1999? There are four likely
fact, the study suggested that there was a reasons: condition of the regional
disbenefit associated with being near economy; levels of traffic congestion;
light rail: “Transit in San Jose actually system maturation and extensiveness; and
takes away value from homes that are institutional commitments to TOD. The
166

30
(103 %)
Additional Land Value/Sq. Ft. ($, 1999)

$25. 40
25
20
15
(28 %)
10 $9 .20
(24 %) (17 %)
5 $4 .10 $4 .16
0
< 1/4 mile of < 1/4 mile of < 1/4 mile LRT < 1/4 mile
LRT Caltrain & Business Caltrain
District (BD)
COMMERCIAL PARCELS RESIDENTIAL PARCELS
Figure 9.1. Commercial and Residential Land-Value Premiums in

Santa Clara County, 1999.
Sources: R. Cervero and M. Duncan, “Benefits of Proximity to Rail on Housing Markets: Experiences
in Santa Clara County,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 1 (2002): 1–18; and R. Cervero
and M. Duncan, “Transit’s Value Added,” Urban Land, Vol. 61, No. 2 (2002): 77–84.
point on the business cycle when land- in the minds of Bay Area residents. In
value impacts are measured probably has 1999, in fact, the Bay Area was ranked as
a lot to do with how much of a premium the nation’s second most congested
is recorded, if any. In 1990, the year for region by the Texas Transportation
which the Landis study measured no Institute, and Santa Clara County was the
impact, the Bay Area was in the trough of most congested of the region’s nine
a deep recession; therefore, little value counties.30 Under these conditions, being
was associated with being near transit. In near transit was a bonus.
fact, so many people were out of work
that traffic congestion had almost While the macro-economy might have
disappeared (one of the few benefits of been an overriding factor influencing
economic downturns). By the late 1990s, the degree to which land-value
when Cervero and Duncan gauged premiums existed, another plausible
impacts, the Bay Area’s economy and explanation is system maturation. In
real-estate market were red hot on the 1991, Santa Clara County’s light-rail
heels of the dot-com boom. Traffic system was in its infancy, providing
congestion was as bad as ever, revealed service over 21 track miles; by the late
by public opinion polls that identified 1990s, it was firmly entrenched in the
gridlock as the number-one local problem local transportation scene, covering
167

nearly 30 track miles and offering more Exorbitant housing prices at the time—
frequent services. Ten years into in 2000, the median single-family home
service, the light-rail system was in the Silicon Valley cost $617,000, an
beginning to take on more of the 87% jump from 5 years earlier—created
characteristics of a network as opposed a ready-made market for small, more
to a single line. It must be remembered affordable units near light-rail stops.31
that transit has to compete with the Among the instruments successfully
private automobile, which operates on introduced by local governments to
extensive hierarchical networks of local leverage TOD were tax-exempt
roads, collectors, highways, and financing, public assistance with land
freeways. Such networks provide high assembly, and overlay zones that
levels of connectivity, or accessibility. permitted higher densities than the
And, of course, it is enhanced norm.
accessibility that drives up property
values around rail stations. Only when Of course, the various prerequisites to
transit begins to mimic the network land-value premiums reviewed in this
attributes of its chief competitor, the section are co-related—traffic congestion
automobile-highway system, will spurred more rail services and TOD
accessibility improvements be institutional support. In 1991, the year in
significant enough to register through which Landis measured impacts, these
real-estate transactions. This was not conditions did not exist. The degree to
the case in 1991 when the Landis study which TOD yields benefits, it would
was conducted, but it was far more the appear, has a lot to do with timing and
case in 1999 when the Cervero and at what point along the business cycle
Duncan study looked at conditions. studies are carried out. Moreover,
benefits are also not automatic. They
Another explanation could be better require proactive measures on the part of
institutional support. In the early 1990s, local governments to create TODs that
VTA had no in-house program aimed at allow the value-added opportunities of
promoting TOD and joint development. rail investments to be more completely
By the late 1990s, the agency was very fulfilled.
active in both areas, having hired a full-
time staff member who worked closely Leveraging Transit’s Added Value
with developers, industry, and public Through Proactive Planning:
agencies in building a coalition to The San Diego Experience
advance TOD. These efforts paid off,
for few areas of the United States This last point (i.e., the importance of
matched the amount of development proactive government support for TOD
that took place around light-rail transit toward reaping land-value benefits) is
during the boom years of the late 1990s underscored by experiences in San
in Santa Clara County. Between 1997 Diego. When it opened in 1981, the
and 1999, some 4,500 housing units and 16-mile San Diego Trolley system—
9 million square feet of commercial- with service from downtown San Diego
office floor space were added within to the Mexican border at Tijuana—was a
walking distance of the only recently huge ridership success. Within 2 years of
opened 8-mile Tasman West corridor. its opening, trains were so full that the
168

system was recovering 95% of its thinking of the region’s transit decision-
operating costs, an unprecedented makers. Rather than trying to minimize
achievement in the U.S. light-rail transit cost, the mindset became one of
industry. (Map 9.1 shows San Diego’s maximizing development potential. As
existing and planned rail transit discussed in Chapter 19, this was part of
network.) a larger smart-growth agenda that sought
to put the region on a more sustainable
In terms of land-use changes and TOD, pathway. The Mission Valley light-rail
however, the “Tijuana Trolley” (i.e., the line became the region’s model for
southern Blue Line [or South Line] on transit-oriented growth. The line crosses
Map 9.1) has hardly been a success. No the San Diego River three times in order
notable developments have occurred to site development on the flat valley
along the Southern Blue Line over the floor and preserve the sensitive
past two decades, nor should have they hillsides that define the valley. Helping
been expected. For this first leg of the to lead the way was the city of San
Trolley system, funded solely with local Diego’s progressive TOD ordinance
monies, the overriding objective was that incentivizes compact, infill
right-of-way and construction cost development near Trolley stops (see
minimization. The South Line operates Chapter 4). These efforts paid off.
on disused freight track that abuts Between 1982 (when the Trolley
sagebrush and an odd mix of extension was first proposed) and
warehouses, factories, a military 1995, the Mission Valley saw the
complex, and various automobile- addition of 7,000 new housing units,
oriented uses. Moreover, the South 2,375 new hotel rooms, 1.6 million
County area was not “where the action square feet of retail space, and some
was.” Employment has barely increased 6 million square feet of office
in this part of San Diego County since inventory.33 Since 1995, these figures
1980. Accordingly, transit was not have trended steadily upward.
poised to induce appreciable land-use
changes. Experiences show that transit The impact of this “about-face” in policy
investments do not create new regional is clearly reflected by differences in
growth but rather redistribute growth land-value impacts. A hedonic price
that would have occurred regardless.32 model was estimated for each of San
Diego’s transit lines using real-estate
Later extensions north of downtown, sales transaction data from Metroscan, a
notably along the Mission Valley proprietary database available from First
corridor, were an entirely different story American Real Estate Solutions. For
(see Photo 9.1). North County was abuzz commercial properties (including offices,
with real-estate construction when the retail, restaurants, and hotels), data were
Mission Valley rail extension and acquired for calendar years 1999, 2000,
Coaster commuter-rail line broke ground and 2001. Models were also estimated
in the mid-1990s. Thus, unlike with the for residential parcels based on
Tijuana Trolley, transit was poised to Metroscan data from the year 2000.
channel land-use changes in these two Combining sales transaction data with
areas. The Mission Valley extension, information on site (e.g., building size
moreover, represented a change in the and quality), transportation (e.g., highway
169

Map 9.1. San Diego Rail Systems: Existing and Planned Light-Rail “Trolley”
Extensions (Blue and Orange Lines) and Coaster Commuter-Rail Line.
Source: San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board.
170

Photo 9.1. Contrasting Land-Use Outcomes Along San Diego’s Trolley

Corridor. The top photo shows an inhospitable setting for land-use changes along
the former freight corridor where the South Line operates between downtown San
Diego and the Mexican border. The bottom photo shows the substantial amount of
moderately dense housing recently built along the Mission Valley light-rail corridor,
due in part to proactive planning by the city of San Diego.
171

travel times), and neighborhood establishments, restaurants, and other

characteristics of each parcel, hedonic commercial facilities near Mission Valley
price models enabled the added or Trolley stops and the downtown Coaster
discounted value from being near transit station enjoyed huge premiums, in the
stops, to be netted out.34 30%-to-40% range. Both settings have
benefited from proactive TOD planning,
Figure 9.2 shows the recorded land-value including targeted public infrastructure
premiums or discounts for commercial improvements (e.g., sidewalk upgrades
properties broken down by rail line, and public landscaping), overlay zones to
including the Coaster commuter-rail encourage mixed uses, and streamlining
service that connects downtown San of building reviews. In contrast, there
Diego to the northern part of the county. was a disbenefit, or land-value discount,
Premiums represent percentage associated with parcels near Trolley stops
differences attributable to being near on the South Line. Where the commercial
transit for “typical” commercial real-estate market was strong and
properties within 1⁄2 mile of a Trolley or proactive planning took place, premiums
Coaster stop, holding all other factors were appreciable. Where the market was
constant. “Typical” means the average soft and little effort was made to promote
characteristics of commercial property TOD, premiums were nonexistent, and
in the database (e.g., the average some discounts occurred.
commercial structure was an office
building of 6,600 square feet in size in a For the housing sector, premiums were
neighborhood with seven workers per recorded for multifamily units and
acre. Figure 9.2 reveals that offices, retail condominiums across all Trolley lines.
-3.9% Trolley: South (Blue) Line
-0.5% Trolley: East (Orange) Line
Trolley: North Line 30.4%
1.9% Trolley: Downtown
-4.2% Coaster: Non-Downtown
Coaster: Downtown 38.5%
–10% – 5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Figure 9.2. Commercial Land-Value Premiums or Discounts in San Diego
County, by Rail Line.
Source: R. Cervero and M. Duncan, Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in San Diego County, report
prepared for the National Association of Realtors and the Urban Land Institute (Washington, D.C.: June 2002).
172

Differences were minimal. In the case of difficult to separate out the importance
the Coaster commuter-rail line, however, of being close to transit stops from
premiums were huge for condominiums public-policy incentives, like zoning
(46.1%) and single-family homes (17%). bonuses, in explaining land-value
Apparently, owning a condominium or increases. In many instances, they are
detached home within an easy walk of likely to be codependent: zoning
commuter rail is highly valued among incentives are necessary if proximity
the many professional workers with to transit is to yield dividends, and
downtown jobs who live in the North proximity to transit is necessary if
County. Given that Interstate-5 north of density bonuses and other zoning
downtown San Diego is the region’s “perks” are to pay off.
most congested freeway, many home-
owners appear willing to pay a Notwithstanding the statistical
premium—$85,000 for the typical challenges, several studies have sought
condominium—to be within easy to gauge the importance of public
access of a Coaster station. policies and strategic planning in
leveraging the accessibility benefits
Experiences from San Diego County conferred by transit investments. Using
reveal that rail transit is capable of data from Washington County, Oregon,
producing appreciable land-value (served by Portland’s Westside light-rail
benefits, although this is not automatic line), research found that announcements
and relationships vary by type of land on the planned siting of light-rail stations
use and corridor. Subregional market and the use of zoning tools (e.g.,
characteristics have a bearing on overlays and interim restrictions) to
outcomes. In the buoyant North County promote TOD induced land-value
area, for-sale residential units reap large increases even before the system began
premiums, and in the healthy Mission operating.35 A study of TOD planning in
Valley corridor and newly refurbished Atlanta also found that policies aimed
waterfront of downtown, commercial at encouraging more intensive
markets seem to flourish in transit’s development around stations, including
presence. In the soft real-estate market parking waivers and minimum FAR
of the South County along the Tijuana requirements, interacted with proximity
Trolley corridor, the opposite holds true. to stations to yield rent premiums.36
Transit’s Added Value and Perhaps the most important public-

Public Policies policy implication of transit’s potential
to add value is in the financial arena.
Some of the land-value premiums The existence of land-value premiums
associated with being near transit could provides a potential source of revenue
be due to supportive public policies that for transit agencies to tap into to help
are targeted at TODs. At The Commons, defray capital costs. Value capture
in Denver, planned use development makes sense in theory, but it is often
(PUD) zoning was a factor in the master- difficult to implement in practice. Since
developer’s ability to sell portions of the the public sector invests taxpayer monies
property to individual developers at a in rail systems, recapturing some of the
premium. In a statistical sense, it is value-added, one can argue, is equitable
173

from a societal point of view. Why let end up in the general treasury and rarely
a fortunate group of landowners who get channeled back into transit projects,
happen to own property where stations much less TODs. Only through tax
are sited reap huge windfalls, especially income dedicated to transit agencies are
when money is so desperately needed to tax receipts from land-value gains a bona
retire capital bonds for expensive rail fide form of value capture.
systems? Besides being equitable, public
co-participation in land-value gains can A more direct means of recapturing
also reduce the kind of land speculation value is through joint development, such
that can drive real-estate prices so high as air-rights leasing, ground leasing of
that housing becomes unaffordable, an adjacent agency-owned parcels, or
outcome that subverts the purpose of station connection fees. Hong Kong’s
many TODs. rail system covers all of its costs,
including interest, from rents produced
Recapturing value is particularly by land developments around stations
important to jump-starting TODs. This and fare receipts. To date, U.S. transit
is especially true in distressed inner-city properties have been far more timid in
settings where a lot of upfront recapturing value, although a few are
improvements and amenities are often beginning to move aggressively in this
needed to entice private investment. direction.
The responsibility often falls on cash-
strapped municipalities to take the lead Presently, WMATA, serving the nation’s
in attracting private capital to rail station capital and the surrounding area,
areas by “sprucing up” the neighborhood “recaptures” around $6 million annually
through generous landscaping and in value-added through various lease and
sidewalk improvements and, in riskier interface fee arrangements, a number
settings, underwriting land-acquisition that is expected to grow markedly in
costs. All of this takes money, often lots coming years as very large joint
of it. Thus, value capture provides a development projects, like White Flint,
source of funds not only to help pay off take form. At Chicago’s Union Station,
the debt on transit investments but also value capture occurs through rent
to cover the cost of upfront ancillary surcharges (see Photo 9.2). Chicago’s
improvements that can help jump-start RTA receives as much as 24% of gross
a TOD. sales receipts when sales volumes reach
certain thresholds. This rent is in
In America, value capture occurs addition to common-area charges that
indirectly through higher property-tax cover maintenance expenses.
receipts. However, these are largely
transfer effects since gains in values of One of the most direct means of
properties near rail stops (due to relative recapturing value is through benefit
improvements in accessibility) are, assessments. Los Angeles’s MTA
theoretically at least, offset by losses obtained 9% of the funds used to pay
in property values for sites farther for the $1.5-billion Red Line subway
away (due to relative decreases in through special assessments levied
accessibility). Even if there are net gains against owners of commercial properties
in property value income, these monies in and around subway stations. MTA’s
174

Photo 9.2. Chicago’s

Union Station. The top
photo shows the exterior of
the refurbished historic train
station. The bottom photo
shows an active restaurant
and retail activities within the
structure.
benefit-assessment program, scheduled is more difficult. Convincing property-

to sunset in 2008, was made possible owners that transit adds value to their
through statutory legislation that granted land-holdings is further made difficult
the agency special access to beneficiary by the fact that empirical evidence is
forms of financing. In most cases, a inconsistent, even in Los Angeles.
benefit-assessment district can only be A recent study used hedonic-price
formed if the majority of property- modeling, similar to what was discussed
owners within the district agree to levy above for Santa Clara County and San
themselves to fund the improvement. Diego, to net out the effects of proximity
While land-owners are often willing to to rail lines (heavy rail, light rail, and
do this to pay for improvements, like commuter rail) as well as BRT
sidewalks, that directly abut their (MetroRapid) services in Los Angeles
properties, getting them to agree to chip County.37 Appreciable land-value
in to help finance rail systems or TODs premiums (6.1%) were found around
175

Red Line subway stations for partnership with Trammell Crow, is

multifamily housing units; however, hoping to recoup its cost and then some
land-value discounts, or disbenefits, by developing a 120-acre mixed-use
were measured around Red Line stations TOD at the Cascade Station. The
for commercial-office properties and Pasadena Construction Authority,
condominiums. Premiums were found franchised to build the recently opened
for these uses along some, but not all, Gold Line to Pasadena, hopes to
Metrolink commuter-rail, light-rail, and recapture around $30 million of the
even BRT stops. A confounding factor capital cost of this extension by
that might have depressed land values developing excess property obtained
for commercial parcels near some Red during right-of-way acquisition.
Line stations is that many of these
stations lie in redevelopment districts. Summary and Conclusion
Being in a distressed inner-city setting
could have suppressed real-estate values The weight of evidence to date shows
near some subway stations, regardless of that development near transit stops
transit’s presence. Nonetheless, the lack enjoys land-value premiums and
of a consistent pattern of land-value generally out-performs competitive
premiums makes it difficult to markets. This generally holds for
implement benefit-assessment financing residential housing (especially
in practice. The rational nexus doctrine condominiums and rental units) as well
that courts apply in weighing whether as office, retail, and other commercial
benefits have been conferred by public facilities. However, the payoffs are not
infrastructure sets a high standard that automatic, and quite often a number of
transit investments cannot always meet. preconditions must be in place. One
precondition is an upswing in the
Lastly, value capture can also occur economy, with plentiful demand for real
through land acquisition and banking estate. Another is that traffic congestion
aimed at securing profits through long- is getting worse. Only then will there be
term leases or even fee-simple sales (i.e., market pressures to bid up land prices
real-estate development on the part of and a clear benefit to having good rail
the transit-service provider). This is how access: it provides an alternative to
the first generation of U.S. streetcar lines fighting highway traffic. Also important
from a century ago were built and are public policies, such as zoning
continues today to be how the majority bonuses, which further leverage the
of suburban rail lines in large Japanese TOD and system expansion that
cities are funded.38 The reduction in produces the spillover benefits of a
federal contributions to new rail starts highly integrated network. Moreover,
(from 80% to 50%) and increased if significant premiums are to accrue,
competition for the shrinking pot have it is important that transit be in a
prompted more and more localities to neighborhood free from signs of
think in entrepreneurial terms. In stagnation or distress that has a
contributing some $28 million toward reasonably healthy real-estate market.
the $125-million price tag for the light- In San Diego, premiums were recorded
rail extension to Portland’s International for commercial properties in the Mission
Airport, Bechtel Enterprises, in Valley corridor, an area that has
176

generally enjoyed sustained growth over More and more, developers are using
the past decade. Pro-development long-term pro forma when evaluating the
policies introduced by local governments, potential payoff of TOD. Like any long-
like overlay zoning to encourage mixed term investment, asset management is
land uses and targeted infrastructure essential to reaping handsome profits.
investments, bolstered commercial For this, the public sector needs to do
property values in the Mission Valley its part to ensure that transit-served
corridor. This stands in marked contrast neighborhoods are, and will continue to
to the South Line where little effort has be, viable places. Through effective
been made to leverage TOD, in large partnerships with transit agencies, local
part because of stagnant growth, and, government, and others—and under the
predictably, no meaningful land-use right conditions—all parties are in a
changes have occurred. position to reap the financial gains
conferred by well-planned and well-
Insights into the property value impacts managed TOD.
of TODs carry policy significance. For
one, public entities are in a position to
recapture some of the value added Notes
through benefit assessments, land
1
acquisitions and re-sales, and P. Downs, “Magnetic MetroLink,”
ground/air-rights leases. Some areas, Stlcommercemagazine, online newsletter
(February 2001). http://www.
such as the Washington (D.C.) stlcommercemagazine.com.
Metropolitan Area, Los Angeles, and
2
Portland, have been particularly Urban Land Institute, Development Around
Transit: Enhancing Real Estate, Increasing
aggressive in recapturing some of the Ridership, and Improving Communities, draft
value created by transit investments; manuscript (forthcoming).
however, legal and institutional concerns 3 R. Cervero, “Rail Transit and Joint
continue to impede progress in this area. Development: Land Market Impacts in
Washington, D.C. and Atlanta,” Journal of
Because TODs take time to evolve, the American Planning Association, Vol. 60,
experiences suggest that land-value No. 1 (1994): 83–94.
benefits take time to accrue as well. This 4 T. Parker, G. Arrington, M. McKeever, and
was underscored by experiences in Santa J. Smith-Heimer, Statewide Transit-Oriented
Clara County, where in the transit Development Study: Factors for Success in
system’s infancy, no measurable land- California (Sacramento: California
value premiums were found, but by the Department of Transportation, 2002);
R. Armstrong, “Impacts of Commuter Rail
system’s 10th anniversary, when the Service as Reflected in Single-Family
real-estate market had revved up, Residential Property Values,” Transportation
benefits were appreciable. Savvy Research Record, No. 1466 (1994): 88–98;
developers increasingly understand the M. Al-Mosaind, K. Dueker, and J. Strathman,
long-term nature of profiting from TOD. “Light-Rail Transit Stations and Property
In the words of one active TOD Values: A Hedonic Price Approach,”
Transportation Research Record, No. 1400
developer in the Denver region: “we’re (1993): 90–94; R. Cervero and M. Duncan,
not here to ‘flip’ properties in the search “Benefits of Proximity to Rail on Housing
for quick profits; with TOD and infill in Markets: Experiences in Santa Clara
general, we’re in it for the long haul.” County,” Journal of Public Transportation,
177

Vol. 5, No. 1 (2002A): 1–18; R. Cervero and Taxable Property Valuations and Transit-
M. Duncan, Land Value Impacts of Rail Oriented Development (Denton, Texas:
Transit Services in San Diego County, report University of North Texas, Center for
prepared for the National Association of Economic Development and Research,
Realtors and the Urban Land Institute January 2003).
(Washington, D.C.: June 2002B); A. Gruen, 12 Fredrick Ross Company, View: Commercial
The Effect of CTA and Metra Stations on
Real Estate Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1
Residential Property Values: Transit Stations
(January 2003).
Influence Residential Property Values,
Chicago, report to the Regional 13 C. Falcke, Study of BART’s Effects on
Transportation Authority (June 1997); Property Prices and Rents, BART Impact
B. Weinstein and T. Clower, The Initial Study (Washington, D.C.: Urban Mass
Economic Impacts of the DART LRT System Transportation Administration, U.S.
(Denton, Texas: University of North Texas, Department of Transportation, 1978).
Center for Economic Development and 14 Damm et al., 1980, op. cit.
Research, 1999).
15
5 R. Dunphy, “Transit-Oriented Development:
J. Landis, S. Guathakurta, and M. Zhang,
Making a Difference?” Urban Land, Vol. 54,
Capitalization of Transportation Investments
No. 7 (1995): 32–36, 48; M. Bernick and
into Single-Family Home Prices, Working
R. Cervero, Transit Villages in the 21st
Paper 619 (Berkeley: Institute of Urban and
Century (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996);
Regional Development, University of
A. McNeal and R. Doggett, “Metro Makes
California, 1994).
Its Mark,” Urban Land, Vol. 58, No. 9
6 (1999): 78–81, 118.
A. Nelson, “Effects of Elevated Heavy-Rail
Transit Stations on House Prices with 16 Bollinger et al., 1998, op. cit.
Respect to Neighborhood Income,”
Transportation Research Record, No. 1359 17
A. Nelson, “Transit Stations and Commercial
(1992): 127–132. Property Values: A Case Study with Policy
7
and Land-Use Implications,” Journal of Public
Al-Moisand et al., 1993, op. cit.
Transportation, Vol. 2, No. 3 (1999): 77–93.
8
S. Lewis-Workman and D. Brod, “Measuring 18
Weinstein and Clower, 1999, op. cit.
the Neighborhood Benefits of Rail Transit
19
Accessibility,” Transportation Research Weinstein, 2003, op. cit.
Record, No. 1576 (1997): 147–153. 20
R. Weinberger, “Commercial Property
9 Values and Proximity to Light Rail:
Landis et al., 1994, op. cit.
10
Calculating Benefits with a Hedonic Price
D. Damm, S. Lerman, E. Lerner-Lam, and
Model” (paper presented at the 79th Annual
J. Young, “Response of Urban Real Estate
Meeting of the Transportation Research
Values in Anticipation of the Washington
Board, Washington, D.C, 2000).
Metro,” Journal of Transport Economics and
21
Policy, Vol. 14, No. 3 (1980): 20–30; R. C. Lockwood, “Raising the Bar,” Urban
Cervero and J. Landis, “Assessing Impacts of Land, Vol. 62, No. 2 (2003): 70–77.
Urban Rail Transit on Local Real Estate 22 Cervero, 1994, op. cit.
Markets Using Quasi-Experimental
23
Comparisons,” Transportation Research A, S. Cook, “Joint Development,” Urban Land,
Vol. 27, No 1 (1993): 13–22; C. Bollinger, Vol. 43, No. 7 (1984): 16–20.
K. Ihlanfeldt, and D. Bowes, “Spatial 24 Cervero and Landis, 1993, op. cit.
Variation in Office Rents Within the Atlanta
Region,” Urban Studies, Vol. 35, No. 7 25 The Great American Station Foundation,
(1998): 1097–1117. Economic Impact of Station Revitalization,
11
(Las Vegas, New Mexico: 2001).
Cervero and Duncan, 2002A, op. cit.;
Weinstein and Clower, 1999, op. cit.; 26 J. Landis, S. Guathakurta, W. Huang, and
B. Weinstein, DART Light Rail’s Effect on M. Zhang, Rail Transit Investments, Real
178

Estate Values, and Land Use Change: A 31 Association of Bay Area Governments,
Comparative Analysis of Five California Rail Silicon Valley Projections 2000 (Oakland,
Systems, Monograph 48 (Berkeley, Institute California: 2001).
of Urban and Regional Development, 32 Cambridge Systematics, Inc., R. Cervero, and
University of California, 1995).
D. Aschauer, TCRP Report 35: Economic
27 Ibid., p. 40. Impact Analysis of Transit Investments:
Guidebook for Practitioners (Washington,
28 R. Weinberger, “Light Rail Proximity: D.C.: Transportation Research Board,
Benefit or Detriment in the Case of Santa National Research Council, 1998).
Clara County, California?” Transportation
33
Research Record: Journal of the W. Lorenz, Designing Light Rail Transit
Transportation Research Board, No. 1747 Compatible with Urban Form (San Diego:
(2001): 104–113; Cervero and Duncan, San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development
2002A, op. cit. Board, 1996).
34
29 Hedonic price theory assumes that many For more information about these analyses,
goods are actually a combination of see Cervero and Duncan, 2002B, op. cit.
different attributes and that the overall 35
G. Knaap, C. Ding, and L. Hopkins, “Do
transaction price can thus be decomposed Plans Matter? The Effects of Light Rail Plans
into the component (or “hedonic”) prices of on Land Values in Station Areas,” Journal of
each attribute. For more on this technique, Planning Education and Research, Vol. 21
see: S. Rosen, “Hedonic Prices and Implicit (2001): 32–39.
Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure 36
Competition,” Journal of Political Nelson, 1999, op. cit.
Economics, Vol. 82 (1974): 34–55, and 37
R. Cervero and M. Duncan, Land Value
T. Batrik, “Measuring the Benefits of Impacts of Rail Transit Services in Los
Amenity Improvements on Hedonic Angeles County, report prepared for the
Models,” Land Economics, Vol. 64, National Association of Realtors and the
No. 2 (1988): 172–183. Urban Land Institute (Washington, D.C.:
30
June 2002C).
T. Lomax and D. Shrank, 2000 Urban
38
Mobility Report (College Station, Texas: R. Cervero, The Transit Metropolis: A Global
Texas Transportation Institute, Texas Inquiry (Washington, D.C.: Island Press,
A&M University, 2000). 1998).
179

PART 4
CASE STUDIES
Case studies are to policy research what microscopes are to science. In this report, they
help “zoom in” on many of the important issues, providing a more focused, grounded
context. This penultimate section of the report presents 10 case studies that, in
combination, offer a rich set of perspectives on the challenges and potential payoffs of
implementing TOD. Cases are presented in approximate geographical sequence, from the
northeast and to the southwest of the country, in the following order: Boston, New Jersey,
the Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Colorado, Portland,
the San Francisco Bay Area, and Southern California.

Chapter 10
TOD in Boston: An Old Story with a New Emphasis
Boston is an ideal transit story, with a suburbs “not cool anymore,” they also
long, rich tradition of transit-shaped “don’t work” very well. Boston, on
development and a healthy present-day the other hand, wins kudos for its
economy that is receptive to TOD. multifaceted economy of financial
National comparisons show that the city services, health care, technology, and
of Boston ranked third in transit’s education, which “cycle independently.”
market share for commuting at 33%, While tourism continues to be hard hit
slightly behind Washington, D.C. And since 9/11, and no massive recovery is
unlike Washington, which has witnessed expected for the office market, barriers
a gradual loss of population, Boston’s to entry of new products protect
population grew by over 3% between investors, and apartment rents, while
1990 and 2000. In addition, many of softening a bit, continue to sizzle.
Boston’s suburbs, such as Brookline,
Somerville, Cambridge, Chelsea, and Boston Recovers Its Traditional
Malden, experience significant transit Neighborhood Roots
usage. This is a city that has grown up
around public transportation, so TOD is Boston, as one of the oldest cities in the
not considered something particularly United States, has a traditional layout
novel, but rather business as usual. that was developed along TOD principles
long before the term entered the
In recent years, greater Boston has mainstream planning lexicon. When this
enjoyed a robust economy. type of development fell out of favor in
PricewaterhouseCoopers, in the report the 1950s and 1960s among planners,
Emerging Trends in Real Estate: 2003, politicians, and the private sector, Boston
ranked Boston sixth in terms of entered, like all U.S. cities, the full
investment and seventh for development, throttle race to build more highways.
buoyed by a 24-hour vibrancy and a During the same time period, the city
diversified economy.1 The investment jumped on board the same kind of
community has turned bearish on fast- “scorched-earth” urban renewal policies
growing sprawling suburbs, worried that were in vogue elsewhere. In the
about traffic, lack of planning, banal interest of creating a modern
commercial strips, and premature aging government-center area, smaller-scale
of housing stock. Suburban real-estate traditional buildings were cleared and
investments, the report warns, are properties assembled to create monolithic
subject to “becoming little more than buildings isolated in a vast space that
commodity investments over time.” were subject to New England winds and
There is a growing appreciation for the devoid of street life after work. Old-
need to “create enduring main streets timers still remember with a certain
and real places.” Not only are many amount of resentment how entire swaths
183

of traditional Boston neighborhoods were

eliminated in the rush to modernize.
Boston’s TOD story is about the way
the city has tried to take back its old
neighborhood character without
sacrificing modernity and mobility.
Boston’s pursuit of its traditional

character holds important lessons for
other cities. By being responsive to its
core constituencies and not fearing to go
it alone in terms of transportation and
planning, Boston has been able to
recover its urbanity and vitality. For
Boston, out-of-the-box thinking about
transit and its relation to the city has
helped the city recover from a decline;
Boston now fetches some of the highest Photo 10.1. Boylston Street West
housing and commercial rents in the of Copley Square. Boston’s human-
United States. Boston’s TOD story oriented traditional streetscape has been
demonstrates that it is not too late to rediscovered, leading to a sizzling real-
recover from ill-conceived choices, estate market that now draws some of
particularly if public leaders can muster the highest rents in the country.
the courage and support necessary
to embark on their own path to highways inside Route 128, Governor
transportation and development. Frank Sargent repudiated his own past as
Boston’s TOD resuscitation began when a highway advocate and spearheaded
public officials recognized that their federal legislation that allowed the use
constituents fervently wanted them to of Interstate highway funds for transit.
save the traditional neighborhood feel of Massachusetts became the first state to
Boston (see Photo 10.1). Those seeking allow use of federal highway funds
to return their neighborhoods to the for mass transit improvements and
qualities of yesteryear formed a acquisitions. This period, beginning in
powerful bloc of the Boston electorate, the early 1970s under Governor Sargent
although their perspectives were and continuing under the Dukakis and
politically diverse. The TOD renaissance Weld administrations, resulted in Boston
in Boston is inextricably linked to having a modern, efficient, and heavily
conservative, aesthetic, and patronized network of subway and
environmentalist impulses. commuter trains. Transfer funds were
used to help extend the Red Line to
Boston’s leaders understood that the only Braintree in 1980 and to Alewife in 1985
way to revitalize old neighborhoods was and to reconstruct the Orange Line in
to modernize and upgrade public transit. 1987 (see Map 10.1).2
The very first step taken was to halt the
state’s pro-highway transportation plan. The bold step of modernizing mass
After establishing a moratorium on new transit with federal highway money gave
184

Map 10.1. MBTA Subway Map. Source: MBTA.
Boston the modern infrastructure Text Box 10.1). Finally, new MBTA
necessary for neighborhood TOD-based stations in Boston were built without
revitalization. parking, which promoted TOD by
putting pedestrian accessibility above
A second crucial decision for Boston’s automobile convenience.4
current TOD was Governor Dukakis’s
revitalization of the Massachusetts Bay These public policies had the cumulative
Transportation Authority (MBTA) effect of producing a more cohesive
services. Commuter-rail lines were urban design. The policies adopted
reopened, existing lines within Boston 20 to 30 years ago must also be given
were extended and renovated, and credit, at least partially, for Boston’s
new rolling stock was acquired (see phenomenal residential real-estate
Map 10.2).3 market. Boston’s leaders recognized
that the private sector would only build
A third factor in TOD’s resurgence was along TOD principles if modern, clean,
the negotiated parking agreement with and efficient transport were available.
the U.S. Environmental Protection Financial constraints imposed by
Agency (EPA) that froze the number of lenders meant that the public sector
allocated spaces in Boston at 1973 levels had to take the risks necessary for the
(approximately 35,500 spaces). This city to rejuvenate. After it was clear
prevented excess parking from being that public officials were committed
built in Boston’s urban core (see to a modern transit infrastructure,
185

Map 10.2. MBTA Commuter-Rail Map. Source: MBTA.
the private sector enthusiastically an intertwining of business, retail, and

embraced TOD. residential buildings at high densities;
and close access to public transportation.
Boston’s TOD Toolbox Thus, instead of pursuing grand TOD
schemes, Boston’s planners use small,
Boston does not so much plan for TOD subtle tools to make sure the system
as it does find ways to maintain its continues to function in a transit-
traditional urban fabric, a fabric that has oriented manner.
been transit oriented from the beginning,
having been built for the most part Today, Boston-style TOD is a proven
around trolley and streetcar lines. commodity that developers and
Almost all of Boston proper is within financiers are eager to deliver, and
1
⁄4 mile of one or more transit stations. importantly for the city, an idea that
Bostonians are used to this and expect does not have to be sweetened with lots
the city to maintain this status quo. of public money to convince developers
and banks to deliver. Boston’s modus
Since the traditional neighborhood operandi is generally to encourage TOD
appeals to the entire Boston political through zoning and other types of
spectrum, it has been in Boston’s regulations and then sit back and let the
political leaders’ interest to both sustain market deliver the product.5 In addition,
and expand it. These neighborhoods are since Boston’s core is highly accessible
characterized by a pedestrian orientation; by transit, and most of the downtown’s
186

EPA Parking Freeze

The 1972 Clean Air Act had a profound and lasting effect on Boston’s recent
development. In the early 1970s, city leaders negotiated two agreements with the EPA
to mitigate air pollution in the Boston area. This resulted in the formation of the Boston
Air Pollution Control Commission, which was put in charge of implementing the
agreement. The most noteworthy part of the agreement was that Boston was allowed to
freeze its parking requirements at 1973 levels plus 10%. This cap is strictly enforced
and includes all general public parking in Boston proper. It allows the Boston Air
Pollution Control Commission to grant exemptions in only two cases: for private off-
street parking based on need (e.g., residential, hotel guest, and employee) and
residential parking, if the developers can demonstrate that the general public will be
excluded from these spaces. Between 1977 and 1997, the total number of parking
spaces grew by only 9%, from approximately 51,000 to 59,100 spaces.6 The cost of
parking in Boston as compared with other American cities reflects the impact. Boston,
at an average of $408 per month for parking, has the second most expensive parking in
the nation (the most expensive is midtown New York). (The U.S. average is $147 per
month.) The freeze has at times been politically unpopular, and developers often
complain publicly, but in private they concede that they enjoy the higher profitability of
not having to include parking in their projects. The parking freeze is next to impossible
to lift because of a legal requirement imposed by the EPA that requires the city to offset
the environmental impact of eliminating the freeze. No one in Boston, as yet, has found
a politically palatable alternative to the freeze.
The popularity of parking caps is the result of its beneficial results. Besides improving
air quality, it has produced an unexpected benefit: increased development activity. By
making parking optional, developers are able to lower the cost of urban projects and
thus more easily obtain financing. The parking freeze has also allowed the city to grow
without disrupting the urban fabric with more automobiles, parking garages, and surface
lots. Today, the city’s narrow pedestrian-oriented streets are teeming with life.
After Boston enacted the parking freeze in 1973, Portland, Oregon, and Los Angeles
sought to follow suit. However, Congress stepped in and passed legislation forbidding
the EPA from reaching parking freeze agreements with cities. Without the option of
reaching agreements with the EPA, the ball bounced back into the cities’ courts. From
the congressional action forward, cities have had to affirmatively vote to adopt parking
freezes, which a number of close-in cities around Boston did, most notably Cambridge.
Former Massachusetts Transportation Secretary Fred Salvucci asserts that no public

policy has had such a dramatic effect on Boston’s development as the parking freeze of
1973.7 The parking freeze allowed Boston to shift its focus to mass transit. The freeze
has also helped Boston to become one of the largest metropolitan areas that is in
compliance with federal clean air standards. As importantly, the freeze contributed to
Boston’s human-scale ambience, producing handsome profits for developers in the
process.
Text Box 10.1

real-estate market is red-hot, most Senior Planner with the Boston

development occurring in central Redevelopment Agency, the city
Boston is both transit oriented and requires projects of 50,000 square feet
lucrative, eliminating the need for and or more to prepare transportation
subsidies. While Boston’s legacy of mitigation plans as a precondition to
TOD is in no danger today, it was once approval.9 The city has encouraged large
threatened by new highways planned for developments to make use of existing
the city. Boston was saved by forward- transit facilities and, if possible, to help
looking state and city officials who with renovating or redesigning stations
recognized that their transit systems to better align entrances to the
could not survive in a system where the development. Other mitigation measures
federal government almost exclusively used to gain approvals include
funded roads. A plan was devised to subsidizing employees’ MBTA passes,
siphon funds from Massachusetts’s making provisions for shuttle buses to
federal highway funds and use them outlying transit stations, and provision of
instead for transit improvements. storage facilities for bicycles.10
Moreover, unique among cities, Boston
focused its transit dollars on Boston’s The Longwood Medical Area is an
core rather than on suburban commuter example where Boston mitigations were
lines. Boston was thus able to maintain required. The Longwood Area’s
high-quality transit services and a institutions, which include Harvard
semblance of a dense urban grid. Medical School and other major
teaching hospitals, coordinate the
The city of Boston and in particular the provision of shuttle bus and other multi-
city’s redevelopment authority, has over modal options in the Longwood Area,
the years sought to strengthen transit’s which is slightly isolated from
presence by using regulations, surrounding mass transit services. As a
incentives, and other tools. For example, result, very few workers today drive to
the city placed a cap on downtown the Longwood Medical Area.11
parking; requires active ground-floor
uses; promotes pedestrian-friendly A commonly used non-regulatory tool in
streetscapes; and with large projects, Boston has been focusing economic
requires contributions for infrastructure development dollars on and adding
improvements. The city also encourages police officers to areas around transit
a jobs/housing balance around transit stations that are perceived to be under-
stations, which helps to maintain long- serviced and dangerous. For some areas,
term economic health in all areas of the this has prodded developers to build and
city and ensure extensive use of transit rehabilitate residential buildings around
services both day and night.8 stations.
Of the tools the city of Boston possesses, The final piece of Boston’s TOD toolbox
one of the most commonly used has is tax foreclosure. Boston consolidates
been Article 80 of the city’s zoning and markets foreclosed properties
code, which concerns the review and aggressively to promote TOD. Since tax
approval of new developments. As part foreclosure is the main source of land
of Article 80, according to John Dalzell, that comes to the city, it offers the best
188

chance for promoting TOD in utilized multifamily housing can be more

underdeveloped communities. Generally, fully occupied.
foreclosed properties are abandoned or,
if active, need improvements and safety Finally, the discussion thus far has been
repairs. Depending on the state of a on tools used to promote TOD. However,
building, the city performs the necessary Boston is also seeking to expand its
work, including safety repairs, transit system, even in bad economic
environmental remediation, or times, to ensure the city has the
demolition of the building. Although the infrastructure necessary to handle a
city is required to seek payment of back growing city population. Boston has
taxes and fees, which can include the focused its future transportation plans
cost of any improvements, usually a on linking the “spokes” of the city’s
developer who purchases a property subway system that radiate from
ends up with a subsidized parcel.12 downtown to make commuting faster
and more efficient for its residents. As
Two other areas where the market needs part of this plan, the most significant
help with city subsidies are affordable near-term new transportation investment
housing and elderly housing. Affordable in Boston is the opening of four new
housing is usually done on a small scale stations on what will be called the
in conjunction with neighborhood Fairmont Line. These stations are to be
community development corporations built along an existing commuter line
(CDCs). An example is Phase II of Back and will “unlock” southeastern Boston,
of the Hill, just completed, which which has remained relatively isolated
included 50 units of infill affordable because of its lack of a good connection
home ownership and rental housing with the remainder of the city’s job and
within 1⁄4 mile of the Green E Line.13 retail market.15 Since the area’s real
The other problem area, elderly housing, estate is not as coveted as elsewhere in
has become synonymous in Boston the city, the development around the
with what is called “overhousing.” Fairmont Line transit stations will
Overhousing is the result of an initially be subsidized.
overabundance of multifamily buildings
in a neighborhood that once contained MBTA, Joint Development, and TOD
8 to 10 people in a family, but now only
houses 1 or 2 elderly residents. Often, the The conventional definitions of TOD
elderly owners of these buildings do not and joint development do not fit easily in
rent the extra rooms or floors for fear of Boston, since the concepts have largely
problem tenants. As a result, elderly been conceived for the 20th-century
Bostonians are increasingly isolated suburban city prevalent in most of the
socially from the rest of the community, country. For Boston, TOD was once the
and at the same time, their neighborhoods only type of development. It could be
and transit stations suffer from the argued that almost the entire Boston core
resulting de-densification.14 The city is is TOD in that most longstanding
addressing the problem by building buildings and neighborhoods were built
senior housing in these types of around old trolley and interurban lines.
communities. Once seniors are able to Likewise, joint development as it is
move into senior communities, under- commonly understood—the selling or
189

leasing of transit-agency land to a Frequently, the MBTA will allow

developer in return for a stake in the developers to use MBTA property to
development project—is not common enhance pedestrian connections (e.g., to
in Boston, though much of the city’s a retail shop) while also advancing
development is physically oriented to MBTA’s goal of increasing ridership.
transit stations. Unlike similar arrangements in the
station-connection program in
While Boston owes much of its TOD Washington, D.C., there is no monetary
pedigree to its age, history also explains exchange between the private and public
why joint development has not occurred sectors. In Cambridge, the city and the
very frequently. Old transit systems like MBTA negotiated with the developer of
Boston’s never acquired much land CambridgeSide Galleria, an urban mall,
around stations because they pre-dated to run shuttle buses every half hour from
parking lots. the two “T” stops at Kendall Square and
Lechmere Square located nearby.
This does not mean the MBTA has Presently, nearly 50% of the shoppers
simply stood by and watched over the at the CambridgeSide Galleria walk
years, however. The agency has sought to or use transit.
maximize its influence on development.
One step it took was to contract with a Another example of Boston-style joint
private real-estate service company to development was the tripartite agreement
identify opportunity areas for joint among the MBTA, Massport, and the
development. Since 1996, the 23 stations developer of the World Trade Center in
where joint development could occur South Boston to construct a new
have been identified, with 3 or 4 of them underground Silver Line BRT station at
considered to be good possibilities.16 the World Trade Center complex. Each
party brought something to the table that
The MBTA has been most proactive in the other parties wanted. Massport owned
forming equity partnerships (e.g., the the land, the developer owned the World
agency leases or sells its land near a Trade Center buildings, and the MBTA
station to a developer and takes an had the power to choose the location of
equity interest in the development). In the station. The essence of the agreement
Boston, this occurs on a smaller scale concerned the sharing of costs and
than it does in the agreements typically responsibilities for the station among the
found at younger transit agencies. For three parties. Massport provided the
example, at the Ashmont Square Station, infrastructure, the developer bore the cost
the MBTA entered into an agreement of construction, and the MBTA delivered
with a developer to build 150 units of the rail service. Both Massport and the
housing on agency land. Proceeds from developer were able to add value to their
the development went toward investments by vastly increasing access to
construction of a new parking structure the building, and the MBTA was able to
with 5,000 spaces near the station.17 increase ridership while defraying a large
portion of the cost of a new station.18
Most real-estate activity at MBTA
stations is not joint development, but While the MBTA has been working on
rather is property management. joint development independently, it has
190

also gotten a renewed commitment from Easy Transit Connections,

the state of Massachusetts in the form Tough Development Sites
of the Office of Commonwealth
Development. Formed by the newly Most of Boston’s historic buildings are
elected Governor, Milt Romney, the new located on or near one of MTBA’s four
office is headed by Douglas Foy, a TOD subway lines. Early developers routinely
advocate. As part of its work, the Office sought out sites served by transit. The
of Commonwealth Development has historical blending of buildings and
formed a TOD task force that includes public transportation means that transit is
the Secretary of the Environment, the imprinted in the community’s DNA, as
Secretaries of Transportation and represented by quaint transit-served
Energy, and the MBTA’s real-estate venues like Fenway and the Boston Pops.
planner. The charge of the task force is To Bostonians, transit is an inseparable
to formulate ways to promote TOD in part of the urban landscape. Boston
Massachusetts. The hope is that this developer Richard Reynolds, principal of
unprecedented partnership will help Spaulding & Slye Colliers, volunteered,
Massachusetts secure federal funding “We never have to think about it.” Pam
for new rail starts.19 McKinney, principal of the development
consulting firm, Byrne McKinney &
The Boston Economy and the Associates, Inc., says that in Boston,
Real-Estate Market “Transit is bred in the bone.” In the
1990s, Boston encouraged development
The major players in the Boston around the North and South Station areas,
economy tend to sort themselves out by major commuter-rail destinations with
location. Financial-services, law, and good connections to the subway and
accounting firms drive the downtown and buses. Table 10.1 lists some of the TOD
Back Bay submarkets, whereas venture projects under construction or completed.
capitalists and technology firms are Many are building rehabilitations and
concentrated in Cambridge. The Route infill projects. Boston’s list of TODs
128 corridor, dubbed the “High-Tech will continue to expand as subway
Corridor,” is also home to healthcare, modernization programs and station-area
manufacturing, finance, retail, and enhancements like the North Station/Fleet
general-business firms. The largest Center take form (see Text Box 10.2).
technology presence in the area is in the
more distant suburban I-495 markets, Boston’s historic neighborhoods and
focused on the beltway corridor.20 While quaint buildings enjoy strong appeal, and
it is diversified in terms of industry mix, rents remain high. One challenge has
Boston’s economy remains volatile. The been how to serve the needs of a modern
area has captured a large share of venture business or an upscale resident,
capital funds in recent years, and it accustomed to vastly larger spaces and a
continues to attract cutting-edge diversity of services, on a street grid and
technology ventures, both of which are lot pattern more appropriate to a
highly susceptible to market swings. craftsman than a mutual fund manager.
By early 2003, a deteriorating market Copley Place and Prudential Center were
for office space pushed vacancy rates to pioneering 1960s solutions that broke the
over 17%. limits of small-scale properties but
191

Table 10.1. TOD Projects in Boston
Project Size (sq. ft.) Use(s) Status

Back Bay Station 1,000,000 Luxury Condos, Hotel, Under construction
Parking Garage, Retail
Ruggles Station 300,000 Office Park Completed in 1995
World Trade Center 1,300,000+ Hotel, Office Towers Near completion
Fan Pier 3,000,000 Hotel, Multifamily Fully Permitted
Housing and Condos,
Office, Museum, Parks
Northpoint 5,000,000 Office, Extensive Planning stages
Residential, Park
Millenium Center-Ritz 1,400,000 Mixed Use Completed 2003
Carlton
Alewife Brook 1,600,000 Office, Residential Completed in 1988
involved huge public outlays to assemble however, building renovation required

the land needed for such large building removing part of the subway entrance.
scales. Boston’s “Big Dig” will provide A mezzanine was built on the fourth
numerous opportunities for large-lot floor, adding 5% more space to the then
transit-supportive redevelopment in years 45,000 square feet within the building
to come (see Text Box 10.3). footprint. The exterior of the building
was restored to a 19th-century façade
Revitalization: The Liberty Tree (see Photo 10.2).21
Building and the Combat Zone
The Liberty Tree building’s superior
Invoking the name of a revered icon location above the subway station, its
of early Boston, the Liberty Tree architectural beauty, and a tight office
building was erected in 1850 near a market in Boston offset the risk of being
large elm tree that stood as a symbol of located in a less desirable part of the
resistance to British rule during the city. The building’s renovation proved to
Revolutionary War. The location was be the turning point for the Combat
named the Combat Zone for the Zone. Governor Weld offered a state
military personnel who had uniforms agency—the Registry of Motor Vehicles
tailored there, but it later was notorious (RMV)—as a lead tenant for the
as the center of Boston’s adult refurbished building. With street life
entertainment district. By the early active from day workers and customers
1990s, the Liberty Tree building was patronizing spin-off businesses like delis
vacant save for an adult bookstore; a and retail shops, other buildings were
concerted drive to turn the soon targeted for renovation. Numerous
neighborhood around drew private renovations and conversions took place
interest in renovating the building. in the Combat Zone, including new
office space, dormitories, retail space,
Among the building’s assets is direct and the massive Millennium Place
stairway access to the subway system; mixed-use project.
192

North Station/Fleet Center

By the early 1990s, Boston Garden, the long-time, venerable home of the Boston Celtics
and Boston Bruins, had become a victim of the financial realities of modern sports, which
require luxury boxes, club seating, and expensive restaurants. Several sites were
considered for a new arena to replace the Garden, but Governor Michael Dukakis strongly
opposed any site not at North Station, the property adjacent to the old Boston Garden.
When the legislature took up the matter, it agreed with Governor Dukakis by eliminating
all other sites from consideration. The fate of the new Fleet Center, as it eventually came
to be called, as a TOD, was thus sealed. The 1973 parking freeze, the dense neighborhood
surroundings, and the excellent transit connections made any other type of development
impractical and unfeasible. Moreover, the MBTA had already made plans to modernize
the Green Line, which ran through North Station, as well as to build intermodal
connections to the Orange Line and commuter-rail lines, ensuring the Fleet Center's
patrons would be well served by modern and efficient transportation. As a consequence,
no new arena parking was constructed, which is almost unheard of in the modern age of
sports arenas.
Fleet Center was successfully built adjacent to the old Boston Garden, but the transit
development potential of the area around the Fleet Center and the new North Station is
still in the process of being fulfilled. After tough negotiations, the air rights above North
Station and adjacent to the Fleet Center were leased to the city; responsibility for the
transit improvements on the land was given to the MBTA. Recently, the contract for the
construction of the new Green Line tunnel connection and demolition of the old
Causeway Street Station was awarded, symbolizing the final step in infrastructure
improvements for the city’s North Station plans.
North Station/Fleet Center. The photo on the left shows the west side as seen from the
outbound platform of the Green Line at North Station; the photo on the right shows the west
entrance to North Station/Fleet Center. Lack of parking has not hindered the Fleet Center
complex because of its dense pedestrian-oriented access points and superior transit location.
Text Box 10.2
193

North Station/Fleet Center
The Only Entrance to the Elevated Green Line at North Station (Left Photo). East
Entrance to the North Station/Fleet Center (Right Photo).
A station-area plan for North Station/Fleet Center is nearing completion. Transit

improvements and completion of the Big Dig will make the North Station TOD
neighborhood the gateway for the northern approach to the Rose Kennedy Greenway
development (being constructed over the Central Artery Tunnel). Although it was an
arduous task to negotiate the title of the land between the city and state and involved
extremely complex engineering and design to accommodate the new Fleet Center and
modernized transit lines, the effort appears to have paid off. Real-estate insiders and
local and state officials cite North Station as Boston’s one “can’t-miss” future TOD.26
Rejuvenation: Back Office Space with a project with the goal of retaining
Front Office Location tenants being lost to newer Class A
buildings. The first anchor tenant for
East-coast cities are filled with aging the newly refurbished building was
buildings plagued with safety and Fidelity Investments, one of Boston’s
environmental problems. The State Street thriving mutual fund companies, which
Bank Building, in the heart of Boston’s had been looking for back office space
financial district, is one of these buildings in the suburbs. The building’s quality
(see Photo 10.3). Built in the 1960s, its refurbishment, central location, and
exterior design no longer in vogue, and good transit access gave it an edge over
years of deferred maintenance becoming its suburban competitors.22
increasingly evident, the building was
about to slip into the less valuable Class The State Street building’s ability to
B status. Moreover, the discovery of retain and attract tenants at Class A
asbestos increased the cost of bringing the rents and maintain high occupancy
building back to its original status. levels gave renovation a much needed
boost in downtown Boston. Ease of
Undeterred, the building’s owners transit access gave it a great advantage
began a $98-million rehabilitation over newer suburban rivals dealing with
194

The Big Dig: New Land for TOD

Set for completion in 2005, the placement of Boston’s Central Artery underground ranks
as the largest, most expensive highway project in U.S. history. The project has been key
to the redevelopment of the South Boston Waterfront as well as the reunification of the
Financial District with the Downtown Waterfront. Because major rail corridors parallel
the underground artery, once the Big Dig is completed, access between rail stops and
major waterfront destinations will be materially enhanced.
When it was originally designed, the Central Artery was meant to handle only local traffic
going in and out of Boston. An inner belt was to be built that would take automobiles
around the city. Because the construction of the Central Artery displaced 20,000 residents
and destroyed 1,000 residential and commercial buildings, strong community opposition
led to the abandonment of the inner beltway project. As a result, the Central Artery has
been handling both local and through traffic for over 40 years, producing an accident rate
four times the national average.
The tunneling of the Central Artery will provide Boston with more than 30 acres of new
open space, parks, and commercial development. All of this bodes favorably for a
waterfront that is attractive to pedestrians and transit users.
Central Artery Construction Project (the “Big Dig”) Source: Massachusetts Turnpike
Authority.
Text Box 10.3
195

Photo 10.3. Renovated State Street

Photo 10.2. Liberty Tree Building Bank Building. The refurbished
with MBTA Stop. The Registry of building’s comeback typified the
Motor Vehicles (RMV) is located at spectacular performance of the Boston
street level. The RMV’s success in office market and real-estate market in
breathing life back into the neighborhood general in the 1990s.
led to the decision by the Commonwealth
to locate the transportation building in
Park Square downtown. Both were a Preservation’s Main Street Program. The
part of the Commonwealth’s strategy Trust’s program organized the city into
to pioneer locations of government 19 neighborhoods. The premise of the
agencies to stabilize conditions for the program was that in order to receive
private market. help, each neighborhood had to
demonstrate that residents, merchants,
and nonprofit institutions would work
increased gridlock on Boston’s together. They also had to find a
freeways. corporate “buddy” that would invest
money and personnel in the program.
Main Street and TOD
The program made immediate inroads. It
Another important force in Boston’s won the National Trust’s Great
TOD renaissance has been its cadre of American Main Street Award. In four
local nonprofit organizations that years, the program produced 313 new
specialize in smaller neighborhood-scale businesses, 2,326 (net) new jobs, 46,500
development projects. These groups, Main Street volunteer hours, 120
however, rarely communicated or storefront improvements, and $40
coordinated activities. million in new commercial and
residential construction (see Photo
This changed when Boston became the 10.4).23 Before these improvements,
first large U.S. city to enroll in the most of the participating neighborhoods
National Trust for Historic were considered crime ridden and thus
196

Photo 10.4. Main Street in Roslindale Village Neighborhood. The Main Street
program focuses on improved storefront façades and improved streetscapes to enhance
pedestrian access. The results have been a boon for participating businesses located
near transit stops.
drew scant interest from the core and inner suburbs, the region also
development community. has an extensive commuter-rail system
that links Boston with far-flung suburbs.
The Main Street Program has also Historically, there has been a disconnect
become a key component of Boston’s between the two. While there has been
comprehensive TOD strategy. Most of unbridled enthusiasm for TOD in
the Boston Redevelopment Authority’s downtown Boston, support for TOD in
TOD work centered on revitalizing retail the outer suburbs is lukewarm at best.
centers in rail-served neighborhoods, a This has led to an interest in
problem the Main Street Program has concentrating development at major
been particularly effective in solving. commuter-rail transfer stations. South
Often, lack of supermarkets and other Station is the most successful example
major retail outlets are a primary of this effort to date.
deterrent to reinvestment. The Main
Street Program’s success at solving this Constructed in 1898 with large windows
retail vacuum in many places has and a grand waiting room, South Station
resulted in vibrant TOD neighborhoods faced the wrecking ball in 1974. The
offering all the basic services, along with Commonwealth intervened under then
some specialty retail, within a short newly elected Governor Dukakis and
walking distance of transit stations. The halted demolition on the grounds of
Main Street Program has also helped historical preservation.
Boston maintain a housing/jobs balance
that is considered a crucial part of its Federal funds were later secured to
long-term TOD strategy.24 restore the beautiful building as an
intermodal facility hosting subway,
South Station: Development commuter, and regional trains as well as
Around Commuter Rail Boston’s spoke system of buses. The
$29-million renovation was completed in
While much of Boston’s TOD story 1989, with the bus portion of the station
involves its subway system in the urban completed in the mid-1990s. The
197

refurbished building was designed with

a structural support to allow an office
tower to be built when market demand
permitted (see Photo 10.5).25
Today, South Station is poised to realize

its full TOD potential. Two developments,
Russia Wharf and 500 Atlantic Avenue,
are planned for parcels near South Station.
Russia Wharf will be a mixed-use project
with hotel, residential, and office buildings
totaling over 1 million square feet and a
512-space parking structure built
underneath. 500 Atlantic Avenue will
contain a 420-room hotel and a 141-unit
condominium for a total of 729,200
square feet, with a 375-space underground
parking garage. In the course of two
decades, the once rundown area around
South Station has transformed into a
bustling center of activity.
South Station, according to Al Raine, an

assistant in the state office of planning
under Governor Dukakis explained,
happened only when the city and the
state took a long-term perspective. In his
estimation, it was vital that the city
established a clear framework of public
investments and regulations with plans
that provided specific timelines. The
plan for South Station also clearly
shaped the densities and edges of the
spaces around the station. All this was
necessary to create the transparency that
both developers and the public needed to
see the vision through to fruition.27
Photo 10.5. South Station Main
South Boston Waterfront: Entrance and Future Rendering. The
The Future Transit Neighborhood Neoclassical building (top photo) that
houses the station and the proposed
The 1,000 acres of the South Boston Atlantic Avenue development (bottom
Waterfront (or Seaport District) offer the photo) behind the station serve as
city of Boston a chance to create the first anchors for the burgeoning commercial
new urban neighborhood oriented to and office district targeted for suburban
transit in decades. The key to TOD in commuter traffic.
198

the Seaport District is the creation and none have been focused on transit
utilization of MBTA’s Silver Line, an opportunities. The TOD plan will be the
underground dedicated busway linking largest and most comprehensive
South Boston Waterfront to Downtown redevelopment effort to date for the
Boston’s South Station. The Silver Line waterfront. The aim is to create a lively,
is greater Boston’s first BRT service. 24-hour, transit-oriented community
(see Photo 10.6).29
The Seaport District was bustling with
activity until the mid-1970s, when the The success of transforming the Seaport
marine and navy industries either closed into a TOD depends on the organization
or moved elsewhere. To make matters of transit in the neighborhood. For
worse, the construction of the Central financial reasons, a decision was made to
Artery formed a physical barrier between use BRT in place of extending the
the Seaport and downtown Boston. The subway line to the South Boston
isolation of the area contributed to Waterfront. The MBTA created the
making the South Boston Waterfront a Silver Line, a dual-mode/dual-propulsion
site of underutilized and underdeveloped system. It operates as an underground
land. For most people, the South Boston electric bus around the Seaport, but
Waterfront has been a forgotten place.28 becomes a low-emission bus traveling
in bus-restricted lanes on city streets
There have been redevelopment efforts (see Photos 10.7 and 10.8). Two
in the Seaport District in the past, but underground stations—Courthouse
Photo 10.6. Aerial View of South Boston Waterfront. Opportunities for cities to
start over again on such a large tract of land so close to the central core are rare indeed.
Boston has ambitious plans to make the Seaport District the crown jewel of its TOD
renaissance by making the District a high-density urban village and tourist attraction
served by a multimodal transit system.
199

Photo 10.7. Views of the World Trade Center Silver Line Transit Stop.
Photo 10.8. Depiction of the Future World Trade Center Transit Stop as a
High-Density, Pedestrian-Oriented Urban Village.
and the World Trade Center—and two With the MBTA goal of having 2 minutes
above-ground stations—D Street near between every Silver Line bus, the South
the Fish Pier and the new convention Boston waterfront will be a 7-minute,
center—are planned for the Seaport. one-seat ride from South Station in one
Most development will be within an easy direction and from Logan Airport in the
walk of these stations (see Map 10.3). other.30
The construction of a tunnel under the
Fort Point Channel will connect the The Silver Line is unique among
waterfront with South Station where Boston’s bus services. Real-time
Amtrak, commuter trains, and the tracking of the buses using global
subway can be accessed. Using the Ted positioning system technology has been
Williams Tunnel, the Silver Line will introduced. The low-floor, 60-foot buses
also connect the Seaport District to can accommodate up to 120 riders.
Logan Airport. MBTA is forecasting that 60,000
200

Map 10.3. Walkable 1⁄4-Mile Radii Surrounding Silver Line Transit Stations in
the Seaport District. The line will connect the isolated Seaport District with
multimodal South Station. Source: MASSPORT.
passengers will use the Silver Line each minimal private automobile traffic, and
workday. extensive pedestrian spillover to hotels,
restaurants, and stores. One of the Silver
The Seaport District is also slated for Line’s underground stops is at the
high-density residential development. BCEC.
Two sites are planned for over 1,100
owner-occupied units (see Photo 10.9). Boston’s commitment to making the
More housing will be needed, however, Seaport District oriented to transit
if the Seaport District is to become a true instead of adjacent to transit is evidenced
24/7 neighborhood. by the parking limits imposed on the
area. Before it has even been fully
The commercial and open spaces of the developed, the Seaport is already
Seaport District are moving along at a characterized as having “parking ratios
faster pace than residential space. The typical of those found in mature, transit-
centerpiece of the District will be the intensive downtowns.”31 The Fan Pier
Boston Convention & Exhibition Center site is offering only 2,280 off-street
(BCEC), with 550,000 square feet of parking spaces, or 0.85 spaces per 1,000
contiguous exhibit space and an square feet of development. Such low
adjoining hotel. The site covers 60 acres parking ratios ensure that automobiles
and, if successful, will generate a high do not have priority over transit in the
level of evening and weekend activity, Seaport. Not all TOD initiatives in
201

Photo 10.9. Residential Development Plans for the Fan Pier Section of the
Seaport District.
Boston are nodal in form. Plans are rest on its TOD laurels. Public officials
under way to create a transit corridor and private developers must work
that orbits the central city. See Text Box together to bring a more contemporary,
10.4 on the planned Urban Ring of TOD. market-sensitive version of TOD to the
city and its surrounding communities.
Lessons Learned Backsliding is prevalent in America, and
there is a strong motivation to do things
Boston provides five important lessons that are easy rather than those that are
for other jurisdictions’ TOD development right. In Boston’s case, this has meant
goals. First, a strong market makes many that when the private sector cannot lead,
things work. Boston is such a desirable public officials must provide leadership
city for migrants and an attractive place on TOD to reassure lenders that their
for business that planning for transit helps investments are secure.
reinforce a generally favorable climate. It
also gives planners some leverage over The third lesson Boston provides is that
development that might not occur in less a significant part of leadership is helping
desirable communities. Planning is to make projects work financially. In
important, but a strong market can help Boston, this has involved creating the
raise all boats in the harbor. zoning; making infrastructure
improvements (most notably in public
Second, strong public-sector leadership is transit); and providing predictability and
needed to promote TOD, even in a strong transparency in the form of plans,
market. The Boston case shows that even guidelines, and permissible uses and
if a city was built around transit, and densities. Also, enticements are needed
transit is ingrained in its culture, it cannot to show developers that the aging
202

The Urban Ring

If the Seaport District is the future of TOD in the city of Boston, then the Urban Ring
is the TOD future of the surrounding communities. The Urban Ring is a
circumferential corridor, 15 miles in length and 1 mile wide, that encircles Boston’s
core, running through the cities of Boston, Chelsea, Everett, Somerville, Cambridge,
and Brookline. Currently, passengers who want to travel between these communities
must take the subway or bus into downtown Boston, switch transit lines, and head
back out of the core in a different radial direction. The Urban Ring would eliminate
this congestion by connecting the corridor communities via tangential BRT and light-
rail routes. Riders would completely bypass the core of Boston. The ring would be
the wheel to Boston’s already built transit spokes and hub.
Building a circular transit corridor is not a new concept. In 1884, London completed
the first circular transit line, the Circle Line, while the remainder of its transit lines
were built in the spoke-and-hub design. The idea of Boston’s Urban Ring was first
proposed in the early 1970s as an alternative to the Inner Belt expressway. Funding
for the project, however, was redirected at improving the existing transit system, and
the idea was put on the backburner.
In the early 1990s, the Urban Ring concept was revived by David Lee, president of the
Boston Society of Architects, and George Thrush, chairman of the Department of
Architecture at Northeastern University. They emphasized the economic and
community development activities that such a project would bring. In 1995, the
leaders of the six cities impacted by the Urban Ring joined together to sign the Urban
Ring Compact, which pledged their cooperation with the planning and development of
the project.
In 2001, MBTA conducted a major investment study on the Urban Ring service,
which advocated implementation and construction of the ring in three phases. Phase 1
is crosstown and express bus service; Phase 2 is adding BRT service, which will reach
commuter-rail intermodal connections; and Phase 3 begins rail rapid transit service.
The total project is expected to cost over $2 billion.
Construction of the ring would bring new TOD opportunities to the area, which is
growing faster than the region as a whole. Stephanie Pollack of the Constitution Law
Foundation contends, “The Urban Ring alone shifts more people from cars to transit
than every other project in the long-range transportation plan added together.”
Text Box 10.4
203

The Urban Ring
Phase II of the Urban Ring Project. When it is completed, the Urban Ring will be
the first circumferential transit corridor in the United States. Backers hope a ring of
transit lines will spawn a ring of TODs that orbits central Boston. Source: MBTA.
204

buildings or storefronts near transit stops 6 Boston Transportation Department, “Parking

are potential diamonds in the rough in Boston,” in Access Boston 2000–2010
ready to be polished and redeveloped. (Boston: December 2001): 19–23.
7 Frederick Salvucci, interview by Eric
A fourth lesson is that transit has proven Nakajima, June 10, 2003.
to be a lynchpin in a more sustainable 8 John Dalzell, interview, June 11, 2003.
form of urban regeneration. Boston and 9 John Dalzell, interview, June 11, 2003.
state officials took the bold step of using 10
John Dalzell, interview, June 11, 2003.
highway money for transit purposes. The
11
vast improvements and expansion made John Dalzell, interview, June 11, 2003.
to Boston’s transit network in the 1970s 12 John Dalzell, interview, June 11, 2003.
and 1980s fueled the city’s population 13
John Dalzell, interview by Robert Dunphy,
resurgence in the 1990s. The 21% October 8, 2003.
growth in transit ridership over the last 14
John Dalzell, interview, June 11, 2003.
decade exceeded that of any other major
15
transit market in the country. John Dalzell, interview, June 11, 2003.
16 William Constable, interview by Robert
Last, a city must solicit broad-based Dunphy, July 24, 2003.
support before committing to a TOD 17 William Constable, interview by Robert
future. Public outcry stopped the Inner Dunphy, July 24, 2003.
Belt project, while strong community 18 Pamela McKinney, interview by Robert
support and involvement has made the Dunphy, August 6, 2003.
Main Street Program an overwhelming 19 Pamela McKinney, interview by Robert
success. Listening to the needs of the Dunphy, August 6, 2003.
community will be key to creating a
20
vibrant 24/7 Seaport District “new town/ S. Coyne, “Boston: A Market Overview,”
Urban Land, Vol. 60, No. 9 (2001): 52–59,
in-town.” 118–122.
21 J. Albanese and S. Martinelli, “Restoration
Renaissance: Preserving and Reusing
Notes Historic Buildings to Renew the Economic
Life of Neighborhoods,” Urban Land, Vol.
1 PriceWaterhouseCoopers, “Emerging 57, No. 12 (2003): 74–79, 96.
Trends in Real Estate: 2003” (New York,
22
2003): 39. Urban Land Institute, Project Reference File
(October-December 1995).
2 S. Warner, Greater Boston: Adapting
23
Regional Traditions to the Present A. Raine “Waterfront TOD,” Urban Land,
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Vol. 62, No. 5 (2003): 79–83.
Press, 2001): 156–160. 24 John Dalzell, interview, June 11, 2003.
3 Frederick Salvucci, interview by Eric 25 Al Raine, interview, June 13, 2003.
Nakajima, June 10, 2003.
26
Al Raine, interview, June 13, 2003.
4 Frederick Salvucci, interview by Eric
27
Nakajima, June 10, 2003. Al Raine, interview, June 13, 2003.
28
5 John Dalzell, interview by Robert Dunphy, A. Raine, 2003, op. cit.
October 8, 2003. 29
Frederick Salvucci, interview by Eric
Nakajima, June 10, 2003.
205

30 MBTA SilverLine, “All Photo 10.3 P. Vanderwarker

AboutSilverLine.Com.” See Photo 10.4 B. Ward
http://www.allaboutsilverline.com; A. Raine, Photo 10.5 (top) MBTA
May 2003, op. cit., p. 80. Photo 10.5 (bottom) Hines Interests Limited
31
Partnership
A. Raine, 2003, op. cit., pp. 81–83.
North Station Fleet Center Box: T. Glickman
Photo 10.6 ULI/Massport
Photo 10.7 (all) MBTA
Photo Credits Photo 10.8 ULI
Photo 10.9 Fan Pier Land Development Company
Photo 10.1 J. Steinhart
Photo 10.2 E. Nakajima
206

Chapter 11
New Jersey’s Transit Villages:
From Refurbished Rail Towns to Ferry-Oriented Development
TOD has a long history in the state of influences are discussed in the next two
New Jersey, going back to turn-of-the- sections.
century streetcar suburbs and commuter-
rail towns. Following decades of decline New Jersey’s Market for TOD
and disinvestment, today a movement is
underway to re-energize neighborhoods In 1964, William Alonso advanced the
surrounding longstanding train stations “trade-off” theory to explain residential
and to create vibrant and attractive location choice in the contemporary
transit-oriented communities. Spurred by urban United States.1 At its core, the
powerful market forces, shifting theory holds that Americans decide
demographics, and forward-looking where to live in reference to their
state-led public policies, a new workplaces by trading off housing and
generation of transit villages is taking commuting costs. Those living near
form in the ninth most populous state in major job hubs (e.g., downtown) pay
the United States (and in terms of per high rent premiums for the ability to
capita incomes, the second wealthiest). get to work quickly; those residing
far away from the center, on the other
One finds a rich, interesting mix of TOD hand, endure high transportation costs
in the highly urbanized northeastern part (i.e., long commutes) but pay far less
of the state. Much of it has been in the for housing. Residential rent gradients,
form of redevelopment—from the Alonso postulated, taper with distance
refurbishment of century-old rail towns to from CBDs and are matched by rising
the creation of attractive, market-rate commuting cost curves. The model has
housing on former industrial sites that the most relevance to a monocentric
today border modern ferry terminals. region with a dominant center, like
While TOD efforts are currently the greater New York–Northeast
underway in other parts of the state, New Jersey Metropolitan Area
notably the Trenton-Camden corridor, (at least compared with the rest of the
most of what is on the ground is in the United States).
state’s northeast quadrant. This case study
thus focused on this part of the state. Because of major rail enhancements and
an affordable-housing crunch, Alonso’s
No single factor accounts for the trade-off model is “alive and well” along
resurgence of TODs in New Jersey. the Manhattan–Northeast New Jersey
Rather, a confluence of market axis. Manhattan has held the preeminent
dynamics, local political leadership, position on the urban hierarchy over the
supportive state policy, and significant past several decades. As a command-
rail-transit service enhancements has and-control post in the global economy
sparked recent initiatives. These and an international center of culture,
207

arts, and entertainment, Manhattan’s Other Factors Stimulating TOD

economic future remains bright. This is
reflected in high residential rents. Today, Market realities are not the only factors
a two-bedroom, 1,200-square-foot, that have propelled transit village
unfurnished apartment in the average development in New Jersey recently.
price range in midtown Manhattan The following have also been important:
goes for $2,500 to $3,000 per month.
Manhattan workers pay a high premium • Rail service enhancements. The
in return for minimal commuting state’s transit authority, NJ
costs (both monetarily and in time TRANSIT, operates six major rail
investments). Alternatively, one can live passenger services that provide radial
across the Hudson River in a waterfront connections to the concentration of
apartment in Hoboken, New Jersey, and jobs and services in the northeast
pay $1,800 to $2,000 for the same unit. part of the state (see Map 11.1).
Ferry-oriented housing developments, Four of the lines—Morris and Essex,
such as Port Imperial, just north of Raritan Valley, Northeast Corridor,
Hoboken, have been built in the past few and New Jersey Coast—tie directly
years on former industrial brownfields into New York’s Penn Station.
to serve this very market—namely,
New York City workers who would Among the host of factors that have
prefer to pay less for housing (or get stimulated TOD activities in New
more for their money) and are willing Jersey, the most widely cited one is
to take a 10-minute ferry ride to and major rail service improvements:
from Manhattan each workday. Go out specifically, the introduction of
farther to townships like South Orange, direct, no-transfer services into
Rahway, and Rutherford—all within a midtown Manhattan; reduced
30-minute rail commute of Penn Station headways; and refurbished train
in midtown Manhattan—and one stations. These enhancements have
finds even better housing bargains. In worked to revitalize the town centers
neighborhoods surrounding recently of traditional suburban communities
refurbished traditional train stations by virtue of their superior access to
in these places, the residential rent New York City as well as the
gradient falls to a typical range of $800 burgeoning waterfront district
to $1,200 per month for similar housing. between Hoboken and Jersey City.
Thus, within a half hour commuteshed
of midtown Manhattan, one finds a Developers openly acknowledge the
fairly differentiated housing- importance of direct passenger
transportation marketplace, enabling services operated by NJ TRANSIT
households to trade off housing and in pursuing TOD projects. In
commuting costs according to lifestyle explaining why his company was
preferences. With the help of good investing $160 million to redevelop a
planning practice and supportive public retail parcel next to a rail stop in a
policies, these unfolding market depressed part of Essex County, one
dynamics have given rise to rail- and developer recently confided to the
ferry-oriented developments in a New York Times that: “midtown
diversity of settings. direct train service is what drew us to
208

Map 11.1. NJ TRANSIT Rail Passenger Lines in Northern New Jersey.

Source: NJ TRANSIT.
209

the site.”2 The Times article went on • Political leadership. In a number of

to say: small New Jersey towns, TOD has
benefited from strong mayors who
The coming of Manhattan Direct are firmly committed to revitalizing
rail service has brightened up their traditional downtowns and who
the downtowns in places like see transit stations as the focal points
South Orange, where new rail for these efforts. In New Jersey, the
stores have opened to cater absence of term limits has given rise
to commuters and close-by to strong mayors who have been in
residents, and in Morristown,
office for four or more terms. For
where a development of 10 new
some places, this has provided 10
town houses costing close to $1
million each has all but sold out.3 to 15 years without abrupt shifts in
policy direction, which is often
To date, these enhancements have required to mount successful
benefited towns west and southwest downtown redevelopment
of Manhattan. The opening of the campaigns. Moreover, a number
of mayors championing transit
$450-million rail transfer station in
village development run full-time
Secaucus will soon benefit rail
businesses. As a result, they are
commuters northwest of Manhattan
often very entrepreneurial in
(in the northeast corner of the state)
their approach to TOD.
and those on the Pascack Valley,
Main, and Bergen County lines. The
Mayors wield a lot of clout in real-
transfer facility will allow commuters
estate development in New Jersey, a
to bypass Hoboken en route to New
home rule state. Local leaders have
York Penn Station, significantly
nearly total control over zoning and
shortening their commutes. land-use decisions. Many mayors in
the northeastern part of the state see
It bears noting that the premium TOD in fiscal terms (i.e., an effective
placed on frequent, direct rail tool for downtown revitalization and
services by developers is consistent economic development). In the minds
with the national survey results of mayors, commercial and residential
reported in Chapter 2. In a healthy investments spurred by the presence
real-estate market with a pent-up of a rail stop translate into higher
demand for conveniently located ratables and property-tax proceeds.
housing, developers know they can
make money building around rail • State policies. In New Jersey, TOD is
stops. The most important thing the part of a larger smart-growth agenda
public sector can do, as shown by spearheaded by Governor James
New Jersey’s experiences, is to McGreevey and his predecessor,
provide frequent, convenient, former Governor Christine Todd
reliable, and safe public transit Whitman. New Jersey has become a
services. This, as much as anything, national leader in the smart-growth
will ensure a continued market movement, using a mix of purse-
demand for living and running a string powers and regulation to curb
business near stations. sprawl and stimulate economic
210

growth. The state’s Office of Smart active support of farmland and open
Growth provides administrative and space preservation. Through the
technical support for implementing Garden State Farmland Preservation
the state land-use plan and directs Fund, the state has purchased
state capital grants to local projects thousands of acres of farmland in an
that embrace smart-growth all-out campaign to curb sprawl and
principles. preserve natural habitats. This has
constrained land supplies, however,
New Jersey Future, a high-profile and thus driven up housing prices.
nonprofit advocacy group that is Land conservation has also prompted
leading the fight for sustainable developers to focus on urban infill
development, has produced a opportunities, including housing
Smart Growth Scorecard to help development near traditional train
communities rate new development stations.
proposals. Projects that are accessible
by four or more transportation modes In New Jersey, smart-growth
and that lie within a 5-minute walk of policies, like transit village
a rail stop receive high marks. initiatives and farmland protection,
have been driven by economic
Two particularly important state development concerns every bit as
policies that have helped to leverage much as conservation considerations.
TOD have been the “Transit Village An affordable-housing crisis and
Initiative” and progressive continually worsening traffic snarls,
brownfield reclamation legislation. officials fear, will prompt businesses
The 1999 Transit Village Initiative to leave the state and choke off
(described below) provides state economic investment. (According to
grants and technical assistance to the Texas Transportation Institute,
localities committed to transit- the New York–Northeast New
supportive development. And the Jersey metropolitan area ranks
1998 Brownfields and Contaminated fifth nationally in travel time and
Site Remediation Act provides congestion cost per peak road
technical guidance and funding to traveler.5) By locating mid-rise
municipalities for conducting housing near train stations and major
cleanups of the more than 8,000 bus routes, New Jersey hopes to
known contaminated sites that are dramatically increase housing
dotted throughout the state. The Act offerings while also staving off
is credited with providing greater traffic congestion. Some 1.2 million
clarity and certainty about the likely new residents will be added to the
costs and timelines for remediating state’s existing 8.5 million total over
contaminated sites.4 The permitting the next 20 years. Locating housing
and review process for brownfield around suburban transit hubs and
redevelopment has also been directing job growth to cities is
streamlined. widely viewed as a cost-effective
and environmentally sustainable
Another state policy that has strategy for accommodating this
indirectly spurred TOD has been the growth without burdening already
211

overloaded freeways and rail the program started in 1999, 2002 was
corridors. the first year money was allocated.
According to one account,
The Transit Village Initiative
1 million dollars of the nearly $99
State interest in TOD gained million federal . . . CMAQ funds
momentum with NJ TRANSIT’s New Jersey received in 2002 were
1994 release of a handbook on TOD, dedicated as transit village monies,
Planning for Transit-Friendly Land granted to eight designated transit
Use, chock full of illustrations and villages. According to government
sources, $3 million in CMAQ funds
ideas on how to make communities
have been allocated to the transit
more inviting to buses, trains, village program over the next
pedestrians, and cyclists. Introduced 3 years. 7
by then-Governor Whitman in 1999, the
“Transit Village Initiative” embraced
According to several mayors who
urban design and site planning ideals
were interviewed, a transit village
outlined in the handbook. Defining a
designation helps in streamlining the
transit village as “a municipality that is
state permitting process. If a developer
committed to redeveloping the area
encounters a problem in securing state
around its train station (typically 1⁄4- to
1 permits, staff from appropriate state
⁄2-mile radius) into a compact, mixed-
agencies will, and often do, help in
use neighborhood with a strong
overcoming it.
residential component,” the program
awards funding for projects that
contribute to these goals. To become a transit village, a local
community must demonstrate a firm
New Jersey’s Transit Village Initiative commitment to transit village principles.
gives priority access to state grants (See Text Box 11.1.) First and foremost,
(e.g., for urban renewal and station-area planning needs to be well
transportation improvements) and underway, and some expression of
provides coordinated technical private-sector interest needs to be
assistance from 10 different state secured.
agencies, with the NJDOT and NJ
TRANSIT taking the leadership roles in To date, eight communities have been
coordinating efforts among agencies.6 designated as transit villages: five in
Transit villages are supposed to get 1999 (Pleasantville, Rutherford, South
“bonus points” when it comes to Orange, Morristown, and South
receiving funds from the 10 agencies Amboy); one in 2001 (Riverside); and
and related state and federal funding two more in 2002 (Rahway and
pools, such as NJDOT’s Local Aid for Metuchen). Most of these communities
Centers, Transportation Enhancement, were originally settled in the mid-1800s.
and Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
programs. Local officials are somewhat While New Jersey’s Transit Village
guarded in their assessment of whether a Initiative was well intended, the jury is
transit village designation will translate still out on its potential effectiveness.
into meaningful dollar figures. Although One observer remarks:
212

Transit Villages in Traditional

New Jersey’s Transit Village Rail Towns
Scorecard
The downtowns of most traditional
To enjoy priority access to state grants railway towns in Northeast New Jersey
and receive technical assistance, local have had similar fates. Over the past
communities must demonstrate that 30 years, the opening of indoor mega-
they are committed to TOD. Specific malls has slowly but steadily chipped
criteria used to screen applicants and away at the economic vitality of once
award a “transit village” status are vibrant commercial districts. Main streets
became boarded up save for a coffee
• Demonstrated land-use strategy. A shop here and a thrift store there. The
master plan, zoning ordinance, or combination of an affordable-housing
redevelopment plan must exist that crunch, worsening traffic congestion,
embraces transit village principles. and the desire among many for more
traditional living environments, however,
• Available properties. Land must be is beginning to change the fortunes of
available in proximity to transit many rail-served business districts in
facilities.
Northeast New Jersey. Thanks to local
leadership and state funding support,
• Ready-to-go projects. There must be
viable market interest and activities in
there is today a burgeoning market
the works. demand to live, work, shop, and do
business in these once-moribund districts.
• Station-area management. The heritage stock of buildings, the small-
Economic development strategies and town ambience, and the presence of rail
ancillary activities like streetscaping stops with a 30- to 40-minute direct
and traffic calming are desired. connection to midtown Manhattan
has triggered this renaissance.
• Architectural integrity. The
historical significance of buildings Rahway
should be preserved.
The city of Rahway, 4 square miles in
• Jobs, housing, and culture. Job
creation, affordable housing, and
size, with 25,000 residents, is strategically
cultural offerings should be promoted. located along NJ TRANSIT’s Northeast
Corridor (which shares tracks with
Text Box 11.1 Amtrak’s Boston-Washington Northeast
Corridor). With the 12th busiest NJ
TRANSIT rail station and situated within
a 35-minute train ride of New York’s
So far, meager funding has kept the
program from accomplishing much Penn Station, Rahway is on a rebound
outside of a very few locations or after decades of decline and
from serving as an incentive strong disinvestment.
enough to change the behavior of
towns that are not already inclined By all accounts, the perseverance of
to transit friendliness or station-area Rahway’s mayor has been the catalyst to
redevelopment.”8 Rahway’s transformation. A downtown
213

merchant who owns a shop directly Residents are the eyes of the downtown
across from the Rahway train station, district, providing a sense of security.
Mayor Jim Kennedy has doggedly Theater-goers add bustle during
sought, over his 13 consecutive years in weekends and keep restaurants busy
office, to reinvigorate the town center, after hours. As all-day, all-week trip
beginning with the downtown rail generators, these activities also provide
station. In an address to New Jersey’s a steady flow of transit riders.
Housing, Finance, and Mortgage agency,
Mayor Kennedy remarked: “Our plan In keeping with Scandinavian town-
was designed around NJ TRANSIT’s planning principles, a civic plaza fronts
investment of $18 million and a new the Rahway train station (see Photo 11.1).
train station; the station is a great asset Every Thursday the plaza becomes a
that has brought us the ability to develop farmer’s market, and several times per
a unique central business district.”9 month it supports a crafts fair. In 2002,
the plaza was recognized by Downtown
Rahway’s downtown plan calls for 1,400 New Jersey as the best new use of public
housing units to be built within walking space in the state. Traffic-calming and
distance of the train depot. A mix of streetscape improvements have been
affordable, up-market, and luxury-rate introduced to enhance the station area’s
units will be added. The mayor is pedestrian environment.
forthright in noting who is being targeted
for these new units—principally As a businessperson himself, Mayor
Manhattan workers who are priced out Kennedy has aggressively pursued
of Hoboken’s increasingly expensive public-private partnerships. Using
housing market. With typical leases condemnation powers to assemble land
fetching $2,000 per month for two- and entering into equity agreements in
bedroom Hoboken units overlooking the lieu of collecting taxes, the mayor and
Hudson River, renters can save $1,000 his team have brought about remarkable
or more each month by living in changes among several strategically
comparable housing in Rahway. Several important parcels. A former dump site
real-estate brokers who specialize in two blocks from the station, for instance,
Hoboken’s housing market were brought was recently replaced by 87 modern
in to advise the mayor on how to market townhouses. The city advanced
transit-based housing. Borrowing a $1.5 million for the project and waived
chapter from William Alonso’s “trade- property-tax payments for 10 years in
off” theory, they urged the mayor to go return for 3% of the proceeds for real-
after the “spillover” market—those who estate sales. Another deal involved the
are willing to endure a longer commute city buying a boarded-up parcel across
in return for cheaper rents. Units are from the train station for $250,000 and
being built with a maximum of two selling it to a developer for $1,000. The
bedrooms in order to attract a younger developer in turn invested $600,000 to
tenant clientele. To enliven the center so overhaul the building, creating 4,000
as to appeal to young professionals, an square feet of ground-floor retail space
arts-restaurant-entertainment district with eight apartments above. The city
is in the works. Such mixed uses receives a share of rent proceeds plus
complement and reinforce each other. some $15,000 annually in property-tax
214

Photo 11.1. Rahway Transit Village. Borrowing from Scandinavian town-planning

principles, Rahway has made its recently refurbished train station the centerpiece of the
community. The top photo shows a plaza fronting the station that occasionally hosts an
open-air market, crafts fairs, and public celebrations. The lower left photo shows bicycle
parking prominently situated at the station entrance. The lower right photo shows several
nearby downtown streets have decorative lighting, bricked sidewalks, and traffic-calming
chokers.
income. Many credit these partnerships train station. A zoning overlay was
to the mayor’s “can-do” outlook and created that creates a maximum parking
business acumen. ratio of 1.2 on-site spaces per unit—
a remarkably low benchmark for a
Rahway is also notable for pushing the small town—for residential projects
envelope on parking for parcels near the within three blocks of the train station.
215

A five-story parking structure is also 1996, which lowered the travel time
being built next to the station in hopes of from South Orange to only a half hour.
redeveloping the existing surface lot. A year earlier, the same trip took
Some observers, however, feel that 50 minutes via a transfer at Hoboken.
Rahway’s desire to attract park-and-
riders could backfire by making the Over the past 3 years, 340 apartment
downtown less transit- and pedestrian- units have been added within 1⁄4 mile of
friendly than it otherwise would be. South Orange’s refurbished train station.
(See Text Box 11.2.) This view, The flagship project is called Gaslight
however, is not shared by Rahway’s Common—named for the town’s retro
mayor and other civic leaders, who feel street lights. A national firm, LCOR,
ample convenient parking is necessary Inc., built the 200-unit, four-story project
in the near term to attract sufficient to take advantage of the developable
ridership to revitalize the core. Another site’s close proximity to the station. The
progressive policy has been the project has just one parking space per
introduction of a free shuttle bus that unit—almost unheard of in suburbia—
feeds into the train station, supported and a density of 38 units per acre. In
by a grant from NJ TRANSIT. commenting on the natural market
advantages of projects like Gaslight
South Orange Common, an LCOR, Inc., vice-president
said: “Transit-oriented development
Situated along the Morris and Essex will be to this century what suburban
lines with direct service to Manhattan, development was to the past; people do
the city of South Orange’s train station not want to drive to the city anymore;
recently underwent a dramatic facelift. they would rather take the train.”10 In
Station facilities were modernized, and emphasizing the orientation of rail-based
the structure itself was upgraded. Six housing to childless households, a New
formerly unproductive storefronts under York Times article recently noted that
the station viaduct were also renovated just three school-age children live in
into commuter-oriented retail shops and Gaslight Common’s 200 apartments.11
sit-down restaurants (see Photo 11.2).
Extensive streetscaping on and around As in Rahway, South Orange’s Mayor,
the station, decorative lighting, and Bill Calabrese, has been the lightning
urban art have created a pleasant rod for the dramatic revitalization that is
pedestrian milieu. A traffic roundabout presently underway in downtown South
and an entrance plaza have also helped Orange. When the plan was announced
vehicle circulation around the station. in the early 1990s to bring direct train
service to Manhattan, Mayor Calabrese
South Orange, home to Seton Hall saw an unprecedented opportunity to
University, enjoys a small-town charm, turn around the slowly declining
a significant factor in the decision by downtown. A redevelopment plan was
several developers to build moderately prepared that called for bringing full-
dense housing near the train station. time residents to the downtown. Rail-
More important, however, was the based housing would be complemented
introduction of direct passenger rail by various urban design improvements
services to New York’s Penn Station in and public amenities.
216

Rationalizing Parking Policies in Traditional Rail Towns
In the heated competition for shoppers, downtown merchants in traditional rail towns understandably
want as much free and convenient parking as suburban malls. Generous parking supplies can also
translate into park-and-riders who hang around and shop when they exit train stations in the afternoon.
Parking, however, can also strongly influence the character of a district, making it seem not
particularly pedestrian friendly or transit oriented. Below are excerpts from a commentary on
Rahway’s downtown parking policy and the larger dilemma facing New Jersey, published by the Tri-
State Transportation Campaign, an advocacy organization (each passage is an excerpt).
“Part of the criteria to become a transit village is to ‘reduce parking requirements and encourage
shared parking.’ One way to do that is to rezone for more residential density and mixed uses around
the train station.”
“In New Jersey, however, the urge to build more parking is strong, and counterproductive. For
instance, Rahway is also building a five-story parking deck right across the street from the station.
Rahway has the right idea—the new parking lot will liberate downtown land currently used for
parking to be redeveloped for other uses—but why not reduce the number of new parking spaces and
make other transportation options more attractive to commuters? It’s unclear whether other
alternatives were thoroughly explored—like jitneys, car pool programs, bike lanes and parking, or
increased feeder bus service.”
“The Rahway parking deck is just the beginning of New Jersey DOT’s enhanced investment in new
parking spaces. In late 2002, the DOT announced its plan to create 20,000 parking spaces near bus and
train stations; that was enshrined in the executive order the governor issued creating the blue ribbon
commission to study ways to enhance revenue for transport capital projects. A whopping $200 million
of New Jersey’s long term capital budget is scheduled to be used for designing and building parking
spaces. If the state held stock in parking firms that paid dividends, they might at least reap some
benefit from this partnership. But spending precious capital dollars for the storage of vehicles on
valuable land that could be put to economically productive uses is a waste of taxpayer money.”
“In 2003, $13 million of New Jersey Transit’s capital fund (thirteen times the entire annual allocation
for transit villages) is designated for the design and construction of parking spaces. 840 spaces are to
be constructed and 3,300 more designed by 2004.”
“Though the McGreevey Administration continues to hail added parking spaces as part of its smart
growth initiative to bring new riders to train and bus stations, NJ TRANSIT research has found that
increasing the number of parking spaces does not bring a commensurate number of new riders. The
research revealed that more often these same riders were existing passengers who previously got to the
train station another way, like walking, biking, carpooling, being dropped off or taking a bus or jitney.
The new parking spaces just encouraged existing riders to drive, rather than get to the station in a
smarter, more efficient manner.”
“Increased parking around train stations also increases peak hour congestion and pollution on local
streets, which runs counter to transit village ideals.”
“Gov. McGreevey’s agencies have to raise the bar for smart growth well beyond building more
parking at train stations.”
Source: Tri-State Transportation Campaign, “Parking Investment Bad Sign for NJ TRANSIT Villages,” Mobilizing the
Region, Issue 406 (March 10, 2003).
Text Box 11.2

Photo 11.2. South Orange’s Station Viaduct Stores. In 1995, café space was built in
front of the station’s viaduct stores. Street trees, landscaping, decorative lighting,
intersection bulb-outs, and diagonal parking have created a pleasant human-scale
environment immediately adjacent to the station.
One of the first steps was to calm traffic redevelopment, emphasizing Arts,
and enhance pedestrian safety. With Culture, and Entertainment uses. A
state aid, a former four-lane state soon-to-be-completed theater-arts
highway piercing the downtown and complex will share parking with the
directly serving the train station was adjacent train station—a natural
narrowed to three lanes, sidewalks were arrangement given that the parking
widened, zebra-crossings and traffic demands for these uses are at opposite
signals were added, and intersections hours of the day and week. Historic
were bulbed-out to slow vehicular preservation is also vital to downtown
speeds. These public improvements in redevelopment; for example, a historic
turn spurred private investment in new firehouse near the train station was
and old businesses. Today, South rebuilt rather than being torn down and
Orange has one of the most successful replaced by a modern facility.
Main Street programs in the state.
As in other parts of the state, city
South Orange is also pursuing the government has facilitated redevelopment
“ACE” model of downtown in South Orange by using condemnation
218

to assemble and hand over land parcels to In a recent interview in On Common

developers. Low-interest loans secured Ground, a publication of the National
for redevelopment sites have also been Association of Realtors, a Morristown
passed on to developers to entice private agent told this story about the seem-
investment. ingly insatiable demand for living
in small rail-served towns like
Metuchen Morristown:
In 2003, the village of Metuchen, One of my clients absolutely would

not sign a contract with me until he
situated some 40 minutes from
took a ride into Penn Station . . .
Manhattan on the Northeast Corridor, I told him, ‘Don’t worry, it’s
received $600,000 in Transit Village 51 minutes’ . . . ‘It better be,’ he
Initiative grant funds. Money is going said. ‘If it’s 52 minutes, I’m not
toward pedestrian walkways, bike racks, going to buy it.’ It turns out the
and traffic calming near the commuter buyer was only kidding. He said,
rail station. Although there are already ‘It was 72 minutes, but there was
75 spaces for bicycles at the station, a delay along the way. Where do
demand has outstripped supply, with I sign the contract?’13
“bikes tied up all over the place,”
according to the town’s mayor, Rutherford
Ed O’Brien.12 For the past 20 years,
the mayor has spearheaded a campaign The borough of Rutherford is situated
to transform Metuchen’s downtown on the Bergen County passenger rail
into a vibrant mixed-use center, taking line. Presently, it takes around
advantage of the station. State funds, 40 minutes to reach New York’s
the mayor believes, are helping to Penn Station via the Hoboken terminal
seed this effort. and connecting Port Authority
Trans Hudson (PATH) train
Morristown or ferry services. When the Secaucus
transfer facility opens, average travel
With state Transit Village Initiative times to midtown Manhattan are
assistance, the city of Morristown is expected to fall to 25 minutes.
presently in the midst of “adaptively
reusing” its 300-space surface parking These dramatic travel time savings have
lot. Situated next to the train station, the been noticed by real-estate developers.
lot is being converted to 228 rental After several decades of dormancy,
apartments, 8,000 square feet of retail construction cranes are once again
space, and a three-level parking deck for active in downtown Rutherford.
700 cars. Of the 700 total, 274 parking A two-story bank office was recently
spaces will go to apartment units, coming built catercorner to Rutherford’s
in at 1.2 spaces per unit. The remaining train station. A two-acre mixed-use
426 spaces will be for transit users. Both development (under construction) will
rental and for-sale housing will be built, add 48 rental housing units, a medical
targeted at professionals with jobs in office facility, ground-floor retail, and
Manhattan and the I-287 corridor. a child-care center to the station area
219

Photo 11.3. Rutherford’s Transformation. A multi-story mixed-

use project rises upwards across from Rutherford’s traditional train
station. In recent years, NJ TRANSIT has invested over $2 million
in station roof and façade restorations as well as in improvements in
the platform to make it compatible with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Presently, 35% of passengers reach the station by
foot. Through various streetscape enhancements and traffic calming,
borough planners hope to increase this share.
(see Photo 11.3). The developer made various streetscape and traffic-
received density bonuses in exchange calming improvements, hoping to
for providing parking. strengthen pedestrian connections
between the traditional train station and
Rutherford’s emerging transit village downtown district.
is a prime example of interagency
cooperation. Through a planning Ferry-Oriented Development
assistance program called “Transit
Friendly Communities for New Jersey,” U.S. de-industrialization has left land
NJ TRANSIT hired consultants to work holdings that were once thriving
with the municipality to prepare a businesses and industrial centers. Thanks
market-realistic land-use program, to the state’s progressive brownfield
design parking deck and pedestrian remediation laws and smart-growth
improvements, and provide traffic policies, many former industrial sites
engineering assistance for intersection along New Jersey’s Hudson River
and roundabout designs. With grant waterfront are being dramatically
assistance from the state Transit Village transformed into viable communities.
Initiative, the borough has recently Mid- and high-rise residential towers,
220

nestled around ferry ports, have sprung residents take some form of public
up over the past decade in what transit to work each day: most take
previously were depressed communities New York Waterway ferries, with
like Hoboken, Jersey City, and Bayonne others taking nearby PATH commuter
(see Photo 11.4). rail and Hudson-Bergen light-rail
transit. Port Imperial is a classic
One of the best examples of a example of residential self-selection:
successful ferry-oriented development those with a lifestyle preference to live
is Port Imperial, a mixed-use, master- in a pedestrian-friendly urban setting
planned waterfront project situated 2 and take transit to work choose
miles across the Hudson River from residences near major terminuses—in
midtown Manhattan. With unparalleled this case, ferry ports. High ridership
vistas of New York City’s towering rates are a direct outcome of this self-
skyline, the 95-acre site features 1,900 selection. As long as a supportive
townhomes, mid-rise apartments, and public policy environment exists, as has
condominiums and 100,000 square feet been the case in New Jersey, the market
of specialty retail and restaurants (see will create the kinds of products that
Photo 11.5). At build out, these will allow workers to sort themselves
amounts will more than double. An into neighborhoods that are well served
estimated 70% of Port Imperial by public transit.
Photo 11.4. Ferry-Oriented

Housing Development on Former
Industrial Sites in Hoboken. With
rents that are half or less of what
tenants pay in midtown Manhattan,
stunning vistas, and a 10-minute ferry
ride to the city, Hoboken’s
apartment/condo market is red hot.
Photo 11.5. Port

Imperial. As viewed
from a ferry shuttle, the
master-planned, mixed-use
project—with a range of
housing products targeted to
a professional clientele—
enjoys nearly 1 mile of
Hudson River frontage.
221

Re-urbanization in Jersey City
Not all rail-oriented development in the

state has been predominately residential.
In Jersey City, the state’s second largest
municipality (with a population of
228,000 in 2000), there has been a recent
boom in white-collar office and
commercial development. Back offices
of Manhattan headquarters have been
attracted to Jersey City because of the
direct line of sight to New York as well
as direct PATH and ferry connections.
Most of the new development has been
along the 15-mile Hudson-Bergen light-
rail system (see Map 11.2). Light rail has
served to channel growth along Jersey
City’s burgeoning waterfront, linking
several dozen recently built mid- and
high-rise office, retail, and hotel towers
(see Photo 11.6).14
Photo 11.6. New Office Towers at
the Essex Street Light-Rail Station in
Downtown Jersey City.
Since the opening of the 15-mile

Hudson-Bergen light-rail line between
Hoboken and Bayonne, a flurry of
building activity has occurred directly
adjacent to the tracks: 690 mid- to high-
rise apartment and condominium units,
3.95 million square feet of office space,
two major hotels with 415 units, and
around 100,000 square feet of street-
level retail (see Photo 11.7).15 Projects
abutting the tracks that are under
Map 11.2. Hudson-Bergen Light-Rail construction or that have received
Line. The system connects residential development permits will add another
Bayonne and western Jersey City with 1,825 residential units, 4.42 million
Jersey City’s Exchange Place and square feet of office space, 414 hotel
Newport Center as well as Hoboken rooms, and 320,000 square feet of
Terminal—business and shopping retail. Within the 1.5-square-mile
centers with easy connections to New downtown Jersey City development
York City via PATH and New York district, the 22 built or soon-to-be-built
Waterway ferries. Source: NJ TRANSIT. parcels adjacent to the light-rail tracks
222

office and hotel additions and over

three-quarters of housing units have
congregated. There is little question
that light-rail transit has been a
powerful magnet in focusing Jersey
City’s past decade of central-city
reinvestment and renewal.
One land use that stands out along the

Hudson-Bergen light-rail line is the
Newport Centre Mall—a 930,000-
square-foot indoor facility that has the
Photo 11.7. Residential and Hotel appearance of a modern suburban mall,
Towers at the Metro Plaza/Harsimus including four major anchor tenants,
Cove Station in Downtown Jersey City. except that it sits in downtown Jersey
City, right next to the Pavonia-Newport
make up the majority of the 11.8 Station (see Photo 11.8). While the
million square feet of commercial space mall pre-dated the light rail’s opening
built downtown over the past 7 years in 2000, the availability of frequent at-
and over 40% of the housing-unit grade tramway access to nearby offices,
additions (see Figure 11.1). And within condominiums, and hotels has certainly
two city blocks (or 750 feet) of the not hurt business sales. Macy’s recently
light-rail tracks, all of Jersey City’s opened a 237,000-square-foot retail
addition within 100 feet of the Pavonia-
Newport light-rail station. Increasingly,
Residential 40.7% Newport Centre is taking on a multi-
Units 76.8% use character, adding offices, hotel
space, and housing to the mix.
Office 80.9%
Space
100.0%
60.6%
Hotel Units
100.0%
Retail 58.6%
Space
97.1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Percent of Downtown Total

Photo 11.8. Light Rail at the
Within 750 feet of LRT tracks Adjacent to LRT tracks
Newport Centre Mall. The light-rail
line lies under a pedestrian skywalk that
Figure 11.1. Share of Development connects Newport office tower (on the
Activity Near Light-Rail Line in right) to the modern three-story indoor
1.5-Square-Mile Downtown Jersey City. mall on the left (west) of the station.
223

Surrounding Newport Centre Mall are construction. Also, parking standards

seven Class A, 20-story (or more) have been lowered for most parcels
office towers, many of which host abutting rail lines to around one on-site
office workers displaced from lower space per 1,000 square feet for office
Manhattan by the World Trade Center uses and less than one space for
tragedy. residential units.
For the most part, Jersey City’s light While office and retail growth has
rail–oriented development has been predominated in Jersey City, one
driven by the market, requiring little in notable residential project that is
the way of policy levers or perquisites currently in the works is Liberty Harbor
to steer development to the rail North. The project, slated for an 80-acre
corridor. More important than light rail former industrial site, openly and
to the addition of so much new aggressively embraces New Urbanism
commercial and residential space in design principles. According to the
downtown Jersey City has been the project’s master-designers, the Miami-
presence of three PATH stations, based firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk &
providing direct connectivity to Company, “Liberty Harbor North will
Manhattan. It is doubtful that anywhere perhaps be the most thorough
near as much as the 12 million square exemplification to date of the principles
feet of commercial development added of the New Urbanism.”17 The mixed-
in the past decade would have occurred use, transit-oriented, master-planned
in the absence of PATH services. What project will feature 6,337 dwelling
the light rail did, however, was to units, 4.6 million square feet of Class A
channel Manhattan’s spillover growth office space, and around three-quarters
that landed in Jersey City. Consistent of a million square feet of commercial-
with experiences elsewhere, retail development. The site’s superb
experiences in Jersey City show that proximity to local and regional rail
light rail does not create new growth services is one of its strong suits. In
but rather redistributes where already addition to being served by two light-
committed development occurs.16 Local rail stops, the project is just a
officials concede that little concerted 5-minute walk to the Grove Street
effort has been given to strengthening PATH station, providing direct rail
the transit/land-use nexus. TOD has connections to both lower Manhattan
occurred regardless. The integrated and midtown. New York Waterways
planning and urban design strategies also serves the site, providing frequent
that have occurred have been more of ferry connections.
an afterthought. Still, public initiatives
have been important to the renaissance Liberty Harbor North’s New Urbanism
currently underway in downtown Jersey design is most evident in its streetscape
City. The major public-sector design—small city blocks in a modified
contribution to large-scale development grid arrangement. The project is
has been assistance with land assembly sprinkled with plazas, greenways, and
through condemnation. Forty-year tax neighborhood retail to promote walking
abatements have also been introduced and easy access to light-rail and heavy-
to encourage affordable-housing rail services.
224

Transit Joint Development transporting commuters, its primary

goal.”19
To date, there has been relatively little
in the way of transit joint development Conclusions and Lessons
in New Jersey, such as leasing air-rights
above transit stations. This could New Jersey experiences point to the
change in coming years, however. At importance of a viable market and
the Secaucus transfer station, NJ supportive public policies, from the state
TRANSIT spent several million extra to the local level, in bringing about
dollars to strengthen the foundation TOD. An affordable-housing crunch,
so that future office air-rights growing demand for accessing midtown
development could occur. A soft Manhattan, and worsening traffic tie-ups
real-estate market has stalled activities; have created a ready-made market for
however, authorities expect a mixed- living, working, and doing business near
use project to one day be built above rail stops. At the state level, major
the facility. capital improvements of commuter-rail
lines and progressive smart-growth and
NJ TRANSIT is also committed to brownfield remediation legislation have
public-private partnerships for paved the way for developers to build
extending future light-rail services. The near rail stops and ferry ports, whether
extension of the current 4.3-mile mid-rise housing or mixed-use infill
Newark City Subway light-rail line to projects on former industrial sites.
downtown Elizabeth, for example, is to
be constructed through a public-private Not all communities with stops on a
co-venture. The new $1.1-billion, direct rail line to Manhattan have
34-mile light-rail line between Camden witnessed TOD activities. Good access
and Trenton, called the River Line and is not enough. Also needed are visions
scheduled for an early 2004 opening, is and visionaries. Powerful and influential
a design, build, operate, and maintain local mayors, many serving their third or
project. The builder-operator, Southern fourth consecutive term of office, have
New Jersey Rail Group, LLC, a spearheaded the transformation of rail-
consortium led by Bechtel and Adtranz, served downtown districts in most
is considering ancillary real-estate instances. Most are entrepreneurial in
projects at several stations. One study their approach, seizing on the cachet of
estimated up to 6,000 housing units a traditional rail station and materially
could be added to the light-rail corridor enhanced rail services as selling points
between Camden and Trenton over the for leveraging private investment. All
next 20 years, a product of “induced have development plans in place that
development.”18 A recent article in the orchestrate how, where, and when the
Philadelphia Inquirer notes that the rebirth of station areas will take place.
project “will restore some luster to
the river towns whose economies Public policy and leadership have been
faltered as sprawl took root in South important in leveraging TOD in New
Jersey,” but calls the investment “a Jersey, but so have market pressures.
controversial experiment that makes Increasing numbers of Manhattan and
economic development, rather than Jersey City workers seek residences that
225

are a convenient walk to a train station. spillover growth with or without light
As one realtor put it: rail. What light rail did was to channel
and guide where the growth occurred.
In the New Jersey suburbs, putting The Hudson-Bergen light-rail line
the magic words ‘close to train’ in functions like a central-city circulator,
ads generates more interest in connecting offices, shops, housing,
properties . . . Transit is extremely restaurants, theaters, and cultural venues
important to many potential buyers,
along the once-moribund but now-
and I lose some of them if I can’t
provide it . . . I can’t tell you how
bustling Jersey City waterfront.
many folks I’ve had go away
because a home is not close enough
to the train station.20
Notes
Small towns like Rahway and South 1 W. Alonso, Location and Land Use
Orange are adding not only housing (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
units but also revitalized cultural- University Press, 1964).
entertainment districts near their train 2 J. Holusha, “New Vitality Around Old
stations. These are complementary land Railroad Stations,” New York Times,
uses in the sense that they provide all- March 16, 2003, Sec. 11, p. 6.
week, all-day trip generators. State 3 Ibid.
assistance via the Transit Village
4
Initiative is seeding various streetscape The Brownfields Act allows for a
memorandum of agreement (MOA) between
and traffic-calming measures that are
a developer and the New Jersey Department
crucial to creating a pedestrian-friendly, of Environmental Protection to remediate a
human-scale setting. property. As long as the terms of the MOA
are adhered to, a developer is protected from
New Jersey’s TOD experiences show future liability in the event that unsuspected
that there is an element of truth in the or unknown contamination is encountered at
saying that “small is beautiful.” The some later date.
places that have been most successful in 5
T. Lomax and D. Schrank, 2002 Urban
turning around neighborhoods bordering Mobility Report (College Station, Texas:
train stations have generally been small Texas Transportation Institute, 2003).
towns with powerful elected officials and 6
Among state agencies that provide assistance
small planning departments. This has to localities under the Transit Village
created institutional efficiencies. Few of Initiative are the New Jersey Department of
Transportation; NJ TRANSIT; the Office of
the state’s largest cities have gotten into
State Planning; the Economic Development
the act, partly because of bureaucratic Authority; New Jersey Mortgage Finance; the
inertia. The notable exception is Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; and
City. The millions of square feet of the Council for the Arts.
office, housing, and retail space along 7 Tri-State Transportation Campaign, “Promise
Jersey City’s light-rail corridor, however, of New Jersey’s Transit Villages Requires
is not so much the product of proactive Stronger State Commitment,” Mobilizing the
station-area planning as it is good timing Region, Issue 405 (March 3, 2003). See
and location. Lying within 5 to 10 http://www.tstc.org/bulletin/20030303/
mtr40505.html.
minutes of Manhattan via train or ferry,
Jersey City would have experienced 8 Ibid.
226

9
New Jersey Department of Community Form (Washington, D.C.: Transportation
Affairs, “Rahway Mayor Touts Research Board, National Research Council,
Redevelopment Plan for Central June 1995).
Business District” (May 7, 2002). 17 Duany Plater-Zybeck & Company, Liberty
10 Holusha, op. cit., p. 1. Harbor North: Project Description (February
11
2001).
Ibid.
18
12 R. Pearsall, “Rail’s Fate Linked to Growth,”
Tri-State Transportation Campaign (March 3,
South Jersey News, April 24, 2001, p. 2.
2003) op. cit.
19
13 F. Kummer and J. Downs, “South Jersey
J. Van Gieson, “Commute Time &
Light Rail: Development Boon or Transit
24/7 Living,” On Common Ground
Boondoggle,” Philadelphia Inquirer, July 27,
(Summer 2003): 14.
2003, B-1.
14 The Hudson-Bergen light-rail system links the 20
Van Gieson, 2003, op. cit., p. 17.
growing cities of the Hudson River waterfront.
The system operates primarily at-grade
between Bayonne and Bergen County. It serves Photo Credits
the high-density commercial and residential
centers in Jersey City and Hoboken and Photo 11.1 R. Cervero
connects to ferries, PATH, and commuter rail. Photo 11.2 M. Rosenthal
15 City of Jersey City, Division of City Photo 11.3 M. Rosenthal
Planning, Downtown Development Map Photo 11.4 R. Cervero
(October 24, 2002). Photo 11.5 R. Cervero
Photo 11.6 R. Cervero
16 R. Cervero and S. Seskin, TCRP Research Photo 11.7 R. Cervero
Results Digest 7: An Evaluation of the Photo 11.8 J. Bell
Relationship Between Transit and Urban
227

Chapter 12
Washington, D.C.: Model for the Nation
The Washington Metro system is the Washington Metropolitan Area

first modern rapid transit system Transit Authority: A Joint
built since the Second World War Development Pioneer
to specifically incorporate a goal of
shaping regional growth in addition to All major transit investments require
fighting congestion and improving regional collaboration; however, the
transit. The emergence of TOD Washington, D.C., region was especially
around dozens of Metrorail stations is tricky, involving, as it does, two states
widely hailed as a success by local and a federal district with direct oversight
supporters and observers from around by the U.S. Congress. Washington
the world. Washington’s transit Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
planners wrote the book on modern (WMATA) is an independent regional
joint development, and local transportation authority created by an
governments chimed in with supporting Interstate compact that is still considered a
local policies to advance TOD near model of multi-jurisdictional coordination.
Metrorail stations. Originally created to build a rapid transit
system consisting of subway, surface,
TOD leadership came early on from and elevated routes, WMATA was
Metrorail’s staff and board, as well as subsequently given authority to take over
from three local jurisdictions: Arlington the private bus operators serving the
County, Virginia; Montgomery County, region. The agency has grown to become
Maryland; and the District of Columbia. the second largest public transit operator
Each saw the development potential of in the United States, carrying over 1
the transit investment and jumped out in million customers a day on bus and rail.
front to take advantage of it. Originally, Because of the region’s extraordinarily
the TOD successes were largely complex political landscape, WMATA
confined to downtown and upscale has no dedicated funding source, relying
corridors in the District of Columbia, instead on a mix of various contributions
and the adjacent communities of from state and local governments, as well
Arlington, Virginia, and Bethesda, as passenger fares. This set the stage for
Maryland. Recently, however, there has the agency to take joint development
been a resurgence of development, opportunities very seriously.
especially of in-town housing in once
deteriorating neighborhoods in the WMATA’s primary goal, like that of
District and in more automobile- most transit agencies, is moving people,
oriented suburbs whose leaders are which in turn helps battle congestion and
searching to replicate the successes of improve air quality. The 103-mile,
their more prosperous “inside the 86-station Metrorail system is the
Beltway” counterparts. centerpiece of the region’s transit network
229

WMATA’s leaders saw the importance

of promoting adjacent development to
generate riders and revenues, and long
before the rail system became
operational, the board adopted policies
and procedures that created a
public/private land development
program. The first private development
project, Rosslyn (Virginia) Metro
Center, was initiated in 1973, 3 years
before the Metrorail system opened. By
2003, there were 52 joint development
projects with a market value of $4
billion, which delivered some $6 million
in annual revenues to the transit agency
(see Table 12.1). In addition, these new
developments have generated an
estimated 50,000 new transit riders and
over 25,000 jobs.2
Map 12.1. Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Creating a real-estate development

Area Subway System. department within WMATA in its
infancy was a vital step in moving joint
(see Map 12.1). Metrorail is an important development activities forward. Staff
presence in the District since, after all, with backgrounds in real-estate
a nation’s capital needs to function as development were hired and given the
efficiently and free of traffic gridlock as resources to build a portfolio of land
possible. However, national, regional, and holdings. Private-sector experiences
local leaders recognized early on—some helped to create a more entrepreneurial
from their travels and work experiences approach to land-use issues than is found
abroad—that a transit network is more in most transit agencies. Rather than
than a people mover. A transit system simply waiting and reacting to developer
should also shape regional growth. Metro proposals, staff aggressively sought
Board Chairman Chris Zimmerman notes: out mutually advantageous joint
development opportunities. Working on
When we talk about the great their side was the fact that WMATA had
success of public transportation in accumulated a large amount of real
this region, we generally talk about estate around some stations, in part
bus and rail ridership. But transit- because some of the properties
oriented development is the real condemned and acquired were multi-
unsung hero of our operation. Due
acre farmsteads. While entire parcels
to the tremendous success of this
program, our region has benefited were often not needed, because partial
from land use which attempts to takings would have created less
maximize the value of our productive or unusable remnant parcels
$9 million investment in our and severance damages would have been
regional Metrorail system.1 substantial, WMATA ended up
230

Table 12.1. WMATA Joint Development Projects

PROJECT TYPE LAND USE
Ballston AR, GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office,retail, hotel)–Residential
Bethesda
Metro Center AR, GL, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (Office, hotel, retail)
Elm-Reed Street GL Office
Clarendon SCF Office
College Park Negotiations with selected developer were terminated.

Site is offered in current joint development solicitation.
Columbia Heights GL Residential, retail
Court House GL Office, retail
Dupont Circle GL Retail
Farragut North GL, SCF Office, retail
Farragut West
Hill Building Assoc. SCF Office, retail
International Square SC, SCF, SO Office, retail
Fort Totten GL Residential, retail
Franconia-Springfield (Greyhound Bus GL Retail

Kiosk)
Friendship Heights
Mazza Gallerie SCF Retail
May Department Stores SCF Retail
Chevy Chase Pavilion SCF Retail
Chevy Chase Land GL Retail/Office
Gallery Place S, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (retail, restaurant, entertainment)–

Residential
Georgia Avenue Site was sold to the District of Columbia to

accommodate government office building. Project was
cancelled. Site is being reoffered for development by
the District with WMATA oversight.
Greenbelt S, SC, SO Mixed Commercial (office,retail, hotel)–Residential
Grosvenor
North Parcel GL, SC Residential, retail
South Parcels S Mixed Commercial (retail, health club)–Residential
Huntington
North GL Office, retail
South S Residential, open space (12-acre park to be dedicated
to Fairfax County by developer)
Montebello Connection SCF Residential
KEY: AR= air rights; GL= ground lease; S=sales transaction in which WMATA reserves the areas it requires for its facilities;
SC=shared construction cost; SCF=station connection fee; SO=shared operating costs. (Source: WMATA)
231


McPherson Square GL Office, retail
Metro Center
Columbia Square GL Office, retail
May Department Stores I SCF Retail
May Department Stores II SCF Retail
Minnesota Avenue S, SC, SO Office, retail
New Carrollton
Amtrak Ticketing/Waiting Room GL Retail
Parking Garage GL Parking facilities shared with Amtrak.
Joint Development Project Negotiations with selected developer were terminated.
Site is offered in current joint development solicitation.
Prince George’s Plaza GL Mixed Commercial (office, retail)–Residential
Rhode Island Avenue GL Residential, retail

(contract negotiations still in progress)
Shaw-Howard University
Checkers Restaurant GL, SO Retail
Howard University S Mixed Commercial (office, retail)–Residential
Silver Spring GL Multi-modal Transit Center

(contract negotiations still in progress) Mixed Commercial (office, retail)–Residential
Takoma S, SC Residential, retail

Twinbrook (East & West) GL Mixed Commercial (office, retail)– Residential
U Street
Parcels 1 and 9 S, SC Residential, retail
Parcels 2 and 3 S Residential, retail
Parcels 4, 5 and 6 S Residential, retail
Parcel 7 S Office, retail
Union Station SCF Retail, major railroad station
Van Dorn GL Residential, retail
Van Ness GL Office, retail
Vienna SCF Office, residential
Western Bus Garage GL Residential, retail over new bus garage
Wheaton GL, S, SC Mixed Commercial (office, retail)–Residential

White Flint
West S County Conference Center, hotel
East GL Mixed Commercial (office, retail)– Residential
KEY: AR= air rights; GL= ground lease; S=sales transaction in which WMATA reserves the areas it requires for its facilities;
SC=shared construction cost; SCF=station connection fee; SO=shared operating costs. (Source: WMATA)
232

purchasing more land than was contributor to transit funding, has

necessary to build a new transit facility. slammed WMATA’s efforts as
This was not a financial burden to ineffectual, especially with regard to
WMATA since the federal government inner-ring developments. The transit-
picked up the lion’s share of the tab. In agency staff identified the following as
the end, WMATA was left with the obstacles to doing creative real-estate
largest portfolio of land holdings of any development in a large bureaucracy
transit agency in the United States. oriented more toward moving masses of
people:
Today, WMATA pursues joint
development quite methodically. • A cumbersome, slow project analysis
Station sites are carefully screened and approval process;
according to a set of criteria that • Inadequate marketing of
gauges development potential. For sites development sites;
selected, an RFP is issued to solicit • Lack of community involvement;
developer interest. Through • Lack of clarity of key business
negotiations, a developer team is issues; and
chosen and contracts entered into • An increasing tendency to build
specifying the financial terms of the projects that are adjacent to, not
deal. In 1996, WMATA tried a less- necessarily oriented to, transit
judicious approach, soliciting (i.e., TADs not TODs).
developer interest for virtually all
stations—described by one staff These concerns have prompted internal
member as an effort “to cast a big net organizational changes to clarify
and see what sticks.” However, this responsibility for joint development
proved to be too cumbersome, and the and integrate separate departments that
agency has since gone back to a more often thwarted rather than facilitated
selective review. development efforts. Next were the
challenges of setting priorities for a
Despite a record of successful joint small development team among a large
developments that have buoyed range of potential development sites
WMATA’s balance sheets, filled seats and clarifying business objectives
on trains and buses, and won praise (whether augmenting revenues,
throughout the United States, WMATA increasing ridership, or emphasizing
has in recent years sought to reinvent TOD over TAD). To help target limited
how it pursues TOD. Stinging criticism staff resources and board attention,
by local observers, among other factors, WMATA engaged a private real-estate
prompted this change of course. In view firm to conduct a portfolio market
of the region’s exceedingly strong analysis of 24 available sites. A
economy over the past two decades, classification was developed that
matched by exurban sprawl, many have involved both market and public-
felt WMATA could do more than it has intervention considerations. The 24
to guide growth in the region. Local sites were divided into three equal
planners have often faulted the categories. Level 1 sites have
agency’s glacial speed, and a former significant private-sector interest and
governor of Maryland, a substantial will require little public-sector
233

intervention. Most of the sites are TOD concepts and pursue parking-lot
surface parking lots, which developers infill possibilities.
will need to replace, although the board
is reviewing its policy to determine FTA’s new joint development policies
whether a one-for-one replacement will also prompted changes in how
be required. Level 3 sites, on the other WMATA goes about its business.
hand, suffer from a lack of private- Before the policy changes, WMATA
sector interest and require substantial entered into unsubordinated long-term
public-sector intervention over a long leases because the agency would have
period of time. The middle-range had to repay the federal treasury if land
Level 2 properties show some private- that was purchased with FTA funds
sector interest, but carry constraints due was sold. Lease revenues, on the other
either to some hesitancy by the local hand, could be kept. Many developers,
jurisdiction to move forward or to site however, were “lukewarm” about long-
issues. The classification system helped term leases, preferring outright
target agency resources toward near- ownership instead. With the new
term partners and warn the board and
rulings that allow an agency to sell
participating governments about the
land and keep the proceeds, WMATA
extent of commitment required to
has shifted to fee-simple sales,
develop some of the more difficult
something that has attracted stronger
sites.3
developer interest. This has increased
the pool of developers responding to
In addition to a sharper focus on the
RFPs and in so doing has made recent
development potential of various sites,
joint development deals that WMATA
WMATA has developed its own TOD
has entered into generally more
guidelines, aimed at attracting new
remunerative.
riders, increasing revenue intake, and
helping expand the local tax base. Some
of the guidelines include One criticism leveled against
WMATA’s joint development efforts
• Maximizing the use of transit, not has been a lack of proactive community
automobiles; engagement. Historically, the agency
• Linking land use with transit has interacted directly with the
(physically or functionally); development community, leaving
• Providing a diversity of housing types; public participation matters to local
• Emphasizing mixed uses in high- municipalities. This hands-off
density developments; and approach backfired, however, in the
• Creating special places. case of the Takoma mixed-use project
slated for construction on WMATA
This evolving focus on placemaking property. A community backlash over
comes at a time when local planners the project design and the potential
themselves are seeking to reinvent some impacts on housing affordability
of the early ideas of TOD. The city of prompted WMATA to institute a
Washington, D.C., developed a Mayoral program that actively seeks community
Task Force on TOD in 2002, and input in the planning and design of
suburban governments continue to refine future joint development projects.
234

Arlington County, Virginia: Arlington County’s Metrorail stations

Three Decades of TOD Success has taken on a specialized function:
Rosslyn, Ballston, and Crystal City serve
Arlington County is arguably the as business centers; Court House has
nation’s best TOD success story of the emerged as a governmental center (see
past 30 years. Located directly across the Text Box 12.1); Pentagon City has
Potomac River from Washington, D.C., become a regional shopping center;
Arlington County attracts many visitors Clarendon functions as an “urban
to sights such as Arlington National village” with shops and restaurants; and
Cemetery and the Pentagon. Since the Virginia Square has a cultural and
1970s, it has also become an increasingly educational focus. Of the nearly 190,000
popular place to live, work, and shop due people living in Arlington County, 26%
in part to high-density development reside in Metrorail corridors even though
along its two Metrorail corridors: they make up only 8% of the land area.
Rosslyn-Ballston and Jefferson Davis. A Since 1960, over 31 million square feet
conscious decision by County planners, of gross floor area (GFA) of office space
officials, and citizens to locate the and nearly 30,000 residential units have
Metrorail along two major arterials been constructed in the County, and over
(Wilson Boulevard and Fairfax Drive) three-quarters of this construction has
instead of down the median of Interstate been in Metrorail corridors. Arlington
66 created opportunities for both public County today boasts one of the highest
and private development. Superb percentages of transit use in the region
transit access coupled with connecting with 39.3% of Metrorail corridor
thoroughfares ensured that trains, buses, residents commuting to work by public
automobiles, and pedestrians could transit.4 These are European-style transit
easily reach neighborhoods that surround modal splits, reflecting the kind of
stations. Since Metrorail began operating transit/land-use nexus found in some of
in Arlington County in the late 1970s, Europe’s great transit metropolises, like
it has become a popular origin and Stockholm, London, and Munich.
destination for residents and
visitors alike. Because of its TOD successes, Arlington
County has become a paragon of high-
Metrorail’s Orange Line runs east and quality, transit-oriented redevelopment.
west, connecting the city of Rosslyn to In 2002, the EPA recognized Arlington
East Falls Church, and the Blue Line County with a National Award for Smart
runs north and south, connecting Growth Achievement. The County’s
Arlington Cemetery to Reagan National initial transit-supportive built form owes
Airport (see Map 12.2). The highest- a lot to the foresight of visionary
density section of the Orange Line is planners, local leaders, and citizens who
called the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor; the helped prepare the County’s general
Blue Line axis spanning Pentagon City land-use and station-area sector plans.
and Crystal City is called the Jefferson Textbook planning principles were
Davis Corridor. introduced to ensure that compact,
mixed-use development took form
Through a combination of strategic around high-capacity transit nodes.
planning and market forces, each of Arlington County planners understood
235

Map 12.2. Arlington County, Virginia, with Metro Station Areas.

Source: Arlington County, GIS Mapping Center, Department of Public Works.
that Metrorail provided an unprecedented proceed unencumbered. The ability of

opportunity to shape future growth and complying developers to create TODs
proceeded to introduce various as-of-right was particularly important, for
strategies—targeted infrastructure it meant that developers could line up
improvements, incentive zoning, capital, secure loans, incur up-front costs,
development proffers, permissive and and phase in construction without the fear
as-of-right zoning—to entice private of local government “changing its mind.”
investments around stations. After
preparing countywide and station-area Arlington County’s ability to promote
plans on desired land-use outcomes, and sustain growth for some 40 years is a
density and setback configurations, and result of maintaining the original vision
circulation systems, zoning classifications while adapting to the changing needs of
were changed, and developments that its communities. The ongoing revision of
complied with these classifications could plans, adoption of new policies, and
236

Court House Station: Leading by Example
Arlington County has

spearheaded the planning of
high-density development along
Metrorail corridors. It is only
fitting that the County’s
governmental offices, courts,
and police headquarters are
located in the heart of the
Rosslyn-Ballston corridor at
Court House Station. Court House Station Area in the 1970s
The sector plan for Court House Station, which was adopted in 1981 and amended
in 1993, designated the area as an urban governmental center with high-density
residential and office uses. Court House Plaza, built in 1988, was selected as a focal
point of the neighborhood. The Plaza is a pedestrian mall with 19 shops, restaurants,
and a movie theater that can be directly accessed from the subway station below. The
streetscape creates a pedestrian-friendly environment and provides pedestrian linkages
to surrounding office buildings and residential complexes. The construction of a new
Courthouse and Detention Center in 1994 completed the vision for an all-inclusive
governmental center.
In more recent years, several technology-related firms have located in the Court House
station area, creating a “Silicon Valley” of the east. High-tech and dot-com companies,
such as Washingtonpost.com, Verizon, and Sapient, have major offices within the Court
House station area. Today, there are over 14,500 jobs in the 200-acre Court House
Metrorail station area.
Development around Court House Station is not limited to commercial and

governmental offices. Since it is only a 5-minute train ride from Court House Station to
Washington, D.C., the station area has become a popular residential location as well.
From 1960 to 2002, over 5,400 housing units have been constructed. Currently,
residential uses occupy around 55% of the land within 1⁄4 mile of the station. The 2000
Census reported 9,643 residents in the Court House area, constituting 5.1% of Arlington
County’s total population.
Court House Station Area Today
Text Box 12.1

commitment to citizen participation in market-responsive land-use changes

the planning process have allowed along the Metrorail corridors, and
Arlington County to maintain an active elevating the importance of urban design
portfolio of development activities along kept the GLUP relevant and garnered
Metrorail corridors. steady political support.6 Likewise, the
station sector plans have been included in
County Plans the County’s plan-revision process. In
1989, the County Board initiated a mid-
One key tool used to promote TOD course review of the Rosslyn-Ballston
along Arlington County’s Metrorail Corridor to determine how well
corridors was the preparation of a development outcomes matched the goals
thoughtful, illustrative general land use set for each station and the County. At
plan (GLUP). The GLUP set the broad that point, the many stations were 50%
policy framework for guiding all built out. County officials wanted to
development decisions along targeted gauge the progress and rethink station-
growth axes. In addition, individual area policies. As a result of the review,
sector plans were introduced that addenda to the Rosslyn, Court House,
orchestrated development activities and Clarendon sector plans were
within the 1⁄4-mile “bulls-eyes” of each approved. Arlington County’s successful
Metrorail station. The sector plans review and revision of land-use plans
specified not only land-use and zoning demonstrates the importance of
ordinances, but also urban design, evaluating progress and adapting to
transportation, and open-space changes while maintaining
guidelines. Commenting on the a vision for TOD.
importance of a station-area plan for
Ballston, one Arlington County senior New Policies
planner remarked, “The Ballston Sector
Plan represented a change in thought Although land-use and sector plans have
among County planners . . . a reduced been helpful in shaping development in
bulk of development, streetlife, walking Arlington County, they have not
links to the transit station—all were addressed all growth issues. For
elements reflecting new thinking about example, housing prices and rents along
what makes a livable community.”5 The the Metrorail corridors have rapidly
careful, ongoing review and revision of increased over the past 30 years.
the GLUP and sector plans has ensured Additionally, new development has
that planning activities were up-to-date, encroached on open spaces and put some
market-responsive, and in synch with historic sites in jeopardy. In response,
changing community goals. the Arlington County Board adopted
new policies to address these concerns.
Between 1961 and 1996, the GLUP was
revised eight times. Each revision In 1990, the “Special Affordable
promoted higher-density development Housing Protection District” (SAHPD)
along the Metrorail corridors while was created to retain affordable-housing
maintaining lower residential density options within the Metrorail corridors.
elsewhere in the County. Adding Instead of allowing new moderate- to
“mixed-use” designations, introducing high-income residential units to replace
238

lower-income ones, the special district the importance of greenery, parks, and
permits higher densities to ensure that other open spaces to quality of life, but
the affordable housing is preserved or also led to the preparation of an Open
replaced. The SAHPD policy was Space Master Plan as a part of the
followed by the adoption of Housing Comprehensive Plan. The plan helped to
Policy Principles in 1991. This policy protect, preserve, and enhance Arlington
made affordable housing a top priority County’s natural environment. The Open
for the County. The policy states that Space Policy has been credited with
“a range of housing choices should be allowing TODs to reach the kinds of
available to accommodate households of very high densities needed to sustain
all income levels” and “affordable intensive transit services. High-rise
housing should be an integral part of the towers gained acceptance more readily
County’s land use, human service, and as long as other parcels were kept open
capital improvement planning process.”7 for the general public to enjoy.
In 2001, the County increased density
bonuses from 15% to 25% to encourage Citizen Participation
developers to include affordable housing
units within their projects. Citizens, Public outreach and community
planners, and elected officials of involvement have been a key part of
Arlington County recognized that Arlington County’s TOD success.
affordable-housing options were being Business partnerships and alliances,
taken away by TOD and responded neighborhood conservation groups, and
quickly to enact new policies aimed at individual residents are frequently
maintaining housing options. The Twin invited to express their opinions. These
Oak project, an 18-story, 320-unit groups influence the planning process
residential development in Rosslyn, took through a number of forums, including
advantage of the County’s desire for neighborhood meetings, workshops, and
more affordable housing near Metrorail interactive web pages.
stations. In order to replace the existing
55 garden-style affordable units with the Three public-private partnerships in the
new high-rise tower, as was required Ballston, Clarendon, and Rosslyn Metro
under the special overlay affordable- station areas serve as forums for
housing zone for this Arlington site, the community and business-related
developer, Washington-based Donohoe concerns. Ballston Partnership, Inc., was
Companies, was successful in increasing created in 1985 to attract investors and
the allowable density by more than businesses to the area. Several of the
100 units. This enabled the developer to partnership’s committees focus on issues
provide market-rate and affordable units like urban design, public safety, and
in the same new high-rise structure, set real-estate development.
in a high-demand location.8
Arlington County’s citizens also have the
Like affordable housing, open spaces ear of the County’s planning commission.
were being depleted by TOD, especially The commission reviews the County’s
along the Rosslyn-Ballston axis. In Comprehensive Plan (including the
1992, the County adopted an Open General Land Use Plan) every 5 years
Space Policy that not only recognized and makes ongoing land-use
239

recommendations to the County Board. citizens a voice and power to influence

It often holds public hearings to solicit changes in their community.9
feedback and input from citizens about
development in the County. Development Trends
For some 40 years, the Neighborhood Arlington County has witnessed a

Conservation Program has drawn phenomenal amount of development
thousands of local residents into the near its transit stops in the past four
planning process. Organized groups of decades, more than any transit corridor
citizens, with the help of County staff, in the country (see Table 12.2). With
are able to create and implement a sector plans to guide growth, stations
Neighborhood Conservation Plan. like Ballston, Rosslyn, and Clarendon
have functioned as powerful magnets,
These plans, which usually address issues attracting mid- and high-rise office,
like zoning and transportation, are retail, and residential development.
adopted by the County Board and serve as
guides for the Board and staff members Since 1980, total office space has doubled
when making decisions about future to more than 50 million square feet, with
development or land-use changes in a 70% of the office space located within the
neighborhood. Over 40 neighborhoods two Metrorail corridors. Additionally, the
have joined the program, giving those number of housing units in Metrorail
Table 12.2. Development in the Arlington Metro Corridors, 1960–2002

Office Gross Retail Gross
Floor Area Floor Area
(GFA) in (GFA) in Residential Hotel
Metro Station Areas: Rosslyn-Ballston Metro Corridor Square Feet Square Feet Units Rooms
Rosslyn Completed 7,827,779 663,856 4,620 2,125
Under Construction 0 4,268 383 0
Approved, But Not Yet Under Construction 895,243 29,778 585 160
Court Completed 3,468,361 161,879 5,401 580
House Under Construction 0 0 5 0
Clarendon Completed 459,126 223,941 504 0
Under Construction 196,831 33,806 616 0
Virginia Completed 1,271,614 66,749 2,455 45
Square Under Construction 315,352 27,059 0 0
Ballston Completed 5,721,138 840,076 5,914 430
Under Construction 563,720 39,827 412 0
Metro Station Areas: Jefferson Davis Corridor
Crystal City Completed 10,558,784 800,135 5,833 4,601
Under Construction 0 0 0 0
Approved, But Not Yet Under Construction 1,092,062 181,653 215 828
Pentagon Completed 11,650,846 981,788 6,048 5,429
City Under Construction 0 0 319 0
Approved, But Not Yet Under Construction 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 45,998,870 4,231,453 35,019 14,858
240

corridors has increased from 5,700 to over County also attracts workers from other
35,000 over the past 40 years. The Rosslyn- areas: 80% of all employees live outside
Ballston corridor has also emerged as one the County. High levels of external
of Northern Virginia’s primary retail commuting into and out of a historically
addresses (see Text Box 12.2) suburban county usually set the stage
for automobile travel. Has Arlington
Comparing development trends in County’s success at concentrating these
Arlington County to the region at large “trip ends” around rail stations translated
underscores the importance of transit as a into a high transit mode share? The next
counterweight to sprawl. Figure 12.1 subsection addresses this question.
shows that for the past three decades, the
amount of housing in Arlington County’s Modal Splits
Metrorail corridors increased two to three
times faster than the regional population. Table 12.3 shows that 39.3% of
From 1985 to 1989, the inventory of residents in Metrorail corridors
office space built in the County’s commute using transit while 10.5%
Metrorail corridors increased more than walk or bike to work. Overall, 6 out
twice as much as regional employment of 10 commuters use an alternative
(see Figure 12.2). Since Metrorail’s mode to driving alone. Among
inception, Arlington County has become County residents living outside of
a prominent location within the region in Metrorail corridors, only about 40%
which to live, work, and run a business. of commuters do not commute
alone.
Jobs/Housing Balance
Surveys from 1989 highlight the
An important outcome of promoting
ridership benefits of Arlington
mixed-use development along linear rail
County’s TODs. Residents of three
corridors has been balanced jobs and
residential complexes at the Crystal
housing growth. Balanced growth
City Metrorail Station used transit for
ensures economic vitality and, as shown
48.5% to 62.2% of all trips. Also, 80%
later, allows for efficient two-way travel
flows. In 2003, there were 1.06 jobs for to 90% of trips to Washington, D.C.,
every employed resident in the County.10 were by transit.11
Having both housing and jobs easily Mixed land uses and pedestrian-friendly
accessible by transit translates into higher designs can influence how users access
ridership levels, as reviewed in Chapter stations. Only one station in the County—
6. In 2000, 40% of the county’s housing East Falls Church Station—has parking.
units and 65% of jobs were within At others, most customers are expected
Metrorail station areas. Figure 12.3 to arrive by foot or bus transit, helped
reveals the commute patterns of along by a network of pedestrian ways.
Arlington County residents and As shown in Figure 12.4, 64%
employees in 2000. Almost one-third of transit patrons walked to and from
of employed residents worked in the the Ballston Station in 2001. Fewer
County, and 36% commuted to than one in five arrived by private
Washington, D.C., the epicenter of the automobile; many of these patrons
region’s vast transit network. Arlington were dropped off.
241

Retail at Metro: The Arlington Experience

In Arlington County, the Rosslyn-Ballston categories of furniture and home
transit corridor offers an example of a furnishings, food stores, and hardware. In
highly developed retail market with a addition, even though the corridor had a
distinct transit orientation. Roughly half of diversified retail base, in terms of total
the County’s 5.2 million square feet of dollars, over half of the retail sales in the
retail space is located within this transit transit corridor were occurring at used-
corridor. automobile lots and auto repair stores.
Moreover, the success of the larger-scale
retailers along the corridor depended on
traditional retail factors, such as freeway
access and on-site parking, while many of
the restaurants struggled to expand their
business beyond the daytime patronage
from nearby office buildings. In short,
while the Rosslyn-Ballston transit corridor
had achieved a retail base, the study
identified numerous opportunities to
Rosslyn-to-Ballston Corridor further improve the vitality of the retail
mix.
Stores near the corridor’s seven transit
stations range from major home furnishing
and apparel retailers to grocery stores. The
transit corridor also provides a wide array
of local-serving retail and services,
including 251 restaurants (60% of the
county total), 79 specialty retailers (71% of
total), 63 beauty/barber shops (50% of
total), and 43 banks (56% of total).
Although the mix of stores and services
varies among the seven station areas, Market Common at Clarendon
transit riders in the County truly enjoy one
of the broadest sets of shopping options in A new mixed-use project, Market Common
the United States.12 at Clarendon, exemplifies a retail concept
that successfully integrates pedestrian-
Despite these positive trends, a 1999 study friendly, transit-oriented design with
analyzing retail sales and leakage patterns automotive access for regional customers.
found that Arlington County (including the Opened in 2001, the first phase of Market
Rosslyn-Ballston transit corridor) was Common has 300 apartments, 78
losing potential sales to neighboring cities townhouses, 234,000 square feet of retail
and towns and that additional retail space, and 100,000 square feet of office
development could be supported.13 space, all located within easy walking
Arlington County’s “leakages” were distance of two Metrorail stations.
particularly evident in the retail
Text Box 12.2

242

Retail at Metro: The Arlington Experience

The project, fully leased at opening, contemporary retailing within a mixed-use,
features lifestyle and specialty retailers transit-oriented design, recent analysis by
such as Pottery Barn, Barnes & Noble, the County’s Economic Development
Williams Sonoma, and Crate & Barrel, Agency suggests that the previously
along with “uptown” eateries like identified sales leakage in the home
Bertucci’s and Ben & Jerry’s. A 1,200- furnishings and hardware categories has
space parking garage supports the project. not dramatically improved.14 Their finding
Market Common II, currently under suggests that while Arlington County has
construction across the street from Market expanded its retail base near transit,
Common, will add 64,000 square feet of additional opportunities remain.
retail space, including 22,000 square feet of Challenges to achieving full retail potential
front stores and restaurants, plus 150 include redeveloping used-automobile lots
surface parking spaces. Market Common and automotive parts stores along
II will feature Ann Taylor and Orvis Clarendon Boulevard, which contribute
Company, among other big-name tenants. substantial dollars to the retail base, but do
Retail in this new phase is already fully not contribute to a reduction in automobile
leased, and the developer expects that orientation. In addition, the County must
residential units included in this phase will continue to encourage innovative
be highly marketable due to the urban, development projects that maximize the
street-oriented ambience of the project. benefits of a transit location while
balancing the reality of customers living in
While the Market Commons project nearby residential areas who travel by
demonstrates a refined blend of automobile to shopping destinations.
40%
Regional Population
35%
30% Arlington County Metro

Growth Rate
Corridors Housing
Development
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1970– 1975– 1980– 1985– 1990– 1995–
1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Figure 12.1. Arlington Housing Development and Regional Population

Growth Rates. Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Round 6.2 Cooperative
Forecasts (Arlington County Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development).
243

50%
Growth Rate 45%

Regional Employment
40%
35% Arlington County Metro Corridors

Office Space
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1970- 1975- 1980- 1985- 1990- 1995-
1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999
Figure 12.2. Arlington Office Space and Regional Employment Growth Rates.
Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Round 6.2 Cooperative Forecasts (Arlington County
Department of Community Planning, Housing, and Development).
As revealed by the ridership model In 2002, the five Arlington stations that
presented in Chapter 8, an outcome of were most active were Rosslyn, Pentagon,
concentrated growth along Metrorail Crystal City, Pentagon City, and Ballston,
corridors has been higher patronage in that order (see Table 12.4). Retail,
levels. Metrorail ridership in Arlington office and residential development at
has risen by over one-third—an Pentagon City gave rise to more than a
additional 22,000 daily trips, since three-fold increase in boardings since
operations commenced in 1980. 1980. Other stations that attracted mid-
Arlington County Residents Arlington County Employees

Figure 12.3. Arlington County Commuting Patterns. The left panel shows
commuting patterns of the County’s employed residents. The right panel shows patterns
for those working in the County. Source: Arlington County Department of Community Planning, Housing,
and Development; Arlington County Profile, 2003; U.S. Census 2000.
244

Table 12.3. Arlington Commute Other

Mode Splits, 2000 2%
Other Bus and
Commute Outside Vanpool No Response
2% 1%
Mode Metro Metro
(2000) County Corridor Corridor Metrobus
Drive Alone 54.9% 40.5% 60.9% 14%
Carpool 11.5% 7.3% 13.2%
Transit 23.3% 39.3% 16.7%
Walk/Bike 6.3% 10.5% 4.6% Automobile
At Home 3.4% 2.3% 3.8% 17%
Walk
Other 0.6% 0.1% 0.8%
64%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
Figure 12.4. Ballston Metrorail

Station Mode of Access and Egress,
rise, mixed-use development, notably 2001. Source: Arlington County Department of
Court House and Crystal City, also Community Planning, Housing and Development.
experienced appreciable ridership gains.
As confirmed by time-of-day statistics, a hours than other jurisdictions, with the

benefit of balanced development has exception of Washington, D.C. Mixed
been balanced ridership. Figure 12.5 land uses along the Rosslyn-Ballston
shows that Arlington County averaged and Jefferson Davis Metrorail corridors
higher shares of transit boardings and produced relatively high shares of
alightings at its stations in off-peak midday, evening, and weekend transit
Table 12.4. Metro Ridership in Arlington: Weekday Boardings, 1977–2002

Weekday Boarding Ridership Growth
th,
1980–2002
1980/2002
Nov Nov.
Station 771977 19801980 1990
1990 20002000 2002 2002 Total
Total Percent
Percent
Rosslyn 11,167 12,752 13,565 14,672 14,816 2,064 16.2%

Arlington Cemetery 140 362 1,102 1,759 1,825 1,463 404.1%
Pentagon 10,558 16,123 20,687 15,548 14,136 -1,987 -12.3%
Pentagon City 1,312 3,586 6,650 11,058 12,805 9,219 257.1%
Crystal City 3,912 8,204 13,349 12,108 12,908 4,704 57.3%
National Airport 2,479 5,605 5,657 5,039 4,784 -821 -14.6%
Court House - 2,825 5,310 7,079 6,695 3,870 137.0%
Clarendon - 1,899 3,078 2,752 2,935 1,036 54.6%
Virginia Square- - 1,728 2,312 2,334 2,623 895 51.8%
GMU
Ballston - 9,352 9,531 10,450 11,214 1,862 19.9%
TOTAL 29,568 62,436 81,241 82,799 84,741 22,305 35.7%
Source ñ WMATA Ridership Counts
Source: WMATA database, 1977– 2002.
245

90%
Percentage of Average Daily 80%
70%
60%
50% Peak Period
40% Off Peak
30%
Ridership
20%
10%
0%
Fairfax Prince Montgomery City of Arlington District of
County George’s County Alexandria County Columbia
County
Washington, D.C. Metro Areas
Figure 12.5. Percentage of Average Daily Ridership by Peak versus Off Peak
and Locale, 2001. Source: WMATA, 2002 Passenger Survey Final Report.
trips. Figure 12.6 further shows that demand means Metrorail trains are used
numbers of station entries and exits in efficiently, an important benefit of
Arlington County were nearly equal mixed-use TODs along linear corridors.
during peak and off-peak hours. During
the morning rush hours, many of the Another important travel-demand impact
County’s Metrorail stations are both trip of TOD has been to keep traffic volumes
origins and destinations. The absence of on major arteries more or less in check.
a unidirectional, tidal flow of transit Table 12.5 shows that this has been more
35
Thousands of Passengers
30
25
Entries
20 Exits
15
10
5
0
AM Peak AM Off PM Peak PM Off
Time Period
Figure 12.6. Arlington County Metrorail Stations, Entries and Exits by Time Period.
Source: Arlington County Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development.
246

Table 12.5. Trends in Average Daily main route past the Court House TOD is
Traffic Volumes on Main Arterials a one-way couplet, which is a taboo in
Near Ballston and Clarendon Stations the minds of New Urbanists. Also, the
Ballston Clarendon Court House Station’s attractive
Wilson Blvd Clarendon Blvd pedestrian corridors are internal to the
Year East of Glebe Rd East of Danville St
TOD, robbing roadways of an active
street life. Efforts are underway to
1982 21,935 ---- change this through a combination of
1984 20,354 ---- traffic-calming, context-sensitive road
1986 21,178 3,835 designs, and sidewalk improvements.
1988 21,183 3,089
1990 25,087 12,037 Factors Behind Arlington’s Success
1992 21,179 13,286
1994 23,173 13,293 Arlington County is an extraordinary
1996 23,064 13,793 success story, a high watermark in
1998 23,149 13,997
America’s relatively recent foray into
2000 22,350 14,790
TOD. Why did it work in Arlington
Source: Arlington County Public Works. when other jurisdictions have tried and
failed? Several key factors are listed
below:
or less accomplished on Wilson
Boulevard serving the Ballston area,
where average daily traffic (ADT) has • Textbook planning: Good
hovered in the 22,000 to 23,000 vehicle planning—specific station-area
range during much of the past two plans, density bonuses, as-of-right
decades. Massive development during zoning overlays, and supportive
the late 1980s generated a surge in infrastructure investments—played
traffic; however, ADT on Clarendon an important role in achieving a
Boulevard has generally stabilized since transit-supportive built form.
the early 1990s. Good-quality transit Arlington County planners helped
combined with market-rate parking write the book on American-style
prices and traffic management has TOD and have over the years
prevented the kinds of traffic woes often released new editions that reflect
associated with TOD from materializing plan amendments, greater attention
in settings like Ballston. to the needs of pedestrians, and a
stronger accent on public amenities.
Not everyone is happy with how roads • A receptive population: Since its
have evolved near Arlington County’s development as a bedroom suburb
Metrorail stations. Chris Zimmerman, a of Washington, D.C., in the New
member of the County Board as well as Deal, Arlington County has
the WMATA Board, recently remarked, attracted a progressive citizenry,
“We got the land use ahead of the (at least by Virginia standards).
transportation.” Many of the County’s Federal executives and those
main roads serving station areas are working at nonprofits and
more accommodating of high-speed international organizations that
through traffic than pedestrians. The struggle with big-world problems
247

populate the County and are • Politics of collaboration: Arlington’s

inclined toward good planning board members are elected at-large,
and good governance. It is no on staggered terms and for long
fluke that the fight against periods of time have been from the
resistance to school integration same party, Democrat. Moreover, the
in the 1950s in Virginia began County Manager is appointed by the
in Arlington. Board, rather than elected, so there is
• Location, location, location: not the usual tension that exists
Lying just across the river from between legislative and executive
Washington, D.C., and providing officials at the local level. Without
the opportunity to build tall the usual politics of confrontation, it
buildings with better views of the has been possible to put forward big-
Capitol’s landmarks than were picture plans like TOD and stick
available in the city, Arlington was with them over the years. Since all
directly in the path of growth. As members serve at-large, they feel
well-educated families flocked to less pressure to respond to particular
Arlington and beyond, it became an constituent complaints and demands.
attractive business location as well, NIMBY gripes about spot traffic
with cheaper office space, more congestion tend to get less political
parking, and an easy commute to airplay as a result.
the District. • A manageable size: The County’s
• A deteriorating corridor: Wilson physical size, approximately 26
Boulevard was one of the early
square miles, makes it possible for
access routes to Washington and,
planners, officials, and citizens to
like other early highway corridors,
have a good grasp of the territory,
was starting to show its age by the
even in areas beyond their immediate
1970s, with automobile dealers and
neighborhood. That has made it
services, cheap motels, and dated
stores. County planners realized possible to communicate the TOD
that the corridor was ripe for vision to most in the community,
redevelopment; otherwise, it would who can regularly visit and
have been a suburban slum. The patronize many of the new
coming of Metro provided an developments.
unprecedented opportunity for • Good timing: Fortuitous
revitalization. circumstances also had a hand in
• Tax base potential: The upside of Arlington County’s successes. One
revitalizing the corridor was the was the decision to extend the
potential to expand the County’s Orange Line from its terminus at
commercial tax base to fund schools Ballston to Vienna. Before the
and other services desired by extension, the Ballston Station, like
residents. Turning vacant, underused most rail terminuses, was surrounded
and financially underachieving by a sea of parking and bus staging
properties into prime real estate lined zones. When these functions moved
the County’s coffers and made it the to the new terminus, large swaths of
envy of Northern Virginia real estate became available to
jurisdictions. support large-scale projects.
248

Arlington County is not just a story of detailed consideration in the formal

the past. More TOD possibilities lie Alternatives Analysis phase, the
ahead. There are 14 million square feet Council of the District of Columbia
of commercial space and 22,285 housing requested fiscal impact projections
units that can be built before the associated with future development in
Metrorail corridors reach their each corridor.
development capacity.15 Arlington
County’s commitment to TOD will The economic development analysis
allow the county to sustain growth for contributed to rerouting some of the
another 30 years to come. corridors to enhance their potential
economic spin-off. One route, initially
Transit and Economic Development in proposed to run east-west via Florida
Washington, D.C. Avenue and Benning Road, NE, was
re-routed to use the H Street, NE,
WMATA and the District of Columbia corridor, reinforcing the District’s
have recently joined forces to tie ongoing focus on revitalization of this
Metrorail investments to economic historic business district. Other high-
development objectives. In a recent priority corridors emphasized
evaluation of nine potential transit connections across the Anacostia
corridors in the District, consideration River, linking neighborhoods east of
was given to total ridership, mobility the river with the economic engines of
of transit-dependent residents, downtown Washington and the
“constructability,” connectivity to the expanding waterfront business center
existing Metrorail system, construction near the Navy Yard. Table 12.6 lists
costs, and traffic impacts. More TOD projects already constructed or
unusual was the inclusion of economic under construction in the Washington,
development criteria for transit corridor D.C., area. Activity has become so
evaluation. Explicit weighting was brisk that the District has hired a TOD
given to supporting the city’s economic planner to work full time in helping to
development and neighborhood shepherd these and other projects
revitalization goals. forward.
Stanmore Associates and Bay Area Columbia Heights Redevelopment

Economics inventoried and mapped
the District’s ongoing economic The opening of the Metro’s Green Line
development and revitalization efforts has led to significant new private and
to identify linkages and potential public investment. The last portion of
economic benefits of alternative transit the Metrorail system to be built in
corridors. The evaluation gave priority Washington, D.C. linked several low-
to transit corridors that would bring income neighborhoods to the downtown
private investment to some of the city’s and other employment concentrations.
economically depressed neighborhoods. The improved accessibility has greatly
Within each station area, development increased the demand for middle-income
potentials were identified and growth housing in neighborhoods such as Shaw,
projected. To assist in its selection of Columbia Heights, U Street, and
high-priority corridors for more Petworth. These historic neighborhoods
249

Table 12.6. TOD Projects in have been largely bypassed by private

Washington, D.C., 2003 investors for decades. Now, traffic
Project Total Size Use(s) gridlock, shifting demographics toward
(square feet) more childless households, and growing
Department of 1.4 million Office interest in urban living have increased
Transportation the demand for housing in rail-
Headquarters accessible, in-city neighborhoods.
Station Place— 1.2 million Office
Security and (when
Exchange complete) District of Columbia leaders place a high
Headquarters priority on neighborhood revitalization,
Southwest 2.5 million Majority building the Reeves Municipal Center at
Waterfront office, 400 14th and U Streets, NW, investing in
residential
affordable-housing developments,
units, &
100,000 sq. assembling development sites, and
ft retail upgrading the public infrastructure.
GSA Federal 422,000 Office, Columbia Heights has emerged as one
Building some retail of Washington’s up-and-coming
DC USA 500,000 Retail neighborhoods, with extensive private
Gallery Place 1.1 million Mixed use,
nearly renovation of historic rowhouses as well
equal parts as new retail and entertainment venues
office, to the south along U Street, NW.
retail, &
residential
The 14th Street corridor that defines the
(192 units)
Jefferson at Penn 616,000 Residential neighborhood is attracting new retail
Quarter (428 investment in response to population
downtown growth. After languishing for more than
units), retail a quarter century, the historic Tivoli
& new
Theater is being redeveloped for retail
theater
Columbia 183,500 and Residential uses, live theater, and office space with
Heights 224,000 with retail a new adjoining supermarket and
Station/Columbia (respectively) (203 units townhouses.
Heights Plaza & 206
units)—
20% of
A $140-million retail development, DC
units are USA, proposed for development in
affordable Columbia Heights, will include a Target
Ellington Plaza 178,000 Residential department store, a movie theater, big-
(186 units) box and small retail, restaurants, and a
& retail
(15,000 sq.
major public parking garage. The
ft) 540,000-square-foot project is dependent
New Convention 2.3 million Hospitality on a proposed $50-million funding
Center and retail package from the District government.
Source: D.C. Office of Planning. The D.C. Marketing Center reports that
152 housing units have been recently
completed, with construction or
renovation of 511 housing units
currently underway and development
250

of another 572 units pending in the retail are planned for the other. The
Columbia Heights Station area. District’s Council member for the
U Street area, Jim Graham, recently
U Street TOD reflected on the economic development
potential of these developments:
One of the strongest markets for
residential development and the If everything that’s planned happens,
cornerstone of the District’s economic we’re talking about 600 to 700 new
development plan is the U Street residences. And all those people will
Corridor. Serving the area is the U want pet shops and hardware stores
Street/African-American Civil War and other retail opportunities, which
Memorial/Cardozo Station. The area is will really mean the economic
diversification of 14th and U.16
best known for its many traditional jazz
venues and is also becoming popular
for its culinary offerings, with Montgomery County, Maryland’s
restaurants offering cuisines from all Mature Business Districts
corners of the globe. Among the “20-
something” crowd, U Street is an “in” Bethesda and Silver Spring, in suburban
place to live. Montgomery County, are both first-ring,
inner-Beltway communities with mature
Since 2000, some 275 condominium downtowns. Both have enjoyed a
and detached single-family units have significant amount of retail and office
been built within a 1⁄4 mile of the U development since Metrorail’s opening
Street Station. Currently, four projects (see Text Box 12.3).
with over 500 multifamily residential
units are in various stages of The Bethesda TOD: An Exemplar
construction. Most eyes are on the
Ellington Plaza mixed-use project, Bethesda is the more affluent of the
whose namesake is the neighborhood’s two suburbs, with some of the County’s
favorite son, the jazz legend, Duke highest property values and incomes.
Ellington. Slated for completion in Extending north from Georgetown,
early 2004, Ellington Plaza will include Wisconsin Avenue runs through the
186 residential units and nearly 15,000 heart of Bethesda. The Metrorail station
square feet of retail space. is on Wisconsin Avenue at the East-
West Highway, Bethesda’s 100-percent
WMATA owns two parcels near the corner. Immediately to the north are the
U Street Station and through the RFP National Institutes of Health campus and
process has entertained development the Naval Medical Center.
proposals for both. Current plans call for
continued housing development, with In 1970, as preparation began for the
some ground-floor retail, on both sites. arrival of Metrorail, the County amended
One project will transform existing its master plan by reducing the size of
vacant lots and a dilapidated building the CBD boundaries to concentrate
into luxury lofts, office space, and development. The plan also established a
contemporary retail. Condominiums commercial transition zone to provide a
with some 6,500 feet of ground-floor buffer between the core and residential
251

Bethesda Row:
Mixed Use TOD
Federal Realty Investment Trust

Bethesda Row, Bethesda, Maryland. Source: Urban Land Institute.
An exemplary model of the benefits of private-public collaboration is the Bethesda Row

project in Bethesda’s CBD. Bethesda Row is a large-scale, mixed-use redevelopment project
on a site that covers seven contiguous city blocks and encompasses 13.5 acres of land.
Currently, three of the four phases of the project have been completed, featuring 110,000
square feet of office space, 190,000 square feet of retail space, and 40,000 square feet of
restaurants. The final phase will include art facilities, a movie theater, and possibly a
residential component. The site is transit accessible, located within walking distance of the
Bethesda Metrorail station. It is also pedestrian-/bike-oriented, as it is adjacent to the Capital
Crescent Trail, a bike and pedestrian path.
Bethesda Row’s developers, Federal Realty Investment Trust, funded the project through REIT
financing and by phasing the project to both decrease development risks and create enough
cash flow to cover future development costs. Montgomery County provided a significant
funding source for the project by constructing a parking garage in the middle of the site using
parking district funds.
The developers worked with county planners to ensure that the project complied with the city’s
downtown master plan, and the parties negotiated streetscaping designs as well as what the
project’s assumed traffic impacts would be. The developers also met with members of the
community to address some citizens’ concerns regarding the effect of national retailers on local
businesses. The developers attracted a mix of local, regional, and national retailers to the
project in order to resolve the issue.
The project has been a commercial and community success thus far. Office occupancy rate is
currently at 99%, with annual rents running between $20 and $35 per square foot. The retail
component includes 53 stores with average annual sales at approximately $400 per square foot.
The central location and diverse entertainment and restaurant facilities attract office workers
and residents from nearby neighborhoods as well as from surrounding communities.
Text Box 12.3

252

neighborhoods. Bethesda’s CBD sector surrounding neighborhoods encompass a

plan was amended in 1982 to ensure that wide range of incomes, and the
the projects approved within the city’s community benefits from a rich diversity
core maintained a high-quality design of residents and employees.
and complied with the community goals,
including transit-oriented, compact In Silver Spring, as well as Bethesda,
development. The amended plan office development led the initial private
established public-facilities and design investment response to Metrorail’s
standards for the approval of new presence. Several major office buildings
projects within the CBD. The plan also were developed in both downtowns.
provided developers with the option Silver Spring attracted the National
of choosing an “optional-method” Oceanic and Atmospheric
development. These projects are judged Administration. Due to its more
based on a “beauty contest” in which favorable demographics, Bethesda
planners evaluate the site plan and the developed a thriving restaurant district,
proposed provision of public amenities. attracting diners from around the region.
These standards ensure that the city’s Both downtowns benefited from the
planning board has more control over the heightened interest in living near
design and the public resource capacity Metrorail, with increased demand and
available to accommodate new projects housing prices. Apartment buildings
within the CBD. near the Metrorail charge premium rents,
and close-in neighborhoods enjoy high
Public-private partnerships have also occupancies.
enabled the city to meet its planning and
transportation goals. In the late 1980s, For the first 15 years of Metrorail
the county enacted legislation service, Silver Spring’s office market
authorizing the creation of an urban flourished while the retail market
district in Bethesda in which properties faltered. The community experienced
are levied a special tax to pay for public several false starts as developers
services within the district. In the early attempted to bring major new retail to
1990s, the Bethesda Urban Public/ the downtown. In 1992, redevelopment
Private Partnership was created to of the former Hecht’s department store
control the distribution of the revenues into the City Place off-price retail
collected in the district. development brought new movie
theaters and retailers to the core, but the
Silver Spring’s Emerging TOD project was not large enough on its own
to stem the retail exodus. Montgomery
The Silver Spring Metrorail station, County planners responded. They
originally a terminus, was sited assembled and cleared large tracts of
somewhat outside of the existing land for redevelopment of Silver
downtown because of a decision to use Spring’s core. When Discovery
the existing railroad right-of-way west of Communications decided to consolidate
the core. Downtown Silver Spring was a its Bethesda offices into a single
thriving business district in the 1950s structure, major County incentives drew
and 1960s but later declined in the face the company to the Silver Spring
of suburban mall competition. The Metrorail station (see Photo 12.1).
253

a new civic building and public plaza, a

residential complex, a hotel, and a sports
club. This downtown development, three
blocks from the Metrorail station, is the
culmination of years of revitalization
efforts by the County as well as private
investments. While the development is
not physically tied to the transit station,
the close-in neighborhoods and the
business district’s office projects have all
benefited from Metrorail service,
creating the critical mass of both daytime
and nighttime populations essential to
Photo 12.1. Discovery Communications successful retailing.
Headquarters, Downtown Silver Spring,
MD. Rail to Dulles
The latest planned addition to the system

The move from upscale Bethesda to is an extension to Dulles Airport,
long-struggling Silver Spring did not go through Fairfax and Loudoun counties.
unnoticed by the region’s development This is Northern Virginia’s technology
community. Suddenly, Silver Spring corridor, one of the nation’s fastest-
became a hot spot. Renovation of the growing and most prestigious business
historic Silver Theatre attracted the addresses. Extending rail to Dulles has
American Film Institute and been envisioned since the airport was
Roundhouse Theater, providing a new built in the 1960s, thus right-of-way was
generator of pedestrian activity. More preserved in the median strip of the
than 20 years following the Metrorail Dulles Access Road. Airport officials
opening, the Peterson Companies and felt that implementing the original plan
Foulger-Pratt have entered into an would be a cinch, with right-of-way in
agreement with Montgomery County place and relatively low construction
for the “Downtown Silver Spring” costs. However, the price of the project
development. The first phase of this ballooned when consideration was given
mega-project includes a new Whole to intermediate station stops to serve
Foods market; Strosnider’s Hardware; localities as well as the cost of direct
and several small restaurant, retail, and access to the terminal itself. Once the
service operations. The second phase, cost hit $4 billion, the localities, the
currently under construction, will bring FTA, and even some of the sponsors
several new restaurants, a state-of-the-art blinked. Various combinations of
20-screen Majestic Theater, Border’s stations, bus rapid transit, and light-rail
Books and Music, Pier 1, other specialty technology have all been considered to
retailers, new parking garages, and a new keep the project within a reasonable
office tower to downtown Silver Spring. budget. Service to Tyson’s Corner, the
The retail space is all oriented to the region’s most successful commercial
street, emphasizing pedestrian access. district, and, in retrospect, a major
The first two phases will be followed by omission in the original subway plan,
254

was central to the deal. However, County approved Moorefield Station

Tyson’s spread-out form meant that it TOD with 9.75 million square feet of
could require four to six stations, adding commercial space and 6,000 housing
significant expense to the construction units in late 2002.
cost and delay to airport passengers (see
Photo 12.2). Terminating at Tyson’s An application for Preliminary
would invoke the wrath of the Federal Engineering funds is pending with the
Aviation Administration, which would FTA. It is expected that federal funds
probably deny access to the Dulles would cover half the costs, with
Access Road. Bypassing Tyson’s would landowners and the state sharing the
save money, but would lose needed remainder. The financing plan for the
ridership, political support, and forgo the project, however, unraveled in late 2003
opportunity to make the region’s premier when the Herndon Town Council, one of
edge city more oriented to transit. the affected municipalities, vetoed a
single tax district for the Dulles corridor
A proposal adopted in August 2003 calls that was to have provided Fairfax’s
for a downsized 11-mile extension from portion of the funding. Property owners
the West Falls Church Station to the in Reston, which is not incorporated, and
Reston area, a $1.5-billion first phase of Herndon feared that they could pay taxes
an eventual 23-mile route to Dulles and for a project that might never reach that
beyond. The first phase would have far west because the federal government
four stations in Tyson’s Corner. might opt to withhold funding. This
Some 15 million square feet of new financing plan is in part due to the defeat
development is expected around these of a transportation tax in the 2002
stations, about half of it residential. elections that would have generated
Fairfax County approved a Tyson’s II significant revenues for the Dulles rail
TOD for 6 million square feet of mixed- project. While the media and some
use in June 2003 and a high-density Virginia leaders claim the project is
residential project in Tyson’s with 1,540 dead, Herndon officials themselves have
dwelling units in early 2004. Loudoun been open to working with the Fairfax
County, and advocates still believe local
concerns can be addressed in time to get
the project back on track for federal
funding.
The painful process of retrofitting transit

into an unabashedly automobile-
dependent edge city will be an uphill
struggle and is a reminder of the
importance of bringing transit in at the
early stages of growth, as was the case in
Arlington County. (See Text Box 12.4.)
Some hope that one day some of the
Photo 12.2. Proposed Rail Station Site region’s outer-ring edge cities can take
at Tyson’s Corner. Source: Dulles Corner on the appearance and ambience of
Rapid Transit Project. Bethesda and Ballston.
255

The Design Challenges of TOD

While transit-oriented residences have become hot commodities in and around the nation’s
capital, they often pose special design challenges. Architect-designers with Dorksy
Hodgson + Partners, a national architecture and planning firm with extensive experience in
the Washington area, recently outlined these challenges in an article in the spring 2003
issue of Multifamily Trends, a publication of the Urban Land Institute.
➢ Each project is unique. A Metrorail station’s location in relation to residential

development, current vehicular and pedestrian flows, topographic conditions, and
neighborhood character must all be given careful thought when a project is
considered. TODs are not cookie-cutter projects!
➢ TOD on constrained sites. The 11-story Jefferson apartment tower with 14,000
square feet of ground-floor retail is nearing completion one block from the
Clarendon Metrorail station in Arlington. Three roadways define the triangular-
shaped site, presenting a unique mixed-use design challenge. Key site design issues
were placement of the front door, garage, service entries, and main retail spaces. A
constraint was transformed into an asset by incorporating “place-making”
architectural features at the three corners of the site, including roof structure design
elements, accent lighting, and a public plaza with a clock tower at one corner.
While being near transit is one of Jefferson’s draws, some visual and functional
separation is necessary to ensure residents’ privacy. Accordingly, an entrance and
lobby separate from street-level retail were built, and the project’s interior features
amenities reserved for residents, including an outdoor pool and health club.
Constrained Site of the Jefferson

Parcel, Near the Clarendon Metrorail
Station. Three major roadways —
Washington Boulevard, Tenth Street,
and Highland Street — converged to
form a difficult site for a TOD. Smart
design treatments allowed a mid-rise
transit-oriented apartment to take form.
➢ TOD density through design—thereby, heading off NIMBY backlash. NIMBY has
formed impediments to TOD even in metropolitan Washington. What works best
there, as perhaps everywhere, is a proactive approach: identifying key leaders early
in the process, arranging community meetings, and reassuring everyone that a
structure will visually enhance the existing neighborhood. For the 18-story Twin
Oak residential tower near the Rosslyn Station, a highly articulated, stepped
structure was designed to minimize the project’s visual impact on an adjacent high-
rise condominium; this design helped to gain the community’s approval for the
project. Twin Oak also kept land open by undergrounding parking for 350 cars,
providing generous landscaping, designing an open plaza, and adding ground-floor
retail uses that serve the entire neighborhood. One TOD developer from the area
has remarked: “For a residential transit-oriented project to succeed, it must be
attractive, look substantial, and be appropriately scaled, with plenty of curb
appeal—while keeping everything within budget.”
Text Box 12.4

The Design Challenges of TOD

➢ Mixed retail and residential design challenges. Many residential transit-oriented
projects in the Washington area aim to create a 24/7 urban lifestyle and use street-
oriented retail to energize a project’s pedestrian life while at the same time tapping
into foot traffic to and from Metrorail stations. However, significant design
challenges are often encountered. For instance, ground-floor retail needs greater
floor-to-floor height (typically 15 to 18 feet) to be marketable, compared with the
8 to 10 feet between residential floors. That means the entire ground floor,
including multifamily areas, must have higher ceilings, which increases project
costs. Ground-floor restaurants pose problems such as where to put the exhaust
shafts for kitchens. The exact size and location of restaurant space may not be
known until leases are signed. Designers must thus allow exhaust shafts to be put
in several potential locations, which can reduce net leasable space. Mixed-use
designs can be further complicated by the need to accommodate the existing
transit station’s surface automobile and bus lanes, subgrade transit lines, and
pedestrian walkways while addressing each site’s geographic challenges and
setback requirements.
➢ The parking conundrum. Parking can be a particular headache with mixed-use

TODs. Designing a garage to accommodate the diverse parking needs of retail
shoppers, office employees, and building residents can eclipse all other design
challenges in complexity. While many workers and shoppers will take Metrorail,
daytime parking spaces are still needed for others, with easy pedestrian and
elevator access to the building. For residents, parking security is a huge concern.
A garage might therefore require separate entrances for residents and shoppers.
The Residences at Rosedale Park near the Bethesda Metrorail station required a
unique solution. The project design includes six- and eight-story buildings on
opposite sides of the street. The site configuration allows for only one entry ramp
for a garage and service area for both buildings, mandating a common three-level,
300-atuomobile, underground garage that spans the below-street space between
the two buildings.
Source: S. Silverman, “Designing the Urban Future,” Multifamily Trends (Spring 2003):
30–35, 54.
TODs and Real-Estate and around Metrorail stations to sell and

Market Performance lease for a premium. Empirical evidence
bears this out.
Given that the Washington (D.C.)
Metropolitan Area enjoys one of the Even before Metrorail services
nation’s best modern-day rail networks commenced, research had demonstrated
and transit/land-use connections and that developers and speculators were
given its relatively healthy economic bidding up land prices around stations in
standing, one would expect real estate in anticipation of downstream profits.
257

Using hedonic price models, researchers convenient and walkable. They want
from the Wharton School at the proximity to Metro, whether or not
University of Pennsylvania found a they commute to work.21
significant price elasticity of –0.69 for
commercial-retail properties within Because of its demographics of young
2,500 feet of Metrorail stations one year professionals and couples with no
before the system opened (i.e., sales dependents, Washington, D.C., has one
prices per square foot for retail parcels of the strongest urban apartment markets
fell by 7% for every 10% increase in the in the nation. According to Gregory
distance to a station portal).17 A 1983 Leisch, chief executive of Delta
article in American Demographic Associations, a real-estate market
chronicled Metrorail’s land-market research company based in Alexandria,
benefits in the early years. Between 1979
Apartments located close to Metro
and 1982, 77% of mixed-use projects,
transit lines are in high demand and
54% of hotel rooms, and 58% of total command higher rents than those in
office space were built in Metrorail suburban locations. Traditionally,
station areas, most on sites that apartments have served as an entry
commanded healthy rent premiums.18 for younger people, but now the
Articles from the real-estate sections of market is also fueled by baby
the Washingtonian and the Washington boomers seeking close-in locations.
Post from the early 1980s had banner Affluent empty nesters also see
headlines that proclaimed, respectively, rental housing in the city as an
“houses and condos near future Metro attractive lifestyle alternative.22
stations can be gold mines” and “value
Public policies have also made building
of land around Metro leaps dramatically
housing near Metrorail stops attractive to
in 5 years.”19 By one account, during its
the development community. Most
first 5 years, Metrorail had “increased
counties in the region have reduced their
the value of downtown commercial land
parking requirements from the traditional
in the District of Columbia by at least $1.6
1.6 cars per unit to just over one space
billion and the value of land in Northern
per unit for residential projects within
Virginia by at least $81 million.”20 1
⁄4 mile or so of a rail station. The
resulting reduction in cost increases
Fast-forward 20 years and pretty much the
the project’s bottom-line returns.
same story is being told. Jonathan Cox,
vice president of the Holladay
Given the Washington area’s rosy
Corporation that built the Hartford
demographic and economic outlook,
Condominium project a block from
demand for transit-oriented living,
the Clarendon Metrorail station says,
offices, and retail shops will likely
remain solid for decades to come.
Everyone in the Washington area
realizes the value of Metro . . . The
Worsening traffic congestion—the
Hartford’s boutique condominium region ranked the nation’s second most
was sold out last April—early in the congested in 2003 in terms of share of
construction process. Our buyers daily travel in “rush hour” conditions—
value living in an urban area where will only increase the demand to be
restaurants and shopping are around Metrorail stations in years to
258

come.23 In the words of one Washington- continue to struggle with attracting the
area developer interviewed for this right mix or, in some cases, any new
study, “Today’s smart money is around development. Greater public
Metrorail stops.” involvement and concessions are needed
to make such projects work, with or
Conclusions and Lessons without transit. In the case of the District
of Columbia, the upscale projects in hot
Because Washington’s Metrorail was neighborhoods are desired in more
intended to influence regional working-class communities. Even in
development patterns, it offers some generally prosperous Montgomery
lessons on building TODs from the County, Bethesda prospers with a
ground up. While TOD in the region is relatively light hand on the planning
of a scale and scope that is much grander tiller, while Silver Spring requires hefty
than elsewhere in the United States, public subsidies to help overcome the
when stripped to the basics, the lessons ills of an inner-ring suburb.
that the Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan
Area has to offer are transferable to Retailing follows rooftops, even in a
other places. One important lesson is transit-intense setting. While it is often an
that planning cannot start too early. attractive component of a TOD,
WMATA’s joint development program it must pencil out to retailers and
began before Metrorail service opened. developers more interested in the amount
Two entities, Montgomery and and mix of housing nearby than the
Arlington Counties, embraced the transit transit connections. Most developers
project as part of their long-range future insist that retail spending far exceed that
and continued to refine their planning delivered through a transit connection
and implementation strategies to create alone. Encouraging housing along a
transit-oriented communities around transit corridor helps support additional
major rail stops. Citizens became retail, regardless of how the shoppers get
reliable supporters, elected officials got there. There are, however, special
on board, and developers worked opportunities in which excellent transit
earnestly to implement the policies. This access reinforces a superior trade area, as
early understanding of the role of transit in the case of Pentagon City, a regional
made it possible to adjust the location of mall that is able to tap into a strong
routes and stations and justified the high market of shoppers and also get more
costs borne in return for a highly than one-third of its business from
functional transit/land-use nexus. Metrorail.
The market is also crucial. In the cases Increasingly, WMATA is viewing

of Arlington and Montgomery Counties parking as good interim use. Some of the
and the District of Columbia, Metrorail best development opportunities around
was built through many locations that transit are on parking lots originally built
were attractive for residential and for commuters. The impediment is that
commercial growth, making them while in the eyes of the planners this
desirable for high-density development is an interim use, in the eyes of the
even without subway services. Other commuters and the transit agencies, it is
locations, lacking such market appeal, essential and must be replaced. A staged
259

plan is needed to be able to develop such Notes

accessible sites and to ensure that if
1
replacement parking is required, it will Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
not be a barrier to such development. Authority, “Metro Transit Oriented
Development Program Marks a 26 Year
WMATA’s recent efforts to proactively
History of Success,” press release
seek community input into the joint (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2002).
development decision-making process
2
should make parking-lot infill a more Alvin McNeal, “Placemaking: Developing
Town Centers, Transit Villages and Main
acceptable practice in coming years. One
Streets,” (presentation at Urban Land
is struck by the rich and diverse palette Institute Conference, Reston, Virginia,
of TOD that is taking form in the September 11, 2003).
Washington (D.C.) Metropolitan Area. 3 Jones Land LaSalle, “Real Estate Portfolio
Arlington County remains one of the
Assessment” (Washington, D.C.: Washington
nation’s premier examples of TOD, if Metropolitan Area Transit Authority,
not transit-oriented corridors. Over the February 7, 2002): III-1.
past 30 years, Arlington County officials, 4 U.S. Census of Population, 2000, Census
planners, and citizens have joined forces Transportation Planning Package. Special
to employ various tools to steer high- tabulations of journey to work data for
density, mixed-use development along county defined zones in transit corridors.
the County’s two major Metrorail 5 Arlington County Board, General Land Use
corridors. Besides high tax yields from Plan (Arlington, Virginia: 1996).
development that would have probably
6
gone to other jurisdictions, high and Planning Division, Arlington County Depart-
ment of Community Planning, Housing and
balanced-flow ridership has been an
Development, “30 Years of Smart Growth:
important payoff. Older suburban Arlington County’s Experience with Transit
downtowns like Bethesda and, more Oriented Development in the Rosslyn-Ballston
recently, Silver Spring are also Metro Corridor” (PowerPoint Presentation),
undergoing a TOD facelift. Progressive 2003. Available at http://www.co.arlington.
city and county policies, including va.us/cphd/planning/hotitems.htm.
density bonuses and flexible parking 7 Meeting minutes from a meeting of the
codes, have encouraged TOD in these County Board of Arlington County, Virginia,
areas; however, market demand for a Saturday, March 16, 1991. Available at
suburban Metrorail address also deserves http://158.59.15.111:10001/isysquery/
some of the credit. The nation’s capital ir14e9f/1/doc.
has long had transit-oriented commercial 8 S. Silverman, “Designing the Urban Future,”
development; however, what one finds Multifamily Trends (Spring 2003): 30–35, 54.
today are numerous housing projects 9 Arlington County Board, 1996, op. cit.
breaking ground that are taking 10 Arlington County Department of Community
advantage of Metrorail’s proximity.
Traffic congestion beyond the Beltway, Arlington County Profile 2003 (March 2003).
a robust and fairly resilient job market, See http://www.co.arlington.va.us/cphd/
and new downtown amenities are planning.
creating a back-to-city movement that is 11 JHK & Associates, Development-Related
boosting infill and redevelopment in the Ridership Survey II (Washington, D.C.:
District and inner-ring suburbs, often Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
near Metrorail stations. Authority, 1989).
260

12 19
Arlington County Economic Development, M. Weiss, “How Close to Metro? Houses and
A Current Assessment of Arlington’s Condos Near Future Metro Stations Can Be
Community Retail Base, Issue Paper No. 2 Gold Mines,” Washingtonian, December
(August 2003). 1980, pp. B-1–B-4; L. Simons, “Value of
13 Land Around Metro Leaps Dramatically in
Bay Area Economics for Arlington Economic
5 Years,” Washington Post, January 24,
Development, Retail Market Assessment of
1981, p. C-1.
Arlington County Metro Station Areas and
Commercial Districts (June 1999). 20 Simons, 1981, op. cit.
14 21
Arlington County Economic Development, S. Silverman, Spring 2003, op. cit., p. 31.
August 2003, op. cit. 22 Ibid., p. 32.
15 Arlington County Department of Community 23
See http://www.mobility.tamu.edu/ums.
Planning Information Report 55: Development
Capacity in the Metro Corridors (2002). Photo Credits
16 E. Kretikos, “Spate of Projects Enliven
U Street,” Washington Business Journal, Photo 12.1: Silver Spring Discovery Inc.
November 11, 2002, p. 1. Headquarters
17 Photo 12.2: Dulles Corner Rapid Transit Project
D. Damm, E. Lerner-lam, and J. Young,
Bethesda Row photo: Urban Land
“Response of Urban Real Estate Values in
Institute
Anticipation of the Washington Metro,”
All other photos in Chapter 12 are from the
Journal of Transport Economics and Policy,
Arlington County Department of Community
Vol. 14, No. 3 (1980): 20–30.
Planning, Housing, and Development.
18 C. Baker, “Tracking Washington’s Metro,”
American Demographer (November 1983):
30–35, 46.
261

Chapter 13
TOD and Joint Development in the Sunbelt: Miami-Dade County
Over the past half century, Florida has across the state of Florida, followed by
grown at a faster rate than any other state an examination of TOD as a tool for
in the nation, from some 2.8 million stimulating revitalization and community
residents in 1950 to nearly 16 million in development in Miami-Dade County.
2000.1 As the nation’s fourth most
populous state, rapid-paced growth has TOD in Florida
heightened concerns about dwindling
natural resources, mounting traffic Florida has an established history of
congestion, and an overall declining pushing transportation issues to the
quality of life. forefront of city and regional planning.
The state has more municipalities with
In recent years, Florida’s largest explicit “smart-growth” development
metropolitan areas have been under codes than anywhere in the country, and
increasing pressure to either restrict it is currently in the planning stages of
future growth or implement plans an ambitious statewide high-speed rail
that emphasize compact forms of system. Florida’s Comprehensive Plan
development oriented towards transit. stresses the importance of urban and
In particular, Miami-Dade County, downtown revitalization and encourages
Florida’s largest and most densely both the expansion of mass transit
populated region,2 has aggressively systems and the development of
sought to encourage TOD. Miami-Dade infill sites.
County’s efforts are notable in several
respects: (1) a unique institutional Despite these intentions, efforts to
framework that allows the County transit promote TOD as a growth management
agency to take the lead on planning and tool within state agencies such as the
zoning at transit stations and along Department of Transportation and the
transit rights-of-way, (2) a heavy Department of Community Affairs have
emphasis on transit joint development been slow. TOD is given only general
and public-private partnerships, and (3) a acknowledgment in the Department of
long history of viewing TOD and joint Transportation’s Florida Transportation
development as important tools for Plan. Objective 3.1 of the Transit
revitalizing inner-city neighborhoods. In Element of the Florida Transportation
addition to increasing transit ridership Plan promotes TOD through “land use
and reducing traffic congestion, TOD planning and urban design practices that
has often been looked on as a catalyst for facilitate transit service and access.”3 The
promoting private investment in Plan also calls for “transit supportive
depressed neighborhoods and redressing strategies and standards” to be
social inequities. This case study incorporated into state and local plans,
provides an overview of TOD planning but it does not specify what those
263

standards might be. The only active legal structure under which these joint
policy in the Plan suggests the developments may be entered and sets
incorporation of easements for future some limits on the scope of potential
transit projects into the Department of lease agreements. This legal framework
Transportation’s right-of-way acquisition for TOD has been crucial for TOD
processes. In the absence of concrete and planning and implementation in Miami-
specific direction from the state, local Dade County.
governments, in conjunction with some
MPOs, have taken a more proactive Transit Planning and Joint
stance toward implementing TOD. Development in Miami-Dade County
The city of Tampa has adopted Plan Florida’s most promising opportunities for
2015, which proposes developing a TOD are found in Miami-Dade County,
major fixed-rail transit system for where relatively high densities have made
Hillsborough County and Tampa’s public transit a viable transportation
surrounding areas. Plan 2015 explicitly option. Miami-Dade County is also
recognizes a “general area of influence” home to one of the most active local
of 900 feet to 1⁄4 mile around each governments in Florida with respect to
proposed station that, if located within both transportation planning and joint
Tampa’s CBD, should create pedestrian development. Objective 7 of the County’s
networks separated from vehicular 2001 Comprehensive Development
traffic, have a mixture of uses, and deter Master Plan (CDMP) encourages
automobile travel close to the station.
development of a wide variety of
The city of Orlando’s most recent residential and non-residential land
Transportation Element also mandates uses and activities in nodes around
that the city “seek opportunities for rapid transit stations to produce
short trips, minimize transfers,
development around transit centers . . .
attract transit readership, and
in an effort to encourage public transit promote travel patterns on the
ridership” (see http://www.cityoforlando. transit line that are balanced
net/planning/cityplanning/Policy%20Doc directionally and temporally to
ument5c.%20Transportation%20Element. promote transit operational and
pdf). The Element calls for a harmonious financial efficiencies.5
relationship between major transit nodes
and surrounding areas. In these and other The CDMP prohibits uses that are “not
Florida cities, concerted efforts are conducive to transit ridership” and
underway to introduce codes and create specifies minimum densities for new
incentives for TOD. development within various radii around
the station area.
Florida law also recognizes the ability of
transit authorities to enter into lease Despite clear goals from the CDMP,
agreements with private parties “for joint TOD in Miami-Dade County has met
public-private transportation purposes with mixed success. The situation is best
to further economic development in understood in terms of the institutional
this state and generate revenue for landscape and market reality within
transportation.”4 State law provides the which TOD occurs. Although the public
264

sector has been most directly responsible 27% from 1990 to 2002, compared
for the presence of TOD in the county, with a national growth of around
local governments have not always been 15% over the same time period.
able to smoothly coordinate amongst Average monthly rental rates
themselves. Varying intra-county market climbed by over 5% between 2001
conditions combined with preexisting and 2003. Vacancy rates in 2002
land uses account for the relative success held stable as well, hovering between
at some stations and lackluster 2% and 4% for suburban, garden-
performance at others. style rental apartments. Luxury
apartment units in more urban
TOD Market Dynamics settings average a higher vacancy
rate, closer to 10%. Presently, around
The scarcity of developable land in 9,000 apartment units are being built
Miami-Dade County has prompted annually in Miami-Dade County, the
developers to turn to infill projects. Across majority of which are high-rise urban
land-use types, the following development infill projects (see Photo 13.1).
opportunities exist in the County:
Transportation Agencies in
• Office: Despite a recent softening in Miami-Dade County
the market for Class A office space
in most Miami-Dade sub-markets, The County operates Miami-Dade
the region’s role as a center of Transit (MDT), the largest and most
international trade between the heavily patronized public transit system
United States and Latin America has in Florida, and the 16th largest in the
kept the office market fairly strong. country. MDT is responsible for the
The current pipeline of planned and daily operations, safety, marketing, and
proposed office projects includes maintenance of four systems: Metrorail,
hundreds of thousands of square feet Metromover, Metrobus, and Paratransit.
near transit stations, mainly in
downtown Miami.
• Retail: The Miami-Dade market

is buoyed by a relatively small
inventory of retail space. Miami-Dade
County has the lowest retail space per
capita in South Florida and has not
added a significant supply in recent
years. Presently, there is a pipeline
of retail projects planned or under Photo 13.1. New High-Rise Housing
construction in Miami-Dade County Near the Brickell Metrorail Station in
such as Merrick Park in Coral Gables. Downtown Miami. Hundreds of rental
and for-sale multifamily units are
• Residential: Demand for multifamily currently planned or under construction
housing remains strong in South on infill sites throughout Miami-Dade
Florida, due in part to strong County, with much of the action in and
demographic growth.6 The regional around Metrorail stops.
population increased by more than
265

Metrorail, which opened in 1984, is a more in the pipeline, as summarized in

21-mile, elevated rapid transit system Table 13.1.
that runs from the city of Hialeah
Gardens, southeast through downtown Throughout Metrorail’s 19 years of
Miami, and continues southwest into operations, ridership has been flat, and
Kendall. Metrorail connects with the the system has been perceived by many
regional Tri-Rail commuter-rail system as underutilized. The County hopes to
at the Tri-Rail station in north Miami remedy this problem with a two-pronged
(see Map 13.1). strategy: (1) extending the system by
approximately 90 miles and adding
To encourage TOD along Metrorail nearly 50 new stations and (2) targeting
corridors, the County has sought joint new development along Metrorail
development partners at 11 of the corridors. This strategy, proponents
existing 22 station areas. To date, four hope, will create new opportunities for
projects have moved forward, with eight joint development and TOD throughout
the region.
People’s Transportation Plan
To support the County’s efforts to

manage growth, reduce traffic
congestion, and encourage TOD, voters
in Miami-Dade County passed the
People’s Transportation Plan (PTP) in
November 2002. PTP raised local sales
taxes by 0.5% and mandated that these
revenues be used only for transportation
and public transit improvements. PTP is
projected to raise more than $140 to
$150 million or more annually.
Approximately 75% of the surtax

proceeds will flow into three programs:
Metrobus service improvements, rapid
transit improvements, and major
highway and road improvements.
MDT’s fleet of buses will nearly double,
significantly increasing the number of
service miles and routes. Some 90 miles
of new track will be added to the
existing Metrorail system, with the 50
or so planned new stations serving as
catchments for “smart-growth” TOD.
Map 13.1. Miami-Dade Metrorail The PTP stipulates that no more than
Lines. Source: Miami Dade Transit 5% of the surtax proceeds are to be
266

Table 13.1. Miami-Dade County Metrorail Joint Development and TOD Activities, as of 2003
Daily
Station Area Boardings Status Comments
Okeechobee 1,568 In Process At least 150 units of affordable rental housing with some market-rate housing.
Hialeah 1,139 NA NA
Tri-Rail (a) 744 NA NA
Northside 1,309 In Process Affordable and market-rate rental units, 10,000 sq. ft. of ground-floor retail.
Dr. MLK, Jr. 817 In Process 172,000 sq. ft. of County office space and 13,500 sq. ft. ground-floor retail.
Brownsville 562 NA NA
Earlington Heights 897 NA NA
Allapattah 1,200 In Process 128 affordable garden style rental apartments.
Santa Clara 366 In Process 208 affordable rental apartments in a 9 story building.
Civic Center 3,492 NA NA
Culmer 663 NA NA
Overtown/Arena 737 In Process 341,000 sq. ft. office building, 588-space office garage, 4,000 sq. ft. of retail.
Government Center (b) 6,418 Completed Station feeds directly into a mixed-use office and retail complex.
Brickell (b) 1,800 NA NA
Vizcaya 836 NA NA
Coconut Grove 1,067 In Process 407 market-rate apts., 150-room hotel, 41,300 sq. ft. of retail, 367 parking spaces.
Douglas Road 1,952 Completed 2002 150,000 sq. ft. of County office space, 750-space parking structure.
University 1,231 NA NA
South Miami 2,325 In Process Mixed-Use with 20 market-rate rental lofts, 160,000 sq. ft. office, 20,000 sq. ft. retail
Dadeland North 4,415 Completed 320,000 sq. ft. big-box retail, 9,600 sq. ft. TOD-retail, 48 apts. Mall opened 1994.
Dadeland South 4,144 Completed 600,000 sq. ft. office, 35,000 sq. ft. retail, 305 room hotel, 3,500 parking spaces.
Total 37,681
Notes: (a) Metrorail / Tri-Rail transfer station NA = No Activity

(b) Metrorail / Metromover transfer station
Source: Miami-Dade Transit, 2003.
expended on administrative costs. All “representative of the geographical,

of the municipalities within Miami-Dade ethnic, racial, and gender makeup of the
County will split the remaining 20% of County” (see http://www.miamidade.gov/
the total surtax revenues on a pro rata trafficrelief/citt_selection_process.asp). In
basis according to population, with addition to these selections, the mayor and
monies expected to go to local ancillary the Miami-Dade League of Cities will
improvements like bikeways and each appoint one member to the CITT, for
traffic calming. a total of 15 members.
The PTP created two new County-level The second new transportation-related
transportation entities. The Citizens’ department created after the passage of
Independent Transportation Trust (CITT) the PTP is the County’s Office of Public
will serve as an independent, Transportation Management (OPTM),
nongovernmental decision-making body which is responsible for the planning,
with significant powers over the engineering, construction, financial, and
expenditure and use of surtax proceeds. management services previously under
Each of the County’s 13 districts will have MDT’s jurisdiction. OPTM will also
one representative appointed by a advise the CITT on how to spend surtax
“Nominating Committee,” which, in turn, revenues from the PTP. In addition,
will be made up of members who are OPTM will manage all joint development
267

property and leases. In effect, MDT gaining momentum as urbanized

continues to be responsible for the daily portions of Miami-Dade County have
operations of existing public transit become more attractive to private
service, but OPTM will manage, investment: three projects have begun
develop, and implement all new construction since 2001, and
projects and system expansions. groundbreaking is anticipated at two
more station areas in early 2004.
In its first 6 months of existence, OPTM
has prioritized service improvements and As practiced in Miami, joint development
expansions, with such actions as imple- typically involves the transit agency
menting free service on the Miami down- (MDT/OPTM) selecting a private
town Metromover and free transit for all development partner through a
Miami-Dade residents who are 65 years in competitive bidding process and
age or older. The agency also purchased negotiating a long-term ground lease with
170 new buses, increased the number of that partner for one or more County-
hours on 12 existing bus routes, and added owned parcels near the transit station.
on 50 new routes. To date, OPTM has had As with other transit agencies across the
limited new activity in joint development, country, joint development is seen as a
in part because other tasks have been key revenue generator. Miami’s approach
considered higher priorities. to joint development has largely been
market driven; land write downs and
Joint Development financial incentives have not typically
been part of agreements with developers.
An important component of Miami-Dade Moreover, joint development initiatives
County’s plan to increase public transit in Miami have, until recently, not
ridership and transit-agency revenues involved direct participation or input
lies in the joint development of agency- of local redevelopment agencies,
owned properties at or surrounding development authorities, or other
Metrorail station areas. Miami-Dade’s local public agencies.
first joint development agreement was in
1984 at the Dadeland South Metrorail Rapid Transit Zone
Station (see Text Box 13.1). The first
three stages of that development One tool that the County has used to
included more than 600,000 square feet encourage private developers to engage in
of Class A office space, 35,000 square joint development activities has been the
feet of retail space, and a 305-room adoption of a rapid transit zone (RTZ).7
luxury Marriott Hotel. Despite this This zoning classification applies to all
successful initial foray, other joint land and airspace deemed by the Board of
development projects have been “slow County Commissioners as necessary for
going.” The vertical “big-box” mall at the construction of fixed-guideway transit,
the Dadeland North Station (1994) and including all stations. The RTZ does not
the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer restrict any type of land use so long as it is
Department Headquarters at the Douglas “appropriate and compatible with the
Road Station are the only other two operation of the Rapid Transit System and
completed projects. However, in recent the convenience of the ridership” (see
years, joint development has been Miami-Dade County Code, Section
268

Joint Development at South Dadeland Station

The South Dadeland Station’s mid-rise skyline is the result of a joint development quid pro quo in the
purest sense. The property is in a prime location, situated off of the U.S. 1 expressway and the
southern Metrorail line, and it is within walking distance of the 1.5-million-square-foot Dadeland
Mall, South Florida’s largest. In the early 1980s, on recognizing the property’s development
potential, the Green Company approached Miami-Dade County officials about a possible joint public-
private venture to develop the site. Following several weeks of negotiations, it was agreed that the
Green Company would donate the entire property—about 6 acres in all—to the County
while retaining all air rights. The company then negotiated a 99-1/2-year lease (55-1/2-year direct
lease with an option for a 44-year subsequent renewal). The terms of the master lease are that the
County is guaranteed a minimum annual income of $300,000 over the life of the lease—$200,000 from
the Green Company and $100,000 from the Marriott Corporation. Over time, these amounts have
been indexed to the Consumer Price Index. If the amounts are greater, however, the County receives
4% of gross revenues received each year from the office and retail rentals from the Green Company
and from lodging and concessionary proceeds from the Marriott Corporation. Since the original pay-
out in 1988, the County has been receiving well over a half million dollars annually in lease income.
The South Dadeland Station is also a notable example of cost sharing. MDT benefited in part by
connecting the station directly to adjoining office towers (Datran I and II) and thus reducing
some of the cost in excavating and building the station’s foundation. The station and adjoining
building also share several facilities, including ventilation systems and auxiliary generators.
Moreover, the developer and County jointly built and own the 1,650-space parking garage
through a condominium form agreement, with 1,000 spaces belonging to the County and the
remainder to the developer. In total, transit officials put the cost savings from the joint provision
of these shared facilities at more than $4 million.
The office and hotel buildings at and above the South Dadeland Station have performed exceptionally
well. The office buildings enjoy an occupancy rate of 95%. In 1997, Datran I received a “Building
of the Year” award from the Building Owners and Managers Association. Also, the hotel presently
has the highest occupancy rate (96%) in South Florida.
Text Box 13.1
269

33C-2, D-9a). RTZs do not have any amendment to the RTZ ordinance
preexisting constraints, so the County may allowed the city of Miami to review the
write the zoning codes after a project has CDMP and accept or reject it. However,
been proposed. The RTZ ordinance the city was not given the authority to
specifies that the County and municipality modify the standards as submitted. The
shall jointly undergo a station area design Board of County Commissioners had the
and development process to prepare ability to veto the city’s rejection should
master plan development standards, but it the Board have found the proposed
does not address what recourses are development to have “county-wide
available to the city should it disagree necessity and significance” (see Miami-
with the County’s vision for the site. Dade County Code, Section 33C-2, D-
10a) This process was written to apply
The RTZ ordinance is intended to only to the Douglas Road Station area,
lessen a project’s uncertainty by giving but planners at the city of Miami believe
the developer a single jurisdiction to that the project has set a precedent for all
work with instead of two or more (see future County joint development projects
Text Box 13.2). In the case of the within incorporated areas. City planners
Douglas Road Station area, an cited Allapattah and Overtown Metrorail
stations as developments where the
County ignored city requirements.
Politics and the Development Process
A frequent theme that emerged in Staff at the Miami City Manager’s
interviews with public officials and Office also expressed concern about the
developers in Miami regarding joint city’s lack of control in determining
development was the role of politics in locally appropriate land uses and design
creating uncertainty and risk for private guidelines within RTZs. They cited a
developers. For example, planners need for the city’s Office of
pointed to at least two cases where Transportation to increase staffing in
developer RFPs were issued, but then order to work more collaboratively with
rescinded when the County Commission the OPTM and the developer in the
elected to enter into negotiations directly initial station area design and
with a not-for-profit Community development process before County
Development Corporation (CDC). adoption of a site plan.
Notwithstanding the important roles that
CDCs have played in forwarding some All four of the Metrorail joint project
joint development projects in Miami- developers interviewed for this case
Dade County, the lack of certainty and study felt that the RTZ was an asset in
consistency in soliciting private the development process. However, one
development partners injects an element developer indicated that the flexibility of
of risk into the development process. the RTZ ordinance did not completely
This added risk, in turn, may discourage eliminate the uncertainty and risks of
private developers from investing time building under two jurisdictional bodies.
and money into pursuing joint He reasoned that because the RTZ
development projects within the County. ordinance is amended to suit each
specific project, it can actually increase
Text Box 13.2 uncertainty by not producing hard and
270

fast rules for developers to follow. are transit supportive, the urban fabric
A municipality may also seek judicial surrounding transit stations is not
review of the County Commission’s conducive to transit usage or the creation
action, which can bring the project into of the fine-grain mixture of land uses
a lengthy and expensive lawsuit. needed to create a vital urban
neighborhood.
Local TOD Incentives and Constraints
TAD at Brickell
In addition to RTZ tools and incentives,
local jurisdictions, such as the city of The Brickell Station in downtown
Miami, actively encourage development Miami is one of two stations on the
in neighborhoods near transit even if they Metrorail line that directly connects to
are outside the RTZ. Local incentives the downtown Metromover system.
have mainly included reductions in Over the past several years, the area
parking requirements and increases in surrounding this station has experienced
permitted FARs or per-acre unit densities. substantial residential and office
In addition, local development authorities development, in part because of the
have been active in assembling land and exceptional accessibility it enjoys.
providing infrastructure for sites near rail
stations. These efforts, however, have met The Brickell sub-market has historically
with mixed success, and in certain cases enjoyed one of the highest average asking
have actually created a disincentive for lease rates in Miami-Dade County, and
development. Extremely high permitted despite increasing competition from Coral
densities (up to 1,000 dwelling units per Gables and other growing sub-markets,
acre in some cases) in much of downtown Brickell currently leads the region in
Miami have, until recently, contributed to construction activity with approximately
a dynamic where market realities do not 470,000 square feet of new office space
match the expectations of land investors. over the past several years.9 In addition,
Thus, many large parcels have remained the proposed $90-million Mary Brickell
vacant in the absence of viable develop- Village near the Brickell Station will add
ment proposals that match permitted nearly 200,000 square feet of retail space
densities and perceived land values. to Miami’s CBD.
Perhaps more importantly, there is a Development around the Brickell Station

broad consensus across Miami-Dade has not, however, contributed to a
County that local planning and urban dramatic increase in transit ridership,
design policies near transit have not with the station averaging fewer than
adequately emphasized the creation of 2,000 daily boardings. In part, this can
pedestrian-friendly, transit-supportive be explained by the absence of an urban
environments. In a recent article in design framework for the area, leading
Planning Magazine, Miami-Dade to poor pedestrian connections between
County Assistant Planning Director Lee surrounding residential high-rise
Ralinson echoed this sentiment, stating buildings and the station. While newly
that “there’s still a disconnect in the built and planned projects near the
community between land use and station do have transit-supportive
transportation.”8 Even where densities densities, the lack of improvements such
271

as comfortable sidewalks, safe street- parts of the city, and long-time residents
crossings, and inviting entryways create moved away. Overtown was also heavily
obstacles for pedestrians. This means affected by urban renewal and the
that existing and planned projects are construction of two major expressways
more “transit adjacent” than “transit (I-95 and I-395) that pierced through the
oriented” in character (see Photo 13.2). heart of the neighborhood. Despite its
historic roots and reasonably good
Overtown: TOD and Inner-City location in the heart of the region,
Revitalization Overtown has struggled to overcome a
prolonged cycle of disinvestment and
The construction of Metrorail in the decline. Today, the neighborhood has a
early 1980s coincided with a period of population of around 10,000 inhabitants
social unrest in Miami, spawned by and is often described as the “donut
longstanding socioeconomic inequities, hole” in the middle of downtown
racial tensions, and the neglect of many Miami.11 Indeed, Overtown is the
inner-city neighborhoods. In this poorest neighborhood in the 4th poorest
context, several Metrorail stations north urban city in the United States.12
of the Government Center Station,
most notably Overtown, were viewed Against this backdrop, the planning and
as potential catalysts for economic development of Metrorail’s Overtown
redevelopment.10 Station in 1981 presented the
neighborhood with an unprecedented
Actual investment near Metrorail transit opportunity to attract new investment
stations, however, has fallen far short of and restore vitality to the struggling
expectations, and until recently joint commercial strip. The Metrorail station
development proposals have been few was seen as an important means of
and far between. The experience of the redressing past planning mistakes in the
Overtown Station area just north of the neighborhood and of creating
Miami CBD underscores the challenges opportunities for local economic
that these station areas have encountered development. Aided by a federal Urban
in linking TOD to community Initiatives Grant, a series of
development and revitalization. redevelopment plans were prepared
calling for high-density, mixed-use
The Overtown neighborhood was development around the station. With
historically the commercial center of the ability to accommodate up to 8,000
Miami’s City’s African-American patrons daily, the Overtown Station was
community, achieving notoriety as an promoted in early plans as an important
arts and entertainment hub in the 1930s. element in the area’s revitalization.
At its peak, Overtown had a population Since no long-term parking was
of over 40,000 and a thriving provided at the station, the creation of a
commercial district along NW Second high-density, pedestrian-oriented
Avenue. Following the end of Jim Crow environment was considered essential to
laws and legalized segregation, the the station area’s success. Specific
neighborhood suffered a period of objectives for the station area were not
prolonged decline as local consumers elaborated in early MDT planning
began to shop at retail outlets in other documents, but the following broad
272

Photo 13.2. TAD at Brickell Station.

The Brickell Metrorail station in Miami’s CBD lies at the center of one of Miami-Dade
County’s major hubs of office and residential development. Densities for residential
projects within 1⁄4 mile of the station are, in general, in excess of 50 dwelling units to the
net acre, and some residential blocks are considerably higher. Nonetheless, as pictured
here, the Metrorail station does not blend particularly well with surrounding
neighborhoods and is hardly “pedestrian scale.” Metrorail’s elevated structure casts
shadows and forms visual barriers. The absence of ground-floor retail and services has
diminished pedestrian traffic during off-peak hours, further detracting from the station
area’s ambience.
273

goals for the Overtown Station area were seen limited new development and
set out in a 1981 station-area profile: reinvestment, and the station itself has
one of the lowest ridership levels on the
• Promote the orderly use of land; Metrorail system (less than 800
• Maximize the development of the boardings per day).14 No joint
area immediately to the west of the development has occurred on site and
station; little has occurred off site. The many
• Encourage the development of financial and planning incentives offered
housing for mixed-income could not overcome Overtown’s stigma
households; as an unsafe, high-risk inner-city
• Stress the preservation of historic neighborhood in a state of decline.
buildings and sites, rehabilitation of
existing housing, and redevelopment In contrast to Overtown, just two short
of blighted areas; blocks away, the Government Center
• Create a climate conducive for Metrorail/Metromover station averages
private investment and provide over 6,000 daily boardings and connects
opportunities for minorities to directly to a major mixed-use office and
manage and own businesses; retail development serving thousands of
• Increase employment opportunities office workers, commuters, and shoppers
and upward job mobility for (see Photo 13.3). Almost any major
residents; destination near the Overtown Station,
• Encourage residents to continue including the Miami Arena, can also be
living in Overtown by promoting reached via Government Center. Indeed,
home ownership and providing new placing the multimodal Government
housing for low- and moderate- Center Station so close to Overtown cast
income families; the die, marginalizing Overtown as a
• Improve the delivery of human serious destination. Without a clear
services and emphasize area security
and a sense of community; and
• Provide better transportation to
employment and service centers.13
In the more than 20 years since these

goals were established, few have been
fully realized. It is not for lack of trying.
Over the past two decades, the city
formed a community redevelopment
agency for the area, Overtown and
surrounding areas were designated as a
Federal Empowerment Zone, and myriad
public and private planning efforts
sought to promote investment and Photo 13.3. View of Government
development in the area. Despite these Center Metrorail/Metromover Station
efforts, the Overtown Station area has from the Overtown Metrorail Station.
274

advantage from a transit-planning or Partnership project will dramatically

market perspective, the Overtown change the skyline of the immediate
Station has, according to some, neighborhood, adding over 340,000
languished in obscurity. square feet of new office space (slated for
County government agencies) as well as
A further obstacle to revitalization has 4,000 square feet of retail shops and
been a marked lack of coordination outlets. Proponents hope that this project,
among the various agencies and along with two smaller residential projects
organizations working in Overtown. For slated for the Overtown Station area, will
example, the County ceded several finally bring much-needed transit-oriented
parcels to the city of Miami in the 1980s growth to the neighborhood as envisioned
on the condition that the land would be two decades earlier.
developed within 5 years. Miami’s
redevelopment agency, however, never Overtown’s ability to seemingly turn the
sought to develop the parcels, thus tide has unleashed a new round of
prompting a dispute between the city and interest in nearby development. Other
County. This dispute, in turn, has stifled
projects proposed for the station area
efforts to secure public approval for a
within the past year include
proposed joint development project at
the Overtown Station.
• A 14-unit townhouse project
sponsored by the St. Johns
Despite past disappointments, the
fortunes of the Overtown Station area Development Corporation,
could be turning around in the wake of
several major investments proposed on • An 80-unit single family home
sites adjacent to the station. The most for-sale project sponsored by the
important of these is a mixed-use office St. Agnes CDC,
and retail joint development project with
OPTM and the Overtown Partnership, • An affordable 40-unit single family
Ltd., as major partners. This project for-sale project sponsored by the
came about after an RFP issued by MDT BAME CDC, and
failed to attract any submittals. Through
an ordinance that allows the County • A proposed 1,300- to 1,500-unit
commissioners to enter into development mixed-use development around the
agreements directly with not-for-profit historic Lyric Theater.
organizations, Miami-Dade County
entered into an agreement with the Saint After decades of unmet promises,
Agnes CDC for the development of a stagnation, and disinvestment, the arrival
vacant lot owned by MDT adjacent to the of construction cranes and shiny new
Overtown Station. Subsequently, Saint office towers is expected to finally
Agnes entered into a limited partnership increase transit and foot traffic in the
agreement with Taylor Development and Overtown neighborhood, providing the
Land Company under the auspices of the kind of “eyes-on-the-street” environment
Overtown Partnership, Ltd. When that is so essential in achieving a sense
completed in 2004, the Overtown of safety, security, and comfortability.
275

Increased transit ridership will be a development opportunities. To date,

bonus, although the creation of new jobs, however, none of the station areas have
the opening of new shops, and a more undergone a visioning process or market
attractive streetscape is what appeals appraisal to probe what types of land
most to local residents and merchants. uses and community designs might be
Such positive changes can instill civic desirable or feasible.
pride, investor confidence in the
neighborhood, and a sense of security Conclusions and Lessons Learned
and well-being. In Overtown, TOD is
today viewed through the lens of a much In interviews conducted with planners
larger agenda of community building. and developers for this case study, a
common sentiment expressed was that
Future Plans and Activities Miami-Dade County is a region that has
not come close to reaching its TOD
The passage of the PTP in 2002 has potential. Like most of South Florida,
significantly increased the County’s land-use patterns in Miami-Dade County
immediate and long-range transit are largely automobile-oriented, and
planning activities. For the immediate transit ridership is insignificant
future, the OPTM will follow an compared with automobile usage.
“evolutionary concept.” The agency will Moreover, major investments in transit
add overnight service to various bus infrastructure have achieved mixed
routes and Metrorail, hire more drivers results, with lower-than-expected
for MDT’s expanded fleet of vehicles, ridership and limited clustered
and investigate the feasibility of development outside of a few downtown
improving major traffic corridors within Metrorail stations. Given the region’s
the County before making high fixed- rapid rate of growth and emergence as
cost investments. the de facto center of Latin-American
culture and commerce, some observers
Opportunities for joint development view the absence of the kind of TOD
should increase dramatically in the long found in areas of comparable size in
term as the County moves forward in its other parts of the country, even in fellow
effort to more than quadruple Sunbelt cities like Dallas and Atlanta, as
Metrorail’s coverage over the quarter- a missed opportunity.
century. Already, two new corridors
totaling 26.7 miles of new fixed- Notwithstanding past disappointments,
guideway track are in the advanced there are signs that things could be
planning stages. changing, due both to public policies and
market forces. In the Brickell sub-market
The new North Corridor is to run of downtown Miami, for example,
directly north out of the existing Martin thousands of mid- and high-rise
Luther King Jr. Station and 10 miles residential units have recently been built,
along NW 27th Avenue to the Broward and more are under construction. It is
County line. The OPTM believes that all unclear how much of this is attributable
seven of the planned station areas will be to Metrorail’s presence and how much is
able to accommodate some type of park- due to a larger gentrification movement
and-ride facility and offer joint that is sweeping the region. Some
276

observers think more the latter than the jurisdictions. In the area of transit and
former, noting that the addition of TOD, this has translated into County
apartment and condominium towers in control over planning and land-use
the Brickell district has failed to increase decisions along Metrorail guideways and
transit ridership at the Brickell Station. at Metrorail stations. In part, this
This could, however, be due to the lack centralized planning and zoning function
of pedestrian amenities in and around the has facilitated TOD by allowing
station and, as is widely acknowledged, developers to bypass multiple layers of
a poor interface between transit and bureaucracy and public process. On the
land-use planning in the area. other hand, planners and developers
agree that this centralized planning
As Miami-Dade County grows out of function does not eliminate the need to
what many in the community perceive as work closely with local jurisdictions to
an urban adolescence and takes on the ensure that land-use decisions and
persona of a major international urban design guidelines are consistent with
center, the region will have to wrestle community needs. To be successful,
with the challenge of what to do with TOD must ultimately be responsive to
distressed and long-neglected inner-city both broad market realities and the needs
neighborhoods. The forward-looking of local communities.
PTP, backed by a dedicated sales tax,
embraces transit investments in general Notes
and TOD in particular as important
catalysts of community redevelopment. 1 Fannie Mae Census Note 02, Fannie Mae
Experiences to date, however, suggest Foundation, April, 2001.
that neighborhoods with stagnant 2 The County’s population in 2000 was
economies and tepid real-estate markets 2,523,362, increasing by 30.3 percent from
must often wait a relatively long period 1,937,094 in 1990. Miami-Dade County is
of time (in the case of Overtown, over part of the larger Miami/Fort Lauderdale
20 years) for conditions to improve and MSA, but, for TOD planning purposes, the
County rather than the broader region is the
TOD to gain a foothold. Transit
relevant geography for both demographic and
amenities and vacant adjacent sites alone political reasons.
will not ensure reinvestment in the
3
absence of compelling market factors. Florida Department of Transportation,
2020 Florida Transportation Plan, 2000. See
For better or worse, big government http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/2020ftp/
subsidies also seem necessary to turn FTP_final.pdf.
around neighborhoods like Overtown.
4 The 2002 Florida Statutes, Title XXVI,
Chapter 337. See http://www.flsenate.gov/
Finally, Miami-Dade County’s fairly Statutes/index.cfm
unique approach to governance could,
5
over time, work in favor of TOD and Miami-Dade County Comprehensive
other smart-growth initiatives. Development Master Plan, Land Use
Element, 1999, p. I-13.
Nationally, the area has been at the
6
forefront of the County-charter system CB Richard Ellis, South Florida: Multifamily
of government whereby the County Market Index Brief, First Quarter 2002.
serves as a kind of coordinating MPO 7
Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances,
with broad powers vis-à-vis local Chapter 33C-2. See www.municode.com.
277

8 13
R. Knack, “Miami Bets on Transit,” Planning Miami-Dade Transit, Design and Development
Magazine, Vol. 69, No. 5 (May 2003): 20–21. Station Area Profile 10, June 1981.
9 14
CB Richard Ellis, Miami-Dade: Office Three residential towers were developed near
Market Index Brief, Third Quarter 2003. the Overtown Station in the Park West
10 neighborhood in the mid-1980s, but this
This was borne out in interviews with public-
development east of the station area has had
sector representatives and staff at local CDCs.
little revitalizing impact on the Overtown
Public planning documents also refer
neighborhood.
heavily to the transit station’s importance in
revitalization efforts. See, for example, Miami-
Dade Transit Design & Development, Station
Area Profile 10, Overtown, June 1981. Photo Credits
11 See http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/.
Photo 13.1. R. Golem
12
J. Little, “City of Miami Not Implementing Photo 13.2. R. Golem
‘Homeownership Zones’ Despite Assurances Photo 13.3. P. Peninger
to Federal HUD in its Consolidated Plan,”
South Florida Community Development
Coalition, October 7, 2002.
278

Chapter 14
Chicago’s Transit Villages:
Back to the Future for Historic Commuter-Rail Towns
Development is once again following decline and face problems like

Chicago’s long-established commuter- remediation of contaminated sites.
rail corridors as a growing list of Commuter rail also often depends on
communities are returning to their automobile access to generate CBD-
roots, pursuing TOD to revitalize oriented trips from outlying suburbs and
downtowns that grew up around transit exurbs. Parking supply and design are
(see Map 14.1). While the results have therefore critical issues at commuter-rail
been impressive, Chicago’s experience stations. In addition, continuing freight
is also a story about a few communities operations can constrain off-peak rail
that have the resources, initiative, and service (and the types of trips that can be
leadership to tap into the market for served) and can also physically impact
compact walkable development around station-area development designs.
transit.
As the Chicago region continues to
This case focuses on how TOD can be expand, some established inner-ring
promoted in long-established commuter- suburbs have successfully used TOD to
rail corridors—specifically, Metra rail exploit transit’s development capacity
corridors in the greater Chicago region.1 and capture a larger share of regional
With the revitalization of central growth. In redeveloping their historic
Chicago, there has also been new downtowns, these communities have
development around Chicago’s heavy- introduced amenities that provide a
rail system operated by the Chicago competitive advantage with new suburbs
Transit Authority (CTA). and have created a strong local and
regional identity. In inner-ring suburban
The design and service characteristics towns, strong local advocacy has been
of commuter rail present different instrumental in leveraging TOD. Such
challenges to TOD vis-à-vis light-rail communities have “rediscovered” assets,
and heavy-rail systems. Light- and like charming historic rail stations, that
heavy-rail systems typically enjoy high were already in their midst.
levels of service in both directions
throughout the day. Commuter-rail While several regional actors are active
service, as the name implies, tends to be in promoting TOD in Chicago, the
concentrated in the peak hours, with success of TOD has largely been due to
service focusing on the downtown in the a strong regional economy and market
morning and away from downtown in demand, proactive local leadership,
the evening. Commuter rail often uses and successful coordination among
existing freight railroad right-of-way and agencies. In the sections that follow, the
tracks, which often flank industrial regional institutional landscape in
districts. Many of these districts are in which TOD planning occurs is
279

Map 14.1. Growth of the Chicago Metropolitan Area.

The region’s early settlement patterns followed commuter railroads like pearls on a
string. The areas in between began to be settled as early as the 1920s; by 1990, the
urbanized area stretched into 10 counties in three states.
Reproduced with permission from: J. Grossman, A. D. Keating, and J. L. Reiff, eds., The Encyclopedia of
Chicago History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press and the Newberry Library, 2004).
280

described, as are some of the tools that number equal to the growth during the
various agencies are using. Some of the previous 20 years.2 While downtown
region’s significant TODs are then Chicago has enjoyed something of a
profiled. The case concludes with a “residential revival” in recent years,
look at how TOD and local leadership growth continues to spill into the edges
are playing out in the quest to develop of the region. In the next 20 years, the
Chicago’s newest commuter-rail line region is projected to add 1.6 million
along the Northwest Tollway. residents, 800,000 jobs, and 1 million
new automobiles.3 Such trends threaten
Greater Chicago Is Sprawling Out valuable open space and agricultural
and Growing In resources. And ever-worsening air
pollution and traffic congestion threaten
TOD is being promoted on many fronts the economic health of the region.
in greater Chicago. The region remains Table 14.1 outlines the primary reasons
one of the nation’s fastest growing, and why various regional organizations are
growth-related problems are also on the actively promoting TOD.
rise. Between 1970 and 1990, nearly
450 square miles of farmland and open Chicago’s Multi-Layered
spaces were consumed, an area twice the Institutional Landscape
size of the city of Chicago. During this
same period, population grew by only 4%. The Chicago region is a complex web of
Between 1990 and 1995, 330,000 new over 270 municipalities and jurisdictions.
inhabitants were added to the region—a Coordinating regional transportation and
Table 14.1. Regional Agencies and Organizations Promoting TOD

Agency/Group Function Overview of Goals
Campaign for Sensible Coalition of government, Preserve open space, reduce new
Growth civic, and business leaders infrastructure costs, provide multimodal
in Northeastern Illinois choices, promote economic competitiveness
and community revitalization.
Chicago Metropolis Nonprofit organization Spend less time in traffic; live nearer to jobs;
2020 created by the Commercial protect open space; promote transit, walking,
Club of Chicago to advocate and biking; provide economic opportunities
regional planning for all residents.
Northeastern Illinois Comprehensive planning Promote efficient development and
Planning Commission agency for the six-county transportation, make good use of planned rail
(NIPC) metropolitan area stations, contain sprawl.
Metra Regional commuter-rail Make rail commuting more convenient,
operator increase transit ridership.
Regional Regional planning body for Increase transit ridership, improve
Transportation CTA, Metra, and Pace neighborhood quality, increase political
Authority (RTA) transit systems support for transit.
Illinois Department of State transportation Promotes balanced growth, which can include
Transportation (IDOT) authority TOD, to reduce traffic congestion, save
farmland, protect natural resources, use
existing infrastructure, reinvest in
communities.
281

land use, therefore, poses a formidable

challenge. Integrated regional planning
took a big step forward, however, with
the passage of an interagency agreement
for Northeast Illinois in 2000 that
clarified and built on earlier planning
agreements.4 Prior to this agreement,
determining who was in charge of even
basic functions (e.g., local and regional
population forecasts) was often
problematic. The new agreement
reaffirms that land-use and transportation
plans should be coordinated, that land-
use plans are to “lead” transport
planning, that transportation is supposed
to “serve” land use, and that agencies
should work together in an open and
collaborative process.
In this scheme, the Chicago Area

Transportation Study (CATS) is the
region’s designated MPO, primarily
responsible for comprehensive
Map 14.2. NIPC “Finger Plan” of
transportation planning. The Northeastern
1968. NIPC’s first regional plan aimed
Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC)
to cluster new development in regional
develops the regional land-use plan and
centers along commuter-rail lines,
the socioeconomic forecasts that CATS
separated by “fingers” of regional green
uses for its own planning.5 Finally, the
space—akin to Copenhagen, Denmark’s
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA)
celebrated Finger Plan. Around this
is charged with coordinating regional
time, both the regional expressway
transit services and developing transit
system and local roads networks were
investment cost estimates for CATS.
expanded significantly, and the fingers
Collectively, these agencies evaluate the
rapidly filled with new development.
effects of transportation plans on land use Source: NIPC.
and the environment and adopt the RTP.
On paper, then, a framework exists that is
conducive to TOD. is able to “subtly” influence land-use
patterns by developing the regional
In actuality, implementing TOD remains population and employment forecasts
as elusive as elsewhere in the United (which guide transportation investments)
States. Ultimately, TOD is a local and through its review of facility
decision, as state law grants zoning planning areas.6 That said, NIPC has no
powers only to local cities and counties. implementation or enforcement powers,
Despite having long supported TOD and thus its primary role is to advise
concepts (see Map 14.2), NIPC’s land- local cities on growth and zoning issues
use powers are quite limited. The agency and to provide technical assistance as
282

needed. To achieve its policy goals, zoning reviews, public-private planning

NIPC tries to achieve consensus among to encourage affordable housing near
its constituents and disseminates employment centers, and the creation of
information about successful programs multi-community corridor plans.
and projects, including TODs. Many
communities are in fact NIPC supporters Communities in metropolitan Chicago’s
and actively participate in regional- Northwest Transit Corridor have
planning dialogues.7 Later in this received program funds to develop a
chapter, NIPC’s current planning “TOD Toolbox,” featuring a TOD best
activities and how it hopes to promote practices guide tailored to the needs of
TOD in the future are discussed. cities along a proposed new Metra
corridor, as well as other rail corridors in
TOD Implementation Tools the region.9 In La Grange, program
funds have gone to help the village
To date, cities and towns in greater prepare a plan to invigorate the under-
Chicago have used a variety of tools to performing business area near its West
implement TOD, including development End Metra rail station. To date, however,
bonuses, eminent domain, open market most program funds have been spent on
purchases, site assembly, TIF, reduced downtown redevelopment not
parking standards, and rezoning. These specifically related to transit (e.g., bike
tools are discussed in the TOD profiles system plans and traditional economic
that follow. In this section, some of the development studies).
most important “macro-level” tools
being used to promote TOD in Regional Tools
metropolitan Chicago are reviewed.
At the regional level, RTA has developed
State of Illinois a Regional Technical Assistance
Program (RTAP) to help cities develop
While the state of Illinois does not have station-area plans and conduct public
a statewide growth management outreach associated with TOD planning.
program (like Oregon or New Jersey), it Since 1999, RTAP has contributed $1.8
has recently taken a more active role in million to TOD planning and outreach.
promoting “balanced growth” in the RTAP also sponsors research and
state. The Corridor Planning Grant workshops to trumpet the cause of TOD
Program, administered by the Illinois throughout the Chicago region.10
Department of Transportation (IDOT),
dedicates $15 million over 5 years to To date, RTA has completed 13 TOD
help fund planning activities that studies. In the town of Tinley Park, RTA
promote the integration of land-use, participated in TOD studies for two
transportation, and infrastructure stations. At the Oak Park Avenue
planning in major transportation Station, historic preservation, infill
corridors.8 Examples of projects that are redevelopment, and enhanced pedestrian
eligible for funding include the creation circulation were emphasized. For the
of TOD plans, development of 80th Avenue Station, the study
intergovernmental agreements providing recommended a new station with retail
for multi-jurisdictional development and uses, improved local bicycle and
283

automobile access, buried utilities, and

additional housing near the station. In
both cases, recommendations are
generally being followed. In the town of
Elmhurst, extensive zoning changes
were made, and pedestrian, automobile,
and transit access was improved.
More recently, the village of La Grange

has applied for RTAP funds to
complement its Illinois Tomorrow
funding to promote business and TOD
development along the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe railroad corridor. In
Brookfield, Illinois, Tomorrow funds
are being used to update the city’s
comprehensive plan. At the same time,
the city, which has no planning staff, is
trying to promote TOD in portions of its
three Metra station areas.
Metra
Metra is the region’s commuter-rail

operator, providing service to some
150,000 daily riders. Metra provides
service on 12 lines spanning 546 miles
and 228 commuter-rail stations (see
Map 14.3). The system’s hub is
downtown Chicago. Approximately one-
half of all commute trips to Chicago’s
downtown loop are by Metra.11
Metra is a strong advocate of TOD. The

agency has released three studies that
promote TOD on economic grounds and
inform constituents about implementation
strategies.12 Metra has also developed an Map 14.3. Metra Commuter-Rail
extensive database of proposed TOD System. Source: Metra.
projects in nearly 200 communities based
on a regional survey. While Metra does Metra owns some commuter parking,
not formally require development review, although most is owned and controlled
it has good long-term relationships with by local cities. Unlike many recent-
local planning departments and generation heavy-rail systems, Metra has
developers, who often approach Metra few large parking footprints. As older
for advice and commentary. cities try to revitalize their downtowns by
284

adding development and making parking efficiency” of transit-accessible locations

more convenient, Metra continues to when prospective homeowners apply for
work in partnership with them to seek loans. Chicago’s LEM program has
out creative parking solutions.13 probably increased the occupancy of
some housing projects near transit stops,
In some older suburban downtowns, but it has not been a strong factor behind
parking has been distributed into multiple the emergence of TODs.
decks not immediately adjacent to the
station. In other places, shared parking TOD in Commuter-Rail Communities
has been implemented. At the
Schaumburg Station, for example, TOD is on the rebound in suburban
parking is shared with a minor league Chicago. A growing number of
baseball stadium. In Palatine, fairly communities along Chicago’s Metra
extensive redevelopment and parking commuter-rail line are using TOD as part
reconfiguration have occurred. There, a of a conscious strategy to reinvest in and
new 1,150-space deck was constructed, revitalize their downtowns. According to
including 850 commuter spaces. The local observers, a dozen or so stations
old surface lot was converted into have active TOD initiatives underway.
townhomes, condominiums and retail
facilities. Also, a Starbucks coffee shop This section profiles three communities
was in Palatine’s refurbished station. incorporated between 1879 and 1887:
Arlington Heights, La Grange, and
Advocacy Groups Elmhurst. In each instance, the
community declined as shopping centers
Several advocacy groups are also active sprung up in the 1970s and 1980s.
in promoting TOD in the region. One Downtown plans were prepared in the
of the most prominent groups is the mid-1980s linking transit to a broader
downtown strategy, and proactive TOD
Campaign for Sensible Growth (CSG),
planning is beginning to pay off. Transit
an umbrella organization of government,
stations themselves are the centerpieces
civic, and business leaders striving to
of the renaissance taking place in many
promote economic development,
suburban Chicago communities as
preserve open space, economize on
outlined in Text Box 14.1.
infrastructure spending, and promote
neighborhood revitalization. CSG Arlington Heights
promotes TOD by providing technical
assistance to cities, developing public The village of Arlington Heights lies
relations and educational materials, 23 miles west of Chicago on Metra’s
conducting research, and promoting Union Pacific Northwest Line. Each
legislative and policy changes.14 weekday, about 2,500 residents board
trains at the village’s downtown station.
In addition, the Center for Neighborhood Incorporated in 1887, Arlington Heights,
Technology has been at the forefront of with about 75,000 inhabitants, has become
developing and advocating the LEM Cook County’s largest suburb.
program. Some Chicago-area mortgage
brokers participate in LEMs, which Over the last 15 years, Arlington Heights
acknowledge the “transportation has seized upon TOD as an integral
285

Development-Friendly Transit: Learning from Metra

Transit stations can be places to come back to, not just places to leave from. The new
stations in La Grange, Arlington Heights, and Elmhurst nicely demonstrate this principle.
Planners and transit designers can learn much by looking at how long-established
commuter-rail systems, such as Metra, have been integrated into the communities they
serve. The challenge is to successfully balance two often-conflicting needs:
accommodating requirements for bus transfer and park-and-ride facilities while creating a
milieu that is harmonious with the adjacent community. The template for contemporary
transit design—getting the parking, automobile drop-off, and bus transfers as close to the
platform as possible—can be deadly for TOD.
Too often the result of contemporary transit design has been the development of
“automobile-oriented transit systems.” Design decisions on accommodating the
automobile as the primary mode of access have resulted in transit stations engulfed with
parking that are loathsome places for walking. This often creates a chasm between the
station and surrounding neighborhood and all but precludes the opportunity for TOD.
Metra’s experiences show that new and refurbished stations that are development-friendly
need not interfere with transit’s functional and logistical requirements. With careful
attention to detail, it is possible to accommodate the automobile, meet all of the transit
needs, provide for TOD and still use the station to anchor wonderful, vibrant spaces that
attract people.
The most striking difference between established Metra stations and more contemporary,
sensitive designs lies in the approach to commuter parking. Metra parking tends to be
dispersed to a number of small lots rather than to one mega lot. Arlington Heights
commuters have 1,261 spaces spread over 6 lots to choose from; La Grange has 359
spaces on 8 lots; and Elmhurst commuters have 932 park-and-ride spaces distributed over
15 parking lots. The stations provide comfortable, human-scale environments, not
dominated by parking, which serve to extend the walksheds. Commuters are creatures of
habit; if the parking is located away from the station, they will still find it and use it. By
dispersing parking, the communities and their transit stations happily coexist.
Text Box 14.1

component of the city’s award-winning decks (see Photo 14.1). In 1980,
strategy to revitalize its historic down- 350 residents lived in the downtown in
town. The village has created a 150 units. By 2000, the numbers had
virtually new town center that includes jumped to 2,200 residents and 1,500
a new Metra station, a performing arts units. Since 1997, public investment
center, high-density housing, of $27 million has leveraged some
commercial uses, and public parking $225 million in private investment.
286

Metropolis Performing Arts

Center
New Metra Station
Arlington Town Square
The Village Green
View from the Metropolis Lofts

Metra Station
Photo 14.1. Village of Arlington Heights. Through proactive initiatives,
Arlington Heights has created a new town center that boasts a new Metra station,
a performing arts center, high-density housing, several commercial uses, and
public parking decks. The Metra station has truly become the community’s
re-energized hub.
Currently in its “maturation” stage, the Arlington Heights has a long, rich
village is increasingly relying on the tradition of city planning. The village
redevelopment of underutilized completed numerous downtown plans
commercial, manufacturing, and and studies in the 1950s, 1960s, and
residential parcels close to the Metra 1970s. By the end of the 1970s, the
station. A recent survey suggests that downtown was in a steep decline, due in
17% of downtown residents now use part to the opening of several nearby
Metra as their primary mode of shopping malls that sucked the retail
commuting (compared with 7% energy out of the core. To revitalize its
for all of Arlington Heights).15 downtown, the village has introduced
287

the following: new zoning that permits tower, a key part of the strategy to create
mixed uses and higher densities an 18-hour urban place. While the
downtown, reduced parking condominiums have completely sold out,
requirements near the rail station, and the and the residents have energized the
establishment of two TIF districts. The downtown, many people complain that
zoning revisions require first-floor retail the buildings are too high, given the
uses in mixed-use buildings and allow village’s small-town character. This has
buildings up to 140 feet in height. Also, prompted the city to consider future
the village has used eminent domain height limits. The project also includes
and open market purchases to assemble restaurants and national retailers such as
sites and build new infrastructure GAP, Anne Taylor Lofts, Starbucks, and
(e.g., structured parking). Moreover, California Pizza Kitchen.
the village has provided project-based
gap financing (i.e., subsidies), façade To make the project pencil out,
improvement grants, business relocation Arlington Heights first assembled the
assistance, and retail interior building site and then sold it to the developer
grants to help offset interior finishing with a buy-back provision. Under the
costs for new restaurants. arrangement, the village was required
to buy back the land after 12 months if
In the late 1980s, Arlington Heights the developer did not like the final
completed its first major TOD projects— development deal; the village also had
two mid-rise apartment buildings with an option to buy back the land if it did
614 units and ground-floor retail. To not like the developer’s program. In
leverage the projects, the village addition, the village constructed the
assembled part of the site and built underground parking for the project at
oversized public parking decks next to a cost of around $30,000 per space.
the apartment buildings. While Although costly, underground parking
occupancy in the apartments has been reduced the building massing and freed
strong, the projects’ retail portions have
up land for open space.
leased more slowly.
These buildings were followed by a Overall, the village provided

much more ambitious initiative in the $13.9 million in public financing for the
downtown core. At one point, three project, made up of $9.9 million for the
major projects were in construction garage, $2.6 million for developer gap
simultaneously, in addition to the financing, and an additional $1 million
village’s own station renovation (all TIF funds) to underwrite land costs.
project. The first of these more recent Before the project, the village took in
projects, Arlington Town Square, $65,000 in annual property taxes; now
opened in 2000, with 94 condominium it receives $1.5 million annually in
units on 13 floors, 100,000 square feet property- and sales-tax income.
of ground-floor retail space, 26,000
square feet of office space, and a six- The second major recent project, the
screen movie complex. Metropolis Performing Arts Center, is
another successful mixed-use project.
The most controversial part of the It features a 310-seat, live performance
project has been the 13-story residential theatre, 63 condominium loft units, 64,000
288

square feet of retail and office space, and were installed to unify the area. The
816 parking spaces in an adjacent public village-owned station itself is abuzz with
garage. The loft units, priced below other activity, with a McDonalds, a bakery
downtown units, sold quickly. To jump- cafe, and a Gateway Newsstand. Funds
start this project, the village provided for the station refurbishment were
$2.35 million in gap financing for the provided by six agencies, including
theater. The village retains rights of first Metra, IDOT, and the village (which
refusal should the owner seek to sell the used TIF funds). This project received a
live performance theater.16 distinction award from CATS for CBD
train-station design.
The last major project, the Village Green,
features three 8- to 10-story buildings The village manages the 2,180 parking
with 250 condominiums, 53,000 square spaces used for retail, commuter,
feet of retail space, and 17,000 square employee, and resident parking. Over
feet of offices. Residential units cost time, the village has become more
from $260,000 to $1 million, and many sophisticated in how it balances parking
have been sold to empty nesters and among uses. Retail parking is free for
childless professionals.17 The 10-story 3 hours, and permits are sold for the
residential tower, the newest of the three, other uses. The village changes the
has an attractive stone finish reminiscent parking mix in the decks regularly to
of buildings in downtown Chicago and accommodate changing conditions.
contributes to the emerging urban image
of the entire downtown. Together, the In summary, the village of Arlington
three residential projects have helped to Heights realized early on that it was not
keep a big grocery store downtown that sufficient to just enact zoning changes to
spur transit-oriented growth; it has been
was considering relocating out of the
proactive, introducing a host of public
city. For this project, the village
improvements—streetscape projects,
contributed $8.7 million for land
parks, parking decks—that have
acquisition and gap financing.
leveraged private development
and paid off nicely.
Critical to downtown redevelopment
was the $4.7-million construction and According to Charles Witherington-
relocation of a Metra station in 2000. Perkins, Director of Planning and
By moving the station one block west Community Development, the following
and the platforms two blocks west, rail factors have been vital to the village’s
transit is closer to the downtown core, TOD success:
and a large gap between the north and
south sides of the tracks has been filled. (1) A clear vision;
(2) A willingness to commit public
The relocated site has substantially resources (TIF, aggressive parcel
improved north/south access to the acquisition, and structured parking);
station, made all the more attractive by (3) Strong and consistent local
the addition of parks and public art next leadership (at both the staff and
to the rail platform. In addition, brick political levels) that will take risks
pavers, decorative lighting, and benches and stay with the program in the face
similar to those used in the downtown of periodic criticism; and
289

(4) Continuity and dedication among Encompassing only 2.5 square miles,
staff to execute the plan. La Grange has 15,600 residents.19
The village is a predominantly
La Grange residential community with a thriving
downtown business district. The
The village of La Grange is located downtown has evolved into a regional
14 miles west of Chicago on Metra’s restaurant destination (with over 30
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Line. Each restaurants). With little opportunity to
day, two stations generate about 2,400 expand, La Grange has made a
boarding rides en route to and from concerted effort over the last 15 years
downtown Chicago, about 37 minutes to make the best use of its existing
away by rail. Incorporated in 1879, the assets, including the downtown rail
village has a historic character and station (see Photo 14.2).
appeal and a very walkable core.18 Like
Arlington Heights, La Grange has less La Grange’s 1986 Master Plan provided
freight activity than other Metra stations, the foundation for its downtown
which instills a human-scale ambience. transformation.20 The Plan identified
“Triangle” TOD from Station
Refurbished Metra Station Downtown La Grange

Photo 14.2. Village of La Grange. Over the past 15 years, the Village of La Grange
has created a thriving downtown business district focused around a refurbished Metra
station. Guided by a 1987 plan, the village used local initiative to acquire keys sites
for two condominium projects and nearly 50,000 square feet of retail. Façade and
streetscape improvements have helped attract over 30 restaurants to the downtown.
290

redevelopment sites in proximity to the performing strip mall, a fast food

rail line, established a “transitionary” restaurant, and a 70-year-old dry-
zoning district to allow a gradual cleaning establishment.23 These have
conversion to higher uses, and created a been replaced by 78 condominium units,
multifamily zone to increase downtown 45,800 square feet of retail space, and
densities. In addition, the Plan 194 parking spaces. The village has
established a TIF district, collecting the retained rights to approve the project’s
tax increment on both real-estate and tenants and building design.
sales taxes, to promote redevelopment
throughout the core. To further entice As in Arlington Heights, rehabilitation
redevelopment, the village has acquired of the downtown Metra station has
and assembled land; run a façade loan further rekindled La Grange’s historic
program (zero interest, fixed-rate loans past. Improvements included station
for renovation, restoration, maintenance cleaning; tuck-pointing; interior
and signage improvements to building redecorating; and lighting, safety, and
façades);21 made streetscape access upgrades. The village assumed
improvements (e.g., plantings and control of the station’s leasable space
maintenance); and provided bike patrols after Metra paid for and completed the
to enhance security.22 improvements.24
The first major redevelopment project Over the years, village planners have
in the village was the 40-unit La Grange become very knowledgeable about
Plaza condominiums, completed in parking, its relationship to the train
1995. For this project, the village station, and how to manage it. The
assembled the site and sold it to the village has over 1,500 on- and off-street
developer at 50% of the market cost. parking spaces and has good signage
The village also made environmental directing drivers to multiple, relatively
remediations to the site, formerly unobtrusive lots spread throughout the
occupied by automobile-oriented downtown. Both Metra and civic/
facilities. All the condominium units government parking are shared with
have been sold, and, as in Arlington restaurants in the evenings, and the
Heights, most buyers have been village provides centralized valet
over-50 empty nesters and under-30 parking on Friday and Saturday
professionals without children. evenings, when high restaurant demand
leads to shortages.
In 2000, the village began its most
challenging project, the “Triangle Elmhurst
Redevelopment,” located north of
the Metra tracks, where downtown The city of Elmhurst is situated 15 miles
commercial activity was weaker than west of Chicago on Metra’s Union
in the core to the south. For this project, Pacific West Line and generates about
the village negotiated to acquire 1,800 daily boardings. Incorporated in
11 properties and assemble a site on 1882, the city has about 43,000
both sides of La Grange Road. The inhabitants living in primarily owner-
site included older, low-intensity occupied housing. Like La Grange, the
uses such as a bank, an under- downtown core area has an intimate
291

relationship with its Metra station and, public funding. Downtown Elmhurst
today, is home to thriving shops, full- now boasts several three- to five-story,
time residents, and an active night life. nicely designed residential infill projects.
Located on an abandoned grocery store
Downtown Elmhurst has not always site, the Market Square Townhouses
been a thriving district. In the 1970s and (26 units) and Condominiums (48 units)
1980s, infrastructure was decrepit; an incorporate the local prairie-style
at-grade railroad track obstructed traffic; architecture in high-quality construction.
shopkeepers were flocking to shopping Many buyers are long-time residents
malls; and many buildings were vacant, seeking smaller, easy-to-maintain
as were streets.25 The city’s 1990 properties in town.
Comprehensive Plan initiated much of
the recent redevelopment, designating TOD Shaping New Commuter-Rail
the area immediately north of the tracks Lines
as the city’s primary shopping area, and
that south of the tracks for mixed office Metropolitan Chicago is entering another
and service uses. The commuter station era of rail building. The region has local
area was to become the city’s hub, and federal funding commitments for a
physically and symbolically. $1.35-billion rail reconstruction and
expansion program, including 41.5 new
To enact the plan, the city introduced miles of Metra commuter rail along the
several zoning changes, including
Southwest and West Corridors
allowing mixed uses, having retail
commuter-rail lines.
directly front pedestrian streets,
mandating street-level windows for retail
TOD emerged as an important
shops, reducing parking if shared with
consideration in the competition to
other uses, and locating loading zones
secure Chicago’s newest transit line
at the rear of buildings.
along the Northwest Transit Corridor.
Today, Elmhurst’s entire core is a TIF The corridor parallels the Northwest
district. The city also grants low-interest Tollway (I-90) west of O’Hare
loans (to renovate historic downtown International Airport and contains over a
buildings). It also runs a façade million jobs and more than 600,000
assistance program that pays for 50% residents. Local mayors, through the
of improvements (up to $50,000). Northwest Municipal Conference, have
Landscaping improvements, like new embraced TOD as part of their strategy
plantings in open spaces and the addition to build a local consensus and enhance
of street trees to screen surface parking their chance of securing federal New
lots, have created a quality walking Starts funding.26 Using funds passed
environment. (See Photo 14.3.) through RTA, the Conference sponsored
an interactive community process
Since 1990, 25 projects have added about leading to the development of TOD
300 residential units and 140,000 square sketch plans for the corridor.
feet of commercial space to downtown Development of the seven planned
Elmhurst. Local officials estimate that transit villages along the Tollway would
the city has leveraged nearly $17 in capture nearly 66,000 additional jobs
private investment for each dollar in and 8,700 new dwelling units over and
292

Nine-Story Apartment near Station Market Square
Museum Place Rehabilitated Metra Downtown Infill

Station
Photo 14.3. City of Elmhurst. The rehabilitation of Elmhurst’s Metra station
ignited redevelopment of the downtown.
above what is provided for in existing decades old. Many are also in a state
station-area plans (see Figure 14.1). of decline and turn their backs on their
aging train stations. Also, there is an
The Future of TOD in abundance of industrial land along
Metropolitan Chicago suburban rail corridors requiring some
level of remediation if new land uses
The political and market forces that have are to be implemented.
propelled the revitalization of rail-served
historic downtowns over the last 20 years How much and how quickly TOD
are likely to continue. Now that several spreads in Chicago will be governed by
successful TOD projects have been several factors, including
completed, “the word is out.”
• The Market. Metro Chicago is
Greater Chicago is ahead of many other experiencing TOD and sprawl at the
regions in leveraging a new generation same time. Paradoxically, sprawl is
of TODs in that many corridors are actually creating conditions
already dense, and mixed uses are conducive to TOD. As growth
common. However, many station areas leapfrogs outward, communities that
are constrained in their development have been leapt over see TOD as a
opportunities by local zoning that is way to re-center themselves and
293

evaluated the short-term impacts of

Metra’s newest line (the North
Central Service, opened in 1996),
found that up to 30% of new
homebuyers in some station areas
considered the availability of
commuter-rail services to be
important to their purchase
decision.28 Similarly, preliminary
surveys in Glenview, a new TOD
built on a former naval base, reveal
that 35% to 45% of new residents are
Metra commuters.29
• Rail Improvements. Metra has

embarked on ambitious upgrades to
Figure 14.1. Northwest Transit serve its growing ridership. The
Corridor TOD Plan. Local mayors are agency obtained $2 billion in state
placing a heavy emphasis on TOD in the funding from 2001 until 2005 to
quest for Chicago’s newest commuter- expand reverse-commute services,
rail line. Development of seven planned grade-separate tracks at road
transit villages along the “STAR Line” crossings, and refurbish its rolling
would provide the capacity to capture stock. Major new alignments are also
nearly 66,000 jobs and 8,700 new being planned, increasing the
dwelling units over and above opportunities for TOD. One project,
existing plans. the 55-mile STAR Line, will provide
north/south service between Joliet
compete in a changing marketplace. and the edge city of Hoffman Estates
Those policy aspirations are and east/west service from Hoffman
complemented by punishing levels of Estates to O’Hare Airport (the
traffic congestion that are prompting second corridor is known as the
more commuters to choose housing Northwest Transit Corridor). A
near rail stations. Chicago remains second “inner-circumferential”
one of the nation’s most congested alignment will connect O’Hare
regions, creating a ready-made Airport to Midway Airport.
market for TOD. Several studies Collectively, these alignments
have examined the accessibility will form a suburban rail grid to
advantages of rail-served properties complement Metra’s successful
in greater Chicago. One study by city-to-suburb radial service.
Gruen Gruen + Associates, which
looked at both Metra and CTA rail Land-use studies and planning for
stations, found that beginning at these routes have already begun with
500 feet from a station, home prices participation and funding by Metra,
fell by 1% with each additional RTA, and the state. Perhaps more
100 feet from the station, up to importantly, both studies have
5,300 feet.27 Another study, which obtained significant local matches
294

from cities in the corridors, which mentation authority. It is still too early
have generally taken an active to assess the prospects for this
interest in maximizing TOD ambitious plan. Even as the state
opportunities (and would pay for legislature is considering a bill to
new stations). Ongoing studies are study the proposed agency conso-
consciously using land use as a lidation, turf issues are surfacing.
“differentiator” in New Starts
reporting, even as some districts At the same time, NIPC is currently in
already have strong congressional the midst of its own planning effort,
representation (and are likely to Common Ground, which consists of a
receive earmarked funding). series of workshops, focus groups, and
hands-on computer-based exercises to
• Regional Planning. Up until recently, learn what people want the region to
there has been little regional look like in 2030. The process, to be
leadership on TOD, although this is completed by the end of 2004, will
changing. Chicago Metropolis 2020, provide the foundation of a new
a nonprofit civic-planning initiative regional comprehensive plan. To date,
of the Commercial Club of Chicago, the process has been successful in
recently unveiled a regional plan to engaging local citizens, elected
implement TOD as part of a broader officials, private developers, minority
framework to manage Chicago’s groups, and environmental advocates.
increasingly automobile-dependent
growth.30 Key recommendations of • Social Factors. TOD remains very
the plan include growth focused on much an issue of available resources
regional centers and TODs, removing in Metro Chicago. Cities that have a
zoning barriers to TOD and mixed- strong tax base and funds to leverage
income communities, modernizing tend to progress quickly, while less
transit (using new funding), well-off cities do not. Affordable
introducing bike- and pedestrian- housing remains a particularly
friendly designs, and restoring the controversial issue. Some density
environment. Furthermore, the plan and infill development are often
calls for an Intergovernmental accepted, as long as they allow
Growth Management Act allowing expensive, for-sale units. In
for county-level “cooperation Arlington Heights and La Grange,
councils” to implement integrated for instance, new units have been
plans for transport, land use, primarily for-sale condominiums. In
economic development, and resource the past, the Campaign for Sensible
protection, and centralized state Growth and the Metropolitan Mayors
planning spending via the Bureau of Council have tried to promote
the Budget, to be consistent with affordable housing with little
regional planning objectives.31 success. Metropolis 2020
Finally, the plan calls for the state recommends creating a state housing
to merge CATS, NIPC, the Illinois act requiring all towns to provide a
Toll Authority, and RTA into an range of housing options and
all-powerful umbrella organization prioritizing funds to places that
with land-use transportation imple- create workforce housing.
295

In other communities, density in preserve key land parcels for civic

general remains a divisive issue. spaces and other uses.
The mid-rise densities in Arlington
Heights are not viewed favorably • Taking the Long View: Success did
by some communities considering not always come quickly. In each
TOD, prompting RTA and other community, the downtown
agencies to focus discussions more redevelopment/ TOD strategy was
on design possibilities than on part of a master plan that the
density per se. One instance in community had been pursuing for
which NIMBY resistance led to 15 to 20 years. Patience and a
down-zoning was in Olympia willingness to make short-term
Fields, an exclusive community to sacrifices for long-term gains were
important traits in several instances.
the south of Chicago (the “Lake
Forest of the southern suburbs”). • Continuity and Leadership: An
There, a new town center was essential element in each community
planned for 54 acres of greenfield was the ongoing persistence and
under single ownership. A visual leadership provided by professional
preference survey originally led to staff and elected officials.
a sensitive conceptual design.
However, after the locals got • Development Tools in Place:
involved, a large surface parking Instrumental in leveraging TOD was
lot was introduced instead, only the realization that achieving well-
minor commercial/retail uses were designed, walkable, compact
included, and the condominiums development in ailing downtowns
and townhouses were replaced by would require public investment—
a gated single-family community. assembling sites, upgrading public
infrastructure, and rehabilitating
Conclusions and Lessons older buildings.
• Managing the Parking: Metro
Metro Chicago’s experiences point to Chicago’s commuter-rail TODs
the potential of using commuter rail, require good automobile access
designed in a sensitive manner, in to be viable. Each community
combination with supportive public understood the need to have a
policies and targeted public investments comprehensive approach to the
to leverage the revitalization and design, placement, management,
rejuvenation of older suburban and sizes of commuter parking.
downtowns. Common to the success of Where possible, shared parking was
these efforts are the following: introduced to economize on
construction and conserve land.
• Transit System Design: A new or
refurbished Metra station • Supportive Real-Estate Market:
strategically located in the downtown Worsening traffic congestion and
core jump-started private real-estate shifting demographics helped
investments. Commuter parking was provide a ready-made market that
sensitively located away from the each community was able to tap into
platform to a number of small lots to for denser residential development.
296

Notes the Future,” (Final 2003 Program and

Budget) November 2002, p. 3.
1 Other major transit providers in the Chicago 12 These studies are: (1) Metra and Northeastern
region are the CTA, which provides regional Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC),
heavy-rail and bus service, and Pace, which “Guidelines: Land Use in Commuter Rail
provides suburban bus service. Station Areas: Guidelines for Communities”
2 Campaign for Sensible Growth, Growing (planning brochure), 2nd printing, April
Sensibly, brochure (Chicago: n. d.). 1999; (2) Camiros, Ltd. and Valerie S.
Kretchmer Associates, Inc., “Strategies:
3 Chicago Metropolis 2020, The Metropolis Local-Economic Benefits of Commuter Rail
Plan: Choices for the Chicago Region Stations for Communities and Businesses,”
(Chicago: 2003). See http://www. (planning brochure) Metra, Chicago, IL,
metropolisplan.org/main.htm. April 1999; and (3) S. B. Friedman &
4
Company, Vlecides-Schroeder Associates,
Chicago Area Transportation Study (CATS)
and Nancy Seeger Associates Ltd.,
Policy Committee, “Resolution 00-01: A
“Approaches: Residential Development Near
Resolution Endorsing the Interagency
Commuter Rail Stations,” (planning
Agreement for Regional Planning in
brochure) Metra, n. d., Chicago, IL.
Northeastern Illinois” (March 2000).
13
5
Metra requires the replacement of parking that
NIPC has jurisdiction in six counties: Dupage, it owns and established a parking committee
Kane, Will, Cook, Lake, and McHenry. in 1987 to ensure that its riders are adequately
6
Approval of facility planning areas is required served as parking issues become more
by the Illinois Environmental Protection important with increasing redevelopment.
Agency before water and sewer services can Metra has worked closely with RTAP staff on
be expanded into developing areas. several downtown redevelopment projects and
continues to do so.
7
Created by the state, NIPC has no guaranteed
14
funding base and operates like a private For more information see
(service for contract) consulting firm. Most http://www.growingsensibly.org.
contracts are with the state and federal 15
Most trips are work trips; service is not
governments and must be renewed frequent enough or late enough to serve non-
continuously. NIPC also collects about work trips very well. The 7% figure is based
$800,000 per year in voluntary contributions on analysis of the 2000 Census by Arlington
from local jurisdictions, which is mainly used Heights Planning and Community
to match state and federal grants. Development Department. The 17% figure is
8 This program is currently part of a broader based on Downtown Residents (mail) Survey
Illinois Tomorrow statewide initiative, which in 2002, administered by the Planning and
pulls together a variety of state programs Community Development Department.
under a common focus: to encourage the 16 The purchase price would be reduced by the
creation, expansion, and restoration of livable amount of the village’s financial contributions.
communities in Illinois. For more
17
information, go to http://www.state.il.us/ Over time, downtown Arlington Heights has
state/balanced/. become a desirable regional address for
residential real estate, and the market remains
9 The TOD toolbox will establish corridor strong.
planning standards for the planned Northwest
18
Transit Corridor. The village generally promotes high-quality
development and has a nationally designated
10 See http://www.rtachicago.com/business/ historic district to ensure that homes are well
planning.asp for more information about preserved and maintain their architectural and
RTAP publications. historic significance.
11 Based on 1990 Census journey-to-work data 19 Per the 2000 Census, median income in the
for the six-county region. Metra, “Securing village is $80,000 and the median home value
297

is $272,000. The village has about 4,000 27 Gruen Gruen + Associates, “The Effects of
owner-occupied units and 1,000 rental units. CTA and Metra Station on Residential
20
Property Values, a Report to the Regional
The Plan itself was based on a “State of the
Transportation Authority” (June 1997),
Area Report” completed by Camiros, Ltd.
Northbrook, IL.
(planning consultants), February 1985.
28
21
In most cities along the alignment, the service
The village has made approximately was too new to significantly affect
40 façade loans. The maximum loan is development patterns. Three communities,
$40,000; a corner building with two façades however, have already implemented TOD
could qualify for $80,000. zoning and designs—Centennial Crossing,
22 The village also sponsored a “traditional” Vernon Hills, and Prairie Crossing. Valerie S.
Main Street program (e.g., business hours Kretchmer Associates, Inc., “Land Use
coordination and shopper parking Impacts: North Central Service Impact
reimbursement) throughout the 1990s, Evaluation—Phase II” prepared for Metra
with limited success. The program was (June 1999).
dependent on village staff and funding, 29 Data are based on Fall 2002 Origin/
which the village is too small to provide Destination surveys by Metra. (Metra
on a full-time basis. periodically conducts surveys of selected
23 residential properties to estimate rail usage
The dry-cleaning facility was a brownfield
and mode of access.) At Railway Plaza, a
site. EPA brownfield funds were secured to
417-unit development near the Route 59
do site cleanup, and “comfort letters” were
station, Metra estimates that every 100
provided to let landowners know that there
households generate 53 riders who walk to
were no other contaminants on the site.
the station. At the Spring Avenue Station
24 This is a fairly common arrangement with development in LaGrange, about 56 riders
Metra, with whom the village retains a good per 100 households were found.
working relationship. 30
The Commercial Club is the same group that
25 Downtown Elmhurst experiences lots of commissioned Burnham’s celebrated 1909
freight activity that often impedes traffic. Chicago Plan.
This problem was partially rectified with the 31 The Campaign for Sensible Growth has also
construction of a new vehicular/pedestrian advocated for a “State Office for Sensible
underpass. Growth” to designate priority development
26 The Northwest Municipal Conference, a areas, establish clear funding priorities, and
regional council of government formed in coordinate funding and permitting activities.
1958 is a membership-supported association
representing a population of over 1.2 million. Photo Credits
With 44 municipalities and 5 townships, the
Northwest Municipal Conference unites an Photos 14.1, 14.2, and 14.3 were taken by G. B.
area of over 300 square miles. Arrington.
298

Chapter 15
Dallas: Using TOD to Create Place and
Value in a Sprawling Metroplex
Viewed from 37,000 feet, the Dallas motivator, and TOD is helping to create
Metroplex (i.e., region) would not unique downtowns to attract growth that
appear to be a strong candidate for TOD. would otherwise go to the sprawling
Interlaced by freeways and dotted with fringe of the region. In Plano, TOD is
sprawling subdivisions, mega-malls, and being used to revitalize a traditional
other space-hungry land uses, the lay of downtown that flourished long ago. At
the land does not seem particularly Mockingbird Station, Richardson, and
inviting to transit usage. Addison Circle, new downtowns and
commercial centers are mushrooming
Unlike other regions, where the central upwards from scratch. In these places,
city initially takes the lead role in sophisticated developers are building
promoting TOD, the city of Dallas has multiple projects with multiple uses to
largely adopted a “wait-and-see” provide “the full meal deal” within the
approach to TOD. The TOD leadership station area. In all the places profiled in
in this property-rights-friendly state, this case study, TOD is not just a
where government and planning have collection of unrelated projects, but
historically had relatively limited roles, rather is consciously being used as part
has come from suburban communities of a “place-making” strategy.
and the region’s transit authority.
What has done most to kindle interest in Regional TOD Players and Tools
Dallas’s growing (and increasingly
traffic-choked) suburbs is the TOD DART serves the city of Dallas and
success story at Mockingbird Station. 12 surrounding municipalities. DART
North of downtown Dallas, the presently operates 44 miles of light-rail
Mockingbird Station capitalized on service connections with 34 stations
private developer initiative, a good site, and more than 130 local and express
strong local demographics, and an bus routes (see Map 15.1). The light-
abundance of adjacent regional rail “starter line” opened in 1996, and
attractions. A TOD “sea change” has service was extended to Garland and
occurred in the first-generation suburbs Plano in late 2002. Today, average
of Richardson, Plano, and Addison, weekday light-rail ridership is about
where committed local officials have 55,000. In addition, DART operates
worked with savvy developers to the Trinity Railway Express commuter
proactively plan and develop station line, which connects to Dallas-Fort
areas. Whereas DART initially led the Worth International Airport and
TOD charge, now local cities are. downtown Fort Worth. All told, DART
moves more than 200,000 passengers
In Dallas’s northern suburbs, a “fear of per day across its 700-square-mile
being skipped over” is a primary service area.1
299

Map 15.1. DART Light-Rail System, 2003.

Source: DART.
DART does not have a formal TOD station designs with DART engineers
program (named as such), but promotes and local city staff.
transit-supportive growth via economic
development activities and programs. To promote TOD, DART employs a
According to DART TOD specialists, variety of tools. With its board’s
this gives them greater flexibility to get approval, DART can lease and sell
involved in a broad range of projects that surplus property (e.g., underutilized
could potentially affect DART ridership. parking) for affordable housing and
TOD planners spend about half their other ventures. At the Arena Station,
time educating cities and developers currently under construction, DART sold
about the benefits of TOD via general its air rights (starting at 26 feet above
publications and focused consultations grade) for 55% of the land value. The air
and the other half coordinating detailed rights will allow the Arena to build over
300

the back one-third of the public plaza The North Central Texas Council of
that will be part of the rail station. At the Governments (NCTCOG) has not yet
8th and Corinth Station, DART is in the developed a comprehensive, regional
process of selling surplus parking to an TOD strategy, and because not all of its
affordable-housing developer, pending member cities have light-rail service, it
board approval. In other cases, DART “treads carefully” in this regard. In spite
has proactively acquired surplus of this, the NCTCOG recognizes the
property to one day be exchanged for value of TOD, and it has taken steps to
station-area infrastructure (and good promote it. A recent issue of Regional
TOD development). In the Plano profile Mobility Initiatives, a monthly report on
that follows, the details of this type of the agency’s transportation planning
deal are described. activities, discussed how to improve rail
station access (particularly for bikes and
In designing stations, DART pays pedestrians) and vehicle access and
particular attention to station placement parking, as well as transit-supportive
and bus and pedestrian linkages. At the designs, implementation strategies, and
I-90 station, for instance, DART broke success stories.2 In addition, the
the historic mold for how its transit NCTCOG’s Mobility 2025 Update
facilities are laid out. In this case, embraces “sustainable development” as
commuter parking and the rail platform the region’s new strategic approach to
are separated by about 400 feet, whereas transportation planning, programming,
in typical stations, they abut each other. and construction. The plan recognizes
The commuter parking is located in the four categories of sustainable
right-of-way under an elevated freeway development and calls for multimodal
(covered parking is desirable in the planning support for them. The four
Dallas heat), and the platform is across categories are strategic urban
the street. DART strategically located development, integrated land-use
the platform in the middle of a large planning/urban design, TOD, and
development parcel that is under single access management. In a related step,
ownership (i.e., a potential future TOD) the NCTCOG also established the
and built a 400-foot pedestrian walkway Sustainable Development Fund, a fund of
to provide a direct connection from the $24 million for the Dallas District of the
parking to the platform. When it can, Texas Department of Transportation
DART tries to locate stations in the (TxDOT) to pay for TOD improvements.3
“middle of the action” and locate TOD at the Cedars Station received
transit support facilities at the edge of $5.8 million in CMAQ monies through
activity areas. the Sustainable Development Fund.
Finally, DART also returns 15% of the TOD in Light-Rail Communities

sales taxes it receives from cities through
DART’s Local Assistance Program. The Greater Dallas stands out as an example
funds can be used for a wide variety of of great divergence—a yin and yang in
transit and congestion mitigation TOD implementation. Along the starter
projects. Funding is discontinued when a line in the city of Dallas, market factors
light-rail construction contract is are overcoming the lack of supportive
approved within the benefiting city. public policy, triggering mixed-use
301

development next to transit at some Recalling trips to New York City and
stations. A very different picture Europe during his youth, developer Ken
emerges in the suburban communities Hughes consciously sought to tap into
along the DART extensions where the transit system to bring the ambience
market forces have been complemented and energy of those places to Dallas.
by public-sector leadership, investment, When interviewed for this study, Hughes
and supportive policies. remarked, “If you look at the chemistry
in London, Paris, Mexico City, or
Mockingbird Station wherever there’s mass transit, you find
kinetic activity created by transit
The city of Dallas provides a good stations. A little bit of that will happen
example of how market factors and here with the trains.”
private-sector vision, rather than public
policy, can spawn large-scale Strategically located at the intersection
development next to transit. Since the of Mockingbird Lane, a major east-west
opening of the DART light-rail system arterial, and the North Central
in 1996, more than $1.2 billion in new Expressway, the TOD abuts DART’s
commercial and residential investment Mockingbird Station, the initial terminus
has been constructed within walking of the 20-mile light-rail starter system.
distance of DART.4 With the exception Light rail has since been extended to
of the Cedars Project, this has happened both Garland and Plano, with
without any subsidies, TOD planning Mockingbird Station sitting today at the
or supportive policies by the regional confluence of the two lines. The project
planning agency, the city of Dallas, or is linked to nearby Southern Methodist
DART (along the starter line). University via dedicated shuttle service.
It is also near the Katy (hike-and-bike)
While there has been significant Trail and White Rock Lake, two regional
development next to DART stations, recreational resources. Also nearby is the
much of it has been “transit adjacent” well-to-do Park Cities neighborhood.
and is not truly “transit oriented.” One Many of its residents patronize the
notable exception is Mockingbird numerous retail and entertainment
Station (see Photo 15.1). Located 4 miles offerings at Mockingbird Station. This
north of downtown Dallas (a 15-minute has given the TOD a rather upscale
train ride), Mockingbird Station is a ambience, which by national standards is
mixed-use, urban “chic” village linked more the exception than the rule.
directly to a light-rail station (after
which it is named) via a welcoming The Mockingbird Station project was
pedestrian bridge. The assemblage of initiated in 1997 when Hughes bought a
offices, shops, restaurants, and lofts near 7-acre property with an abandoned
the station cost around $145 million to Western Electric building on
build, a substantial sum given that such a Mockingbird Lane. The three-story
“product” had absolutely no track record brick/concrete building, built in 1947 as
in automobile-friendly Texas. a telephone assembly plant, had high loft
ceilings and was next to the planned
This pioneering project has set the tone Mockingbird Station, but it was filled
for other TODs in the Dallas Metroplex. with junk and covered with grease.
302

Photo 15.1. Mockingbird Station. Dallas’s Mockingbird Station was the first
mixed-use project in Texas specifically designed and built for a light-rail transit sta-
tion. It includes 211 upscale loft residences, 140,000 square feet of office space, and
180,000 square feet of destination and convenience retail, theaters, and restaurants.
Today, the bottom level of the was critical for the project as it enabled
refurbished structure has 45,000 square 1,150 underground parking spaces to be
feet of retail space (e.g., the Gap and built for future residents, workers, and
Urban Outfitters) and is topped by customers and converted part of the
four stories of new construction to existing six-story office parking garage
accommodate 200,000 square feet of into 35,000 square feet of retail space
apartments. Most of the half-century-old (housing Virgin Records). The office
brick walls remain exposed, and the building was subsequently expanded to
large jalousie windows were retained. 140,000 square feet. Below the office
The building is topped with a distinctive tower and adjacent to the parking
arched roof, recalling the bow-string structure are high-end retailers (e.g.,
trusses of the original building, a design Abercrombie & Fitch and Ann Taylor
frequently employed in 19th-century Loft), posh restaurants, and outdoor cafes.
railroad terminals. A 25-meter Olympic-
standard pool is located on the roof. Rounding out the development is the
eight-screen Angelika Film Center and
In 1998, the developer purchased the Café, which features independently
office tower next door (the Guaranty produced films. Its parking is
Federal Bank Building), adding more underground. The building, located on
parking and 3 acres to the site, giving the northwest corner of the site, is
the project direct freeway access to directly accessed via the pedestrian
complement the rail access. This purchase bridge that connects the development
303

with light-rail and bus service. Finally, have resisted the lower figure.
a brand-name boutique hotel is also Questioning the parking standards could
planned for the site, west of the film have been risky because there was no
center and immediately east of the track record for such a development.
Central Expressway.
With the exception of federal
The loft apartments, which first went contributions toward public
on the market in 2001, rent for infrastructure, the development has been
$900 to $2,700 per month and average 100% privately financed. The developer
1,200 square feet each. According to connected his project to the Katy Trail
Hughes, rents are some 35% above and has spent over $600,000 for
“comparables,” which is attributed improvements to public sidewalks and
in good part to transit’s presence. landscaping. In addition, the developer
Most tenants are 30- to 45-year-old paid $500,000 to bury existing above-
professionals who can afford to own but ground utilities.
prefer to rent. Six top-floor penthouses
rent for up to $4,600 per month. The project’s only shortcoming is poor
According to Hughes, many residents pedestrian connections across adjacent
were living in downtown lofts but felt streets and highways. Sidewalks
too isolated. “But primarily, they wanted surrounding the project are undersized,
access to the train. We’re getting people discontinuous, and flank fast-moving
who work in the Telecom Corridor that traffic. In the future, the developer and
want to live close in and take the train the city would like to see Mockingbird
to work.” Lane converted into a boulevard with
raised medians, wider sidewalks,
The Mockingbird project’s parking landscaping, and traffic-calming
facilities do not reflect the presence devices.
of transit, although not because of
developer resistance. The project has Historically, the city of Dallas has made
1,400 parking spaces; two double bays no changes to its plans or zoning codes
of parking for 150 cars are in the center to promote or allow TOD. For this
of the project, and the rest is structured project, both land parcels were already
or below ground. According to Hughes, zoned for mixed-use development, so
the surface parking is not enough to there were no zoning obstacles to
overwhelm pedestrians, but it is overcome. The most coordination with
sufficient (and desired) to activate the public agencies occurred in designing
project by creating movement. Hughes and building the pedestrian bridge
estimates that he had to build $6 million linking the project directly to light rail.
worth of excess structured parking for This required the developer to work
the project. While the city gave the “hand in glove” with DART. As light
project a mixed-use parking reduction rail was already operational prior to the
credit, it refused to reduce parking project kickoff, there was no opportunity
further to reflect transit’s proximity.5 to change the location of the station,
The developer estimates he may have which sits in a deep below-grade trench
only needed to provide 1,300 spaces, but and was designed to incorporate a future
he acknowledges that some tenants may pedestrian bridge to the west.6 During
304

construction of the developer-financed Just south of the Cedars Station lies South
bridge, workers had to take care to cover Side on Lamar, the primary catalyst of the
and protect overhead wires and could area’s urban renewal. Developed by
only work in 3-hour shifts so as not to Matthews Southwest, South Side on
disrupt light-rail service. From the Lamar is a 10-story, mixed-use “live and
bridge, elevators and escalators carry work” center that reused an abandoned
passengers to the depressed passenger- Sears Roebuck & Co. Catalogue
loading platform. In effect then, the Merchandise Center built in 1913 (see
transit station, which includes a Photo 15.2). With over 1.4 million square
Starbucks coffee shop, serves as the feet, the project includes 455 lofts; retail
“front door” to the development. space (e.g., a coffee shop, a small
grocery, and a dry cleaner); offices; and a
The Cedars live performance space. Over 90% of the
loft units are occupied, primarily by
The Cedars, just south of downtown young professional couples and empty
Dallas on the starter line, was once the nesters attracted to the district’s arts
site of a large forest of conifer trees. focus. Around half of the commercial
Over time, the area became one of space is presently leased.
Dallas’s first suburbs (with numerous
Victorian homes), but it later Matthews Southwest also opened a
transitioned into a primarily industrial Gilley’s western bar one-and-a-half
and commercial area. Today, proactive blocks from Convention Center,
public leadership and developer the district’s 190,000-square-foot
initiatives are converting abandoned entertainment complex based in
industrial land and buildings yet again concept on the 1980s country music
into a vibrant TOD with a strong “honky tonk.” Targeted at tourists,
residential base.7 Four major projects are conventioneers, and Dallas residents,
helping to bring the area back to life. the complex includes themed bars and
restaurants, an amusement arcade, a
Anchoring the redevelopment area to the rodeo arena, retail shopping, and a
east is DART’s Cedars Station, which is high-tech recording space similar to
served by both the Blue and Red Lines Austin City Limits.
and provides short-term parking, bus
bays, and bike racks on 2.2 acres. To the Rounding out development to date is
north is DART’s Convention Center the new Dallas Police Headquarters,
Station, where the Convention Center which adds a major employer to the
recently underwent a 300,000-square- neighborhood. With 360,000 square
foot expansion. The entire area is feet on 3.2 acres, it houses over
envisioned as a commercial/ 1,300 employees and consolidates
entertainment/hotel/residential district, 37 law enforcement functions into a
with the corridor between the two DART single facility.8
stations becoming an “Arts Walk” and
entertainment quarter that is attractive to DART has been active at The Cedars,
a younger, more “bohemian” market successfully securing a $5.8-million
than the market in Plano, Addison, or CMAQ grant from the NCTCOG for
Mockingbird. pedestrian improvements, including wide
305

South Side on Lamar New Police Headquarters
South Side Rooftop Sign with Dallas Skyline in Background

Photo 15.2. South Side on Lamar, Dallas. Located at the
Cedars Station, South Side is the redevelopment of a 10-story
abandoned Sears catalogue center into a 1.4-million-square-foot
TOD with 455 lofts, 20,000 square feet of retail, and 100,000
square feet of office space.
sidewalks, an Art Walk, landscaping, relatively affluent community with a

pedestrian lighting, bike lanes, park primarily service-based economy.9
benches, and bricked walkways. The city During the boom times of the 1980s,
of Dallas has also contributed $500,000 millions of square feet of campus-style
through a Cedars TIF district for office space were built in Plano, quickly
streetscape improvements and awarded transforming it from a rather quiet
tax abatements for the Gilley’s residential community. Since the early
development. Under the terms of the 1990s, Plano has sought to change course.
5-year abatement, the city will forgo The city has consciously embraced the
50% of the taxes assessed on the principles of New Urbanism and TOD in
increased value of the existing property. hopes of transforming its downtown into
The city also gave Matthews Southwest a a compact, mixed-use urban center.
$22-million historic tax credit for Guiding its redevelopment program is a
restoring the Sears building. vision of improving quality of life,
providing a model of sustainable
Plano development for maturing suburban
cities, and creating a unique suburban
Downtown Plano lies some 40 minutes identity for itself.10
north of downtown Dallas on DART’s
Red Line. Covering 72 square miles and According to Frank Turner, Plano’s
with 237,000 residents, Plano is a Executive Director of the Business
306

Development Center, the city has been formed in 1993, which allowed mixed-
committed to its downtown, which has use development in the entire (80-acre)
historic and symbolic significance, for downtown core. The new zoning
decades. During the past 40 years, restricted the amount of surface parking
Plano has witnessed explosive growth. that could be built, limited building
(Its population was 2,100 in 1950.) heights to four stories (to distribute
Suburban shopping centers sapped density), and required new buildings
downtown Plano’s vitality as a retail to be next to the street. During this
center. By the 1980s, the downtown’s period, the city also reconstructed key
tenant mix had changed from retail downtown streets and implemented
support (e.g., grocery, drug, and “historic” design finishes. While the
hardware) to specialty stores opening of DART was still a few years
(e.g., novelties and antique shops) away, the groundwork was being laid to
that closed by late afternoon. The capitalize on a new light-rail station.
downtown was dead at night, turnover
was high, and absentee ownership led In 1995, DART revised its earlier plans
to a gradual physical and economic to operate only special-event service to
decline, which began to spread to downtown Plano, opting instead to build
adjacent neighborhoods. In the regional a full-service, “destination” platform
landscape, downtown Plano had become without any park-and-ride facilities.12
“the forgotten commercial center” of a DART and the city worked together
once prosperous farming community. to strategically relocate the platform
to bring the entire downtown BG
The city’s efforts to rebuild the district within 1⁄4 mile of the platform
downtown started in the 1980s with and to facilitate the city’s first major
landscaping, streetscaping, and other redevelopment project, Eastside Village
aesthetic improvements. A new (Phase 1). Properties to the east of the
municipal building was constructed and platform consisted of an old shopping
later expanded, and several derelict center and scattered deteriorating
buildings were removed to expand commercial buildings. The city had
Haggard Park, the historic “heart” of the previously acquired two-thirds of the
City.11 While these improvements made block to clear for parking, but with
downtown more attractive, they did not DART’s change in plans, the block
attract much private investment. became an ideal candidate for
redevelopment. In a deal between the
A major milestone occurred in 1991 city and DART, DART used eminent
when the city council approved a new domain to acquire the remaining one-
downtown development plan. The third of the block, a portion of which
plan’s overriding goal was to create a was required for the DART platform.
compact town center utilizing New DART then transferred the balance of
Urbanist principles. Specifically, it its property to the city in exchange for
recommended expanding the downtown the city assuming responsibility for
through infill and redevelopment reconstructing streets, drainage, and
adjacent to historic commercial utilities needed to serve the platform.
buildings in the core. A new business/ In essence, this was a “public-public
government (BG) zoning district was partnership.”
307

The city assembled the entire site and in realize the city’s vision of a transit
1998 issued a request for qualifications village, create a sense of place, and
(RFQ) for developers. In a selection perform well financially. Density was a
process that solicited inputs from major bone of contention throughout
neighborhood residents and merchants, the process. Local officials and citizens
Robert Shaw’s new development reviewed preliminary designs for
company, Amicus Partners, was selected 4 months and, in 1999, supported
from the four companies submitting their increasing the site’s allowable density
qualifications. Prior to the decision to to 100 dwelling units per acre (up from
relocate the station, Shaw’s company 40 in the original BG zoning). After
had approached the city about doing a extended negotiations, the community
TOD project. In Plano, the company saw was willing to accept high density
an opportunity to replicate the success of in exchange for the prospect of
its previous Uptown Dallas project, and re-energizing and upgrading downtown
it wanted to use transit to create a “sense Plano.
of place” that sustains or enhances real-
estate values over a long time.13 The resulting project, Eastside Village 1,
was completed in 2001 (see Photo
Following the selection of Amicus 15.3).14 It sits on a 3.6-acre parcel
Partners, Robert Shaw led an intensive adjacent to the historic downtown and
community-driven process to develop a near two performing arts centers, a
design concept for the site that would transit museum, a residential historic
Photo 15.3. Eastside Village, Plano. Helping anchor the rebirth of downtown Plano,
Eastside Village is a $17.7-million, high-density, mixed-use project fronting directly
onto DART’s light-rail station plaza. The 3.6-acre, 245,000-square-foot project features
234 apartment units and 15,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space. The three- and
four-story building wraps around three sides of a five-story parking structure.
308

district, and Haggard Park. The project apartments and 25,000 square feet of
features three- and four-story brick ground-floor retail. A new street bisects
buildings with zero setbacks and designs the site to provide garage access and
reminiscent of 19th-century mercantile expand the downtown grid. Parking is
structures. The buildings house 234 loft similar at the second project, which has
apartments (renting for $600 to $1,200 419 garage spaces (100 owned by the
per month) above 15,000 square feet of city) and 33 surface spaces. Compared
ground-floor commercial space, with the first phase project, however, the
including two restaurants, small offices, interior garage at Eastside Village 2 is
and a community room leased by the more visible to local traffic, and the
city. The whole development is split in retail has thus fared better. In both
half by a new street. The western portion projects, most residents are singles and
of the site directly abuts the DART young professional couples without
platform and plaza, integrating private children.
and public space, and the interior of the
building contains a courtyard and pool. To help leverage the Eastside Village
The eastern portion of the project has an projects, the city paid for new local
interior five-level parking garage with streets, constructed brick sidewalks,
351 spaces. The first level is open to the and provided street furniture and
public to serve the commercial facilities ornamental lights. It also granted
and has a 4-hour limit (poaching by Shaw’s company a parks fee waiver
DART commuters had been a problem). and credited development fees against
The top four floors are gated for project ground-lease payments.
residents. Surrounding the whole project
on three sides are 47 angled on-street Going into the first project, Shaw’s
parking spaces. starting assumption was that light rail
would help to publicize and market the
Encouraged by the anticipated success of TOD, but that the fundamental demand
Phase 1, the city and Amicus Partners for rental units would not change
began working together to put together because of the project’s location next
another project. Nearby, the city owned to DART. During interviews for this
another 1.1 acres adjacent to 2.2 acres study, Shaw commented, “I’ve been
owned by a utility company seeking to proved totally wrong on the impact of
relocate. Shaw’s company bought the DART.” Phase 1 opened 11⁄2 years before
utility parcel, and the city contributed its DART and leased up quickly. The second
land in return for 100 future on-site phase of the project, however, overtook
public parking spaces. The city also paid the first phase, and occupancy in the
the company $800,000 for public first phase dropped from 98% to 89%.
infrastructure improvements. After Then, according to Shaw, “A miracle
another design process involving happened—DART opened.” Shaw
downtown merchants and residents, believes that 25% to 50% of new leases
Eastside Village 2 was born. are now DART-driven, and occupancy is
back at 98% for Phase 1. Shaw believes,
Built from 2001 to 2002, the second “Because of DART, the project is
project is similar in design and scale to dramatically out-performing the market.
Eastside Village 1. It includes 229 loft I’m a convert.” Now both projects
309

market directly to DART users by

handing out coffee and doughnuts on the
platform, and project advertisements
Mixed-Use Lessons
include a DART “banner.” Text Box Developer Robert Shaw focuses on four
15.1 outlines Shaw’s philosophy on elements to create a successful mixed-use
TOD design. project such as Addison Circle or Plano
Transit Village:
The city is not done rebuilding its down-
town. While the two projects have added 1. FAR (Floor Area Ratio): push the FAR
to the maximum extent possible.
nearly 500 dwelling units and at least 2. Building Efficiency: gross to net,
twice as many permanent “eyes on the maximize the amount of leasable area in
street,” the city would like to add another relation to total building size.
500 units near the DART station as part of 3. The Parking Solution: get to the
its vision of a “Plano Transit Village.” smallest amount of parking space per
Other tools used by the city include a TIF square foot of leasable space.
4. The Ground Floor Plane: activate the
district, parcel assembly, a neighborhood
street face on the development.
empowerment zone (which reduces
development fees), and a historic Finding the right parking solution is a major
preservation tax abatement program. driver in Shaw’s projects. Shaw starts by
finding the parking solution and then works
Once again, downtown Plano is from there. Over time, he has fine-tuned the
becoming a regional destination. New art of parking costs. His four- to five-story
structures typically have a 200 x 120 foot
businesses include the Coffee Haus, footprint to allow for efficient deck runs, or
Jorg’s Café Vienna (an Austrian about 300 square feet per parking space (well
restaurant), Two Brothers Cigars, below suburban averages of 400 to 500
Spa St. Clair, and the Eastside Art square feet). He has developed relationships
Gallery. Three new restaurants are with parking contractors; the decks are
expected to move in soon, which will concrete poured in place and, depending on
the cost of materials, come in at $3,700 to
create more good energy for evening
$4,500 per space—much less than the costs
shopping. In the last 3 years, 26 new typically associated with structured parking.
single-family houses have been built in The plan view of Shaw’s Eastside Village in
the older neighborhoods adjacent to Plano (below) illustrates these relationships.
downtown, and the city continues to
restore historic commercial and civic
buildings. The city is also reusing its
Development
first school gymnasium, built in 1938,
as a performing arts center. As at
DART Station
Mockingbird Station, DART is

benefiting from high weekend and Parking
entertainment/leisure use.15
Neither of the Eastside Village projects, it

should be noted, would have happened
without risk-taking commitments by both
the developer and the city. The city
articulated the vision and provided Text Box 15.1
310

incentives. The developer understood Station, The Cedars, and downtown

what was necessary to translate the vision Plano, it is not presently served by
into an economically viable project light-rail transit, although civic leaders
with a design that the community could hope this will one day change. Currently,
embrace. According to Shaw, the city’s it represents a bus-based TOD with
leadership behind TOD filtered down the possibility of transforming into a
to all levels of the staff. City officials rail-served one.
advocated for the station location, saw
an opportunity to marry development With about 15,000 residents, Addison is
with the platform, assembled the site, a “land-locked” community of 4.5 square
offered it for development, paid for public miles, about 80% of which is built out. In
infrastructure, and increased allowable creating Addison Circle, local officials
densities. In effect, the city “pulled” the consciously sought to build a “complete”
projects through so that the developer town center with a full-time residential
did not have to “push” them, and Shaw base that would strengthen the local
essentially became the “arms and legs,” restaurant/entertainment industry.
by his own admission, to make staffs’ In the 1970s, Addison became a focus
visions real. for regional restaurant and hotel
development when it permitted liquor by
Addison Circle the drink before most other suburbs did.
By the early 1990s, however, the
Addison Circle is an emerging 80-acre industry began to decline when
mixed-use town center in the town of population dispersed to far-flung suburbs,
Addison, a post-war suburb located and new entertainment corridors began to
20 miles north of downtown Dallas emerge. Due in part to the success of
(see Photo 15.4). Unlike Mockingbird Addison Circle, today Addison has over
Photo 15.4. Addison Circle, Addison. Addison Circle is a very walkable

80-acre high-density town center that closely adheres to the principles of the
New Urbanism. A bus transfer center and future commuter-rail line serve the edge
of the project. At build-out in 2010, the project will include 4,000 dwelling units,
4 million square feet of office space, and 250,000 square feet of retail space.
311

150 restaurants, and the town has decade has been a true public-private
retained its regional status as a thriving partnership involving the property
entertainment/leisure destination. owner, the town, and the developer
(initially Robert Shaw’s Columbus
Addison Circle is a dense, mixed-use Realty, later purchased by Post
neighborhood with a strong residential Properties, a seasoned nationwide
presence that closely adheres to the developer of TODs). The first step was
principles of New Urbanism.16 Planning to conduct a market study to ensure that
for the town center began in 1991, when residential demand would justify high-
the town’s updated comprehensive plan quality public infrastructure; calculations
proposed a special mixed-use, residential suggested that it would.
district. The concept was subsequently
refined and confirmed in a community- On showing that market pro forma
based visioning exercise (Vision 2020), penciled out, the developers made
in which residents rejected building numerous presentations of design
more traditional garden apartments, concepts and potential projects to local
opting instead for a comprehensively officials and residents to solicit their buy-
planned “urban place.” in. With community support, new design
guidelines were then written into the
Located near a regional toll road, the zoning code, covering allowable
Addison Circle site was the last densities, lot coverage, building materials,
significant unbuilt parcel in town (and parking distribution, and streetscape
one of the largest sites in the area) and standards. At the same time, financial
was under single ownership (Gaylord analyses were completed to establish the
Properties). The site abuts Addison’s development program/phasing and
Old Town and is within walking distance identify funding gaps. Finally, the town
of existing employment, retail, and and developer signed a development
entertainment uses, as well as the town agreement ensuring $4 million of
conference and arts center. Around the public improvements in exchange for
time the site was identified, the town also 1,500 residences in the first 5 years.
persuaded DART to locate a bus transit To pay for the public infrastructure, the
center across the road that forms the project area was designated a TIF district.
southern boundary of the development.
While other communities did not want the Development by Post Properties started in
transit center, Addison officials sought to 1993 and today the project is around one-
capitalize on the proximity of abandoned third built out. At completion in 2010,
but well-maintained freight rail tracks that the project will include 4,000 dwelling
bordered the site. In the future, DART is units (at 55 dwelling units per net acre),
likely to operate commuter-rail service 4 million square feet of office/commercial
in this corridor.17 In the meantime, space, and 250,000 square feet of street
Addison’s leaders are happy with a town retail. Total public investment will likely
center that enjoys intensive bus services reach $9 million, matched by more than
and ease of transfers. $300 million in private investment.
The detailed planning and urban design Densities are uniformly high throughout
process that has unfolded over the past the Addison Circle project. Residential
312

buildings are generally four to eight “petals” standing 45 feet high and
stories with interior courtyards and 140 feet across and integrates designs
high-quality brick and stone finishes.18 originally done for the town’s older
A strong emphasis on landscaping, buildings and parks. The town and
streetscape improvements, pocket developer worked with residents to
parks, and other aesthetics “softens” design the space and select the artwork
perceived residential density. Also, most in a design competition. The site also
residential buildings contain street-level includes a large open-space plaza that
retail, cafes, restaurants, galleries, links to the transit center via a special-
and/or offices.19 Units range from one- events pavilion adjacent to Blueprints.
bedroom apartments to penthouse lofts
and townhomes, and monthly rents range Overall, the keys to developing Addison
from $700 to $2,600. Most residents are Circle were the proactive role of the town
upscale “choice” renters: singles, empty in requiring high-quality development; a
nesters, and young professional couples team effort by the town and developer to
with no children (age 30 to 55). The create a comprehensive plan; adequate
project also includes a 10-story office time to market development concepts;
building. and the town’s contributions towards
high-quality infrastructure. As in Plano,
Addison Circle is very pedestrian- continuity among local leaders has also
friendly. Sidewalks and crosswalks are been vital to the project’s success.
paved in brick, and the site has an
abundance of street trees, bike racks, Few would contend that Addison Circle
benches, and other street furniture. To is not a bona fide energized, mixed-use
date, the town has spent three times its center with a unique identity. Whether
“normal” amount for streetscaping. The or not it is truly a TOD, however, is
project’s street network consists of a debatable. Those close to the project
closely spaced grid. Parking, at one admit that the transit center, which is
space per bedroom, is in above-grade separated from the development by a
structures behind the buildings. All the large open space, did not fundamentally
buildings have a maximum 6-foot change the project’s urban form. When
setback from the sidewalk, and fire and new rail service begins in the corridor,
access lanes (i.e., mews) between however, Addison Circle can transform
buildings provide primary access for into a highly functional TOD if a station
many residential units. is sited adjacent to key buildings (and the
bus transit center is relocated). The final
Addison Circle is particularly proud of chapter of Addison Circle as a transit-
its multiple small parks, which are in oriented community is yet to be written.
good locations and are interesting and
usable enough that they have become Richardson
genuine community focal points. Some
apartments open directly onto the mini- Located in the city of Richardson,
parks. The “signature” feature of the Galatyn Park is 35 minutes north of
district, however, is a new traffic circle downtown Dallas on DART’s Red Line.
with a $2.1-million public art exhibit.20 Richardson is a mature suburb with
Called Blueprints, it includes five nearly 92,000 residents and is located in
313

the heart of the region’s “Telecom “unprecedented” opportunity to shape

Corridor,” which generally parallels the future growth, city leaders
Central Expressway. The corridor is enthusiastically embraced DART and
characterized by major office, TOD. As Richardson lacks a true
commercial/retail, and light industrial downtown and has few land parcels left
land uses in close proximity to the for employee housing, city staff have
highway, while low-density housing envisioned Galatyn Park as a high-
dominates the remainder of the density, mixed-use area providing a
corridor.21 With over 600 high-tech and “24/7 lifestyle” geared to high-tech
telecommunications firms, more than workers (see Photo 15.5). In addition to
80,000 employees work in Richardson. creating a new civic core, the city also
hopes that DART will become a major
Relative to the region at large, the employee commute option. In the words
Telecom Corridor is projected to of one official, “We see the DART
undergo rapid residential, commercial, stations as the future of the city.”
and industrial growth in the coming
years.22 Richardson is slated to become The city began planning for TOD as soon
the region’s second largest employment as plans to extend the DART starter line
center by 2010, when over 100,000 were announced. Originally, Galatyn
workers are expected to commute Park Station was to be sited along a
to Richardson. Recognizing an major east/west arterial. However, after
Photo 15.5. Galatyn Park Station, Richardson. Galatyn Park is

charting new ground, slated as Richardson’s first high-density, mixed-use
center. Located between a DART station and Nortel’s office campus,
Richardson’s new 27-acre “civic core” will feature a 336-room hotel, a
performing arts center, 8 acres of mixed-use retail and office space, and 4
acres of residential space at 35 to 90 dwelling units per net acre.
314

consulting with Nortel, a major employer east of the station (with I-75 on the other
planning to expand its facilities, the city side). With its columns made of stainless
strategically approached DART to move steel bundles (representing conduit
the station north, next to a large vacant wire), the station design relishes the
parcel under single ownership. Soon area’s high-tech character. A 2-acre
afterwards, the city assembled what it plaza with a water fountain connects the
refers to as a “dream team,” composed of station to the Charles W. Eisemann
representatives from DART, Nortel, and Center for Performing Arts (built by the
the Galatyn Park Corporation (the city) and will eventually connect to an
developer), to create an urban hub around expanded nature trail.25
the station.
North of the plaza lies the 336-room,
While DART was planning and building 12-story Marriott Renaissance Hotel,
the rail extension and new stations, city which includes a 30,000-square-foot
staff traveled to several other rail cities conference center. Immediately south are
(e.g., Washington, D.C., Atlanta, and 12 acres of developable land zoned for
Portland) to gain insights into how TOD high densities. Of this land, 8 acres will
might be implemented at Galatyn Park be mixed-use retail and office, and
and elsewhere.23 The staff also began 4 acres will be residential (with densities
building community support for TOD of 35 to 90 dwelling units per net acre).
(via educational workshops) and Apart from the station areas, the
supported an Urban Land Institute dominant housing products in Richardson
Advisory Services panel in 2000 focused are low-density single-family houses.
on the market potential for TOD.24 City To accommodate these “pioneering”
leaders quickly bought into the TOD densities, the city has stipulated that
concepts, designating neighborhoods project designs and building materials
around five proposed stations for TOD. must be approved to ensure high-quality
Of the stations, Galatyn Park was chosen construction before anything can be built.
as the new town center; other stations
would have less intense development and The city of Richardson is taking what is
serve other functions (e.g., significant for it the unusual initiative of developing
park-and-ride provisions). Nortel, an a TOD zoning code for its four stations to
early supporter of TOD, pledged to create a new template for development.
remain in the area for the long term and Historically, the city has typically
has since built a large four-building changed its zoning in response to
complex immediately east of the primary landowner or developer requests.
TOD site. Nortel aligned its buildings Recently, the city has held up some
to enhance views and open onto the developer requested re-zonings until the
project’s core. The company also shares new code is adopted. The new code26
its parking with entertainment and retail will feature “urban” setbacks and side
uses on evenings/weekends. yards, requirements for mixed uses,
smaller and slower street standards, and
Galatyn Park was designed as a reduced parking requirements.27
“destination” station, devoid of
commuter parking. Development focuses What does the future hold for
on 27 acres that form a half-circle to the Richardson? At build out, DART is
315

expected to spark upwards of $300 TOD would also benefit if the region’s
million in private investment at Galatyn largest city, Dallas, were more
Park, and the city will have invested supportive.29 To date, the city has done
some $75 million. In the words of a city little to promote TOD, and its business
staff member, the city is “now creating a leaders have been more concerned that
new string of nodes with a new type of DART keep its facilities safe and clean
development that will identify our than in considering how it might be used
community in the future; this is a way to to leverage development. This too,
re-identify ourselves.” Another staff however, may be changing. Dallas has
member has said, “We are trying to recently added a full-time TOD
create special areas, special places for specialist to its small planning staff and
where folks want to be.” is also in the process of designing a TOD
overlay zone. DART continues to prod
That said, the city’s approach has been a the city to take positive steps, and most
tempered one, and it acknowledges that observers expect Dallas to assume a
it is charting new ground in a place with greater role in coming years.
no high densities, mixed uses, or TOD.
Housing remains a politically sensitive Regardless of the future posture of the
issue in Richardson, and the city wants NCTCOG and the city of Dallas,
to get it “right” from the start. Currently, powerful market forces will continue to
there is very little apartment housing in drive TOD. The Dallas Metroplex
this relatively affluent city. Thus, each continues to sprawl, and, despite the
station has a 350-unit cap, and, while the generous supply of tollways, beltways,
densities have been increased at Galatyn and expressways (i.e., it has good road
Park, no net new housing has been access), congestion has steadily
allowed in the city. If TOD is to spread worsened. Savvy developers, building
to other station areas, it will be critical owners, and cities like Richardson and
that initial projects at Galatyn Park are Plano recognize the advantages of good
well received.28 rail access, place making, and walkable
communities. Real-estate market data
The Future of TOD in Dallas performance bears this out. A recent
study found that, between 1997 and
What does the future hold for TOD in 2001, residential properties near DART
and around Dallas? On the public-sector light rail appreciated 39% more than
side, while the NCTCOG values and properties further away from rail.30 For
encourages TOD, it lacks any regulatory office properties, land-value premiums
control and is not likely to delve into were even higher—53%. Retail
local zoning code issues, owing to a properties, on the other hand, witnessed
political climate where local control is little impact.31
jealously protected. Nevertheless, the
NCTCOG has considered pursuing According to TOD developers,
regional land-use policies that are residential units near DART quickly
consistent with federal New Starts lease and sell. Self-selection partly
reporting (as part of its Mobility 2030 accounts for the healthy TOD housing
planning). The potential for macroscopic market. On the office side, a recent
change exists. article on DallasNews.com notes that
316

office investment and transactions near Station would primarily serve park-
DART are increasing and that DART’s and-ride commuters (see http://www.
importance is likely to grow.32 As office cityofcarrollton.com/development/
competition in the far suburbs has planning/specialprojects.shtml#Ren).
intensified, investors are now looking for
properties closer to popular DART lines, Conclusions and Lessons
where occupancies and rents have been
higher. Retail uses in TODs, however, The Dallas Metroplex offers striking
are likely to take longer to lease up and contrasts in the “art and science” of TOD.
add a truly urban ambience to mixed-use The city of Dallas has yet to take any clear
projects. steps towards leveraging the investment in
DART, in keeping with its hands-off
Due to the success of DART and TOD, tradition toward planning and government
the region’s rail-served cities continue intervention. In stark contrast to Dallas,
to look for future TOD opportunities. suburban jurisdictions along DART’s new
In Plano, for instance, discussions have light-rail extensions have been “ahead of
begun regarding whether to convert the eight ball,” planning and implementing
its end-of-the-line Parker Road Station TOD before stations even opened.
from a large park-and-ride lot to a
TOD.33 In addition, preliminary TOD TOD experiences from the Dallas region
planning is underway for DART’s offer the following insights:
next round of extensions, slated to
reach Irving, Carrollton, and Farmers • Dallas TOD success looks much like
Branch in 2008 to 2010. At the Las other places. Contrary to what some
Colinas stations in Irving, high-density believe, there is no uniquely Dallas
residential, retail, and office uses are approach to TOD. Similar to other
planned, with a new civic center and places in the United States, each
hotel directly integrated with light rail. suburban jurisdiction had an
The town of Farmers Branch wants to enlightened and involved city
revitalize its historic downtown with leadership that invested time, money,
pedestrian-friendly retail and residential and political capital to achieve TOD.
development. Like many of its Communities, like Plano and
suburban neighbors, Farmers Branch Richardson, have assembled a TOD
has taken the lead in developing a tool kit that offers financial and
conceptual master plan around its regulatory incentives and public
planned DART station. investment in infrastructure.
Carrollton has three visions for its three • Sophisticated developers made a
stations (as described in the Carrollton difference. The common link in each
Renaissance Initiative): the Old Town of greater Dallas’s TODs is the
Station would be surrounded by presence of a recognizable major
retail/residential development to developer: Ken Hughes at
reinforce the area’s historical character; Mockingbird Station; Robert Shaw
Trinity Mills would include TOD mixed- at Addison Circle and Plano; Pete
use development with both light rail and Coughlin of Matthews Southwest at
major highway access; and Frankford South Side on Lamar; and Don
317

Dillard in Richardson. So far in happened with supportive public

Dallas, unlike other communities, policy and leadership from the city
TOD has been the exclusive domain of Dallas. As the region’s dominant
of major developers. One can only center, one cannot help but speculate
imagine how much more TOD that Dallas’s leadership in the TOD
would today exist in Dallas if arena could have created important
leadership on the private side were synergies. The real-estate market in
matched to local political leadership Dallas appears to be supportive of
and a more receptive public-policy TOD. It bears watching to see what
environment. more can happen if the city changes
course to take the steps to adopt
• TOD as place making. In each of the policies to allow the marketplace to
suburban communities, TOD has produce more TOD within the city.
emerged as an important tool to
achieve a broader community
strategy of creating a sense of place. Notes
TOD funds have gone to revitalize
or even create a new civic core. 1 To promote ridesharing, DART also operates
Place making was also part an extensive system of high-occupancy
of the developer’s formula for vehicle lanes. More than 100,000 commuters
use these lanes each weekday.
Mockingbird Station. While in
2
cities like Portland TOD is a North Central Texas Council of Governments,
tool to contain sprawl, for many Regional Mobility Initiatives, Vol. VII, No. 1,
February 2003.
communities in Dallas, it is
3
embraced as a strategy for inner-ring Funds are actually distributed through the
Center of Development Excellence.
communities to better compete with
sprawling communities on the outer 4 Jack Wierzenski, (DART) email to John
edge. In Dallas, moreover, place Boroski (Parsons Brinckerhoff) 9/5/2003.
making appears to be a money- 5 The standard parking ratios would have
making proposition. The success of required 2,200 parking spaces.
projects like Mockingbird Station 6 The station originally provided access to
has not gone unnoticed, with new a park-and-ride and bus transfer facility on
projects breaking ground and more the east side, but provided no access from
on the drawing board that aim to the station across the trench to the
development site.
mimic Mockingbird’s ambience. In
7
Dallas, imitation is not only the Public participants include the Texas State
sincerest form of flattery; in an Historical Commission, TxDOT, Dallas
County, the city of Dallas, DART, the
environment of rapid growth and NCTCOG, EPA, and the National Park
worsening traffic conditions, it is Service.
also a way to turn a profit. 8
Matthews Southwest donated 3 acres of land
for the new police headquarters, and IBM
• Ratcheting up TOD a notch. The also provided land as part of a 20-year
most provocative question is not leaseback in exchange for tax credits.
what has happened with TOD in the 9
Plano also includes high-tech manufacturing,
Dallas Metroplex (clearly much has), several distribution centers, and national
but rather what more could have office headquarters.
318

10 For a detailed account of Plano’s history and uses, and it hopes to attract fewer software
redevelopment strategy, refer to an firms as they do not generate significant site
unpublished white paper, “Downtown Plano: activity.
Creating a Transit Village,” by F. Turner, 20 The developer contributed $450,000 towards
Plano Assistant Village Manager, May 2003.
Blueprints and the town paid the rest.
11 Haggard Park is used for weddings, family 21
Major corridor employers include Texas
outings, and concerts, and unifies the whole
Instruments, MCI WorldCom, EDS, Alcatel,
area much as Boston Commons does in
Fujitsu, and Southwestern Bell.
Boston.
22
12
With the worldwide downturn in the
Major park-and-ride facilities are instead
telecommunications sector, the pace of
provided at other stations (e.g., the Parker
growth in Richardson has slowed from earlier
Road, end-of-line, station).
forecasts.
13 Shaw is a seasoned developer with a strong 23
TOD leadership continues to come from three
background in mixed-use development. He
key city staff members who have had the
founded Columbus Realty, which was
support of the city council to do visioning
eventually acquired by Post Properties, and
and visit other cities.
he was the initial developer of Addison
24
Circle. He is currently developing Legacy For more information, see Urban Land
Town Center, also in Plano, and knows how Institute, Richardson, Texas: An Advisory
to produce a quality product in a very Services Panel Report (June 11–16, 2000).
efficient, competitive market. The city also consulted with national TOD
14
firms such as ERA and Calthorpe and
Shaw has a 70-year ground lease with three
Associates.
10-year options. The land is leased at a
25
below-market rate, which increases over time The project also includes a developer land
and is indexed to the developer’s return on donation and a capital gift from a prominent
investment. Richardson resident.
26
15 Ridership in downtown Plano in the year The code will create a planned district for
2010 was projected to reach 900, but it is each station, not an overlay zone.
already at 1,100 daily riders. 27
The area is probably over parked now.
16 Addison Circle won a Congress for New Richardson already allows shared parking.
Urbanism Charter Award for District Design 28 The 1-90/Bush Turnpike Station has the
in 2002.
potential to become a “Mega-TOD.” The
17 The future Cotton Line will likely provide station area lies completely vacant in the
commuter service to the Dallas-Fort Worth shadow of the freeway interchange, and it is
airport. owned by the well-connected Hunt family,
18
who is taking the lead in determining what
Many units include high ceilings, bay
will happen there.
windows, fireplaces, hardwood floors, and
29
high-speed Internet access. Community The city of Dallas has suffered from a
amenities include four pools, courtyard systematic dismantling of its planning
fireplace/grills, on-site courtesy staff, and program and staff over 25 years, from which
controlled access security. it is just starting to rebuild. The city does not
19
view TOD negatively, but from a functional
The entire Addison Circle project is
standpoint (because of limited staff), it has
performing well in the marketplace; the
been difficult to participate, and therefore
restaurants in mixed-use buildings have
Dallas has largely been absent from the
fared particularly well. Initially, several
regional TOD dialogue.
ground-floor “dot.com” firms were attracted
30
to the project because of the “feel” of the B. Weinstein, DART Light Rail’s Effect on
area. In the future, the town will exert Taxable Property Valuations and Transit-
greater control over the programming of Oriented Development, Prepared for Dallas
319

Area Rapid Transit (Denton, Texas: Photo Credits

University of North Texas Center for
Economic Development and Research, Photo 15.1.
January 2003). First row: UDC Urban
31 Industrial properties have had negative Second row: G. B. Arrington
impacts due to interference with site access. Photo 15.2.
Top right: DART
32 S. Brown, Investors Snapping Up Towers G. B. Arrington
Along DART Line, www.dallasnews.com, Photo 15.3.
May 30, 2003. At the time of the article, First row: G. B. Arrington
four buildings had recently sold, two sales City of Plano
were pending, and $130 million worth of Photo 15.4.
property was “in play.” G. B. Arrington
33 Photo 15.5.
Some local residents oppose adding
First row: City of Richardson
significant density at Parker Road, as has
G. B. Arrington
been proposed, and several parties are
concerned about how increased density at
Parker Road will affect the downtown core,
which continues to revitalize.
320

Chapter 16
TOD in the Mountain West: Colorado
Introduction “Five Commutes That Make You Feel

Better About Yours.”3 This article
Colorado is the third fastest growing state highlighted the 1-hour each way
in the United States, with population commute that has become increasingly
increasing twice as fast as the nation as a common in the Valley as people move
whole over the past decade. Rapid growth farther away from employment centers,
has been accompanied by prosperity; like the resort community of Aspen, in
however, recently it has also become search of affordable housing. This is true
synonymous with traffic congestion, air in Parachute, Colorado, where residents
pollution, and sprawl. pay an average of $473 less per month in
rent than do Aspen residents, but pay
According to a 1999 survey by the Pew $420 more in monthly commute costs,
Center for Civic Journalism, “the virtually canceling out any savings.4 The
complex of issues surrounding growth, Valley’s several small towns and three
development, traffic, and roads is easily rural counties have come together to
the top issue on the list of problems that create the state’s first Rural Transit
Denver residents mention without Authority. Accompanying this effort has
prompting, since 60 percent of them been a thoughtful campaign to plan for
do so,” compared to just 18 percent TOD. While it is still in its early stages,
nationally.1 Echoing the frustration the experience points to the challenges
of Denver residents, the Texas of pursuing TOD planning and
Transportation Institute found that traffic implementation in small-town settings.
congestion in metropolitan Denver rose
dramatically from 1994 to 2000. The From the state capital, across the Front
region ranked as the nation’s fourth Range, and into Rocky Mountain
worst for increases in delay per peak communities, TOD is gaining a steady
road traveler and fifth for increases in foothold in a variety of Colorado
congested peak-period travel.2 settings. In a state that has grown up
Congestion, coupled with concerns over around the automobile for the last
smog, has sparked a growing interest in 60 years, TOD has not been a product of
smart growth generally and, more happenstance. Rather it is a result of
specifically, in TOD. careful planning on the part of public,
nonprofit, and for-profit interests, all
In Colorado, concerns about an eroding sensitive to the mounting disaffection
quality of life and traffic headaches are with growth as usual. This case study
not limited to urban areas. The Roaring looks at the practice of TOD across
Fork Valley, a semi-rural area in the Colorado, exploring its implementation
western part of the state, was featured in and the factors leading to its successes
a 1999 New York Times article entitled and limitations in three distinct settings:
321

big-city Denver and its environs, the concerns about growth.) TOD’s rising
medium-sized city of Boulder, and the popularity is perhaps best seen in the
semi-rural Roaring Fork Valley. city of Denver, where it is the organizing
concept of the city’s new long-range
Transit-Oriented Redevelopment in plan, Blueprint Denver. It is also being
Metropolitan Denver embraced in suburban communities,
such as Englewood and Greenwood
Against a backdrop of escalating Village, where substantial funds have
congestion and sprawl, jurisdictions been contributed to TOD. TOD is being
throughout the Denver area are turning pursued most actively by jurisdictions
to TOD as a tool for managing growth. vying for light-rail extensions. Aurora
(Map 16.1 provides a map of and Arvada are two examples. These
metropolitan Denver that highlights localities see transit-served nodes and
jurisdictions featured in this case study. corridors as sensible places to direct
Text Box 16.1 documents Denver’s growth; moreover, they see TOD as an
Map 16.1. Light-Rail Transit in Metropolitan Denver (Existing and Under

Construction), 2003. Note: Light-rail transit alignments were drawn based on RTD system maps and T-REX map.
Source: 2000 Census Tiger File; RTD website, www.rtd-denver.com; T-REX website, www.trexproject.com.
322

Denver Resident Concerns About Growth, Development, and Traffic

In October 1999, the Pew Center for Civic Journalism conducted a national survey of 1,000
people and four regional surveys of 500 people each in Denver, Philadelphia, San Francisco,
and Tampa. The survey was intended to measure American's top concerns leading up to the
presidential election in 2000.
Denver residents topped respondents nationally, as well as in the three other regions surveyed,
with regard to their frustrations over growth and traffic, an indication of the fast pace of growth.
Is traffic congestion a problem in the community where you live?

Denver Nation
Big Problem 73% 65%
Small Problem 17% 22%
No Problem 10% 13%
Is too much growth and development a problem in the community where you live?
Denver Nation
Big Problem 35% 28%
Small Problem 30% 27%
No Problem 34% 43%
Despite a strong consensus about growth-related problems, residents are divided over how
government should respond.
How should local government use its power to focus growth?

Denver Nation
Allow growth to occur in all areas 39% 52%
Limit growth to areas already built up 51% 40%
Source: Pew Center for Civic Journalism, Straight Talk from Americans (conducted by Princeton Survey Research
Associates, 2000). See http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/research/r_ST2000.html.
Text Box 16.1
economic development tool, providing into an up-and-coming metropolis.

natural settings for vibrant, pedestrian- Following the discovery of gold in the
friendly districts, such as those found area, Denver grew from a small Native
throughout the region a century ago. American settlement to a town of almost
4,750 residents by 1860. The city’s star
Metro Denver’s Transportation Eras appeared to be fading, however, when
the transcontinental railroad, completed
The Transportation Hub of the Rockies. in 1869, skipped Denver in favor of
While it was gold miners who founded Cheyenne, 100 miles to the north. From
Denver in the mid-1800s, it was civic 1860 to 1870, the city hardly grew.
leaders, bent on obtaining a rail link Faced with the prospect of governing an
for their city, who transformed Denver unconnected backwater, civic leaders
323

persuaded voters to pass a bond measure 30% per decade since the 1950s. In a
to pay for the construction of the Denver metropolis with 65 cities and towns and
Pacific Railroad. Completed in 1870, over 300 special jurisdictions, growth has
this railway breathed new life into the unfolded in a piecemeal, uncoordinated
city by connecting it to the nation’s rail fashion, partly a product of fierce
network. By 1900, Denver—not competition for sales tax revenues.6
Cheyenne—had emerged as the
transportation hub of the region, with The following section examines the
one hundred trains a day arriving in implementation of TOD in metropolitan
Lower Downtown.5 Today, the Denver Denver, where, for the most part, transit
area continues to benefit from the has become integral to community
foresight of early voters who brought revitalization. As forms of redevelopment
railroad service to their city; rail rights- and adaptive reuse, these TODs are, by
of-way remain—some actively used for nature, more complicated than greenfield
freight and transit and others under development. The intent here is to outline
study as potential alignments for light- the confluence of factors that has
rail extensions. Moreover, the city’s encouraged TODs, including robust
trendy Lower Downtown—known as population growth, market dynamics,
LoDo—is anchored by Union Station, a supportive public policies, local political
beautiful turn-of-the-century facility leadership, education and outreach
surrounded by open parcels that offer efforts, and strategic expansions of
tremendous redevelopment potential. transit, and to take stock of the challenges
that have hampered implementation.
Streetcar Suburbs. While heavy rail has
played an important role in connecting Planning Framework
the region to the nation, the electric
streetcar, introduced in 1886, indelibly Regional Planning. Concerned that the
shaped Denver’s early cityscape. Today, region was not on a smart-growth
a number of walkable suburbs exist trajectory, in the mid-1990s the area’s
along former streetcar alignments, MPO, the Denver Regional Council of
including South Denver and the Curtis Governments (DRCOG), prepared Metro
Park and Five Points neighborhoods. Vision 2020, a regional land-use and
With their historically transit-oriented transportation plan. At the core of Metro
land-use patterns, these neighborhoods Vision 2020 is a major expansion of the
are naturals for enhanced transit service. region’s transit system, calling for 55
Although they offer little opportunity miles of rail transit service with 54 new
for large-scale TOD, experiences from stations over the next two decades.7 These
neighborhoods such as Five Points and other transit capital investments total
suggest that other streetcar suburbs could $3.95 billion, accounting for slightly
benefit from reuse and revitalization more than half of the region’s planned
spurred by improved transit service. public expenditures on major
transportation improvements.
Growth in the Automobile Age.
Following World War II, Denver’s Metro Vision 2020 also calls for transit-
population exploded. The metropolitan supportive development. This goal is
population has grown at an average of particularly important when one
324

considers the build-out potential of local potential effectiveness. As is true of

zoning ordinances. In 2000, the region MPOs nationwide, DRCOG has
contained approximately 2.4 million significant leverage to influence regional
people living in an urbanized area of planning through its control of federal
approximately 500 square miles. By transportation funds. Nonetheless, as an
2020, the population is expected to grow organization composed of local juris-
to 3.2 million, or by 33%. Collectively, dictions, there has been limited political
the long-range plans of local jurisdictions will to wield this authority. As a result,
would allow an aggregate build out of TOD remains the purview of local
some 1,100 square miles, a 120% jurisdictions, without the support of a fully
increase in the amount of urbanized embraced regional land-use plan.11
land.8 To contain sprawl, Metro Vision
2020 proposes a 747-square-mile urban Local Comprehensive Planning. For
growth limit. many communities TOD is a one-off
phenomenon, involving a single stop
Metro Vision 2020 further calls for along a light-rail line. However, in other
channeling a major portion of growth communities, transit corridors are of
into urban centers. These areas are greater interest. This is true in the city of
envisioned as high-intensity, pedestrian- Denver, where the city council recently
friendly, mixed-use locations that serve adopted Blueprint Denver, a plan that
as transit origins and destinations. This points out:
goal is as much about creating “a sense
of place and community identity” as it is The [current] zoning scenario
about transportation benefits.9 reveals a haphazard and unfocused
potential land use pattern that
The lofty goals of the plan, requiring does not correlate with major
transportation corridors, transit
major changes to existing plans and
station areas or the neighborhoods
ordinances, has meant that major
near downtown. It also predicts
questions about the implementation of large amounts of new housing
Metro Vision 2020 still loom. To give scattered among existing
this regional plan “teeth,” DRCOG has neighborhoods, more costly infill
asked jurisdictions to voluntarily sign an housing, higher traffic flows in
intergovernmental agreement—the Mile neighborhoods and only a nominal
High Compact. In so doing, jurisdictions increase in transit ridership.12
agree to abide by the planning principles
of the regional plan. Blueprint Denver offers a roadmap to
revamp the city’s current land-use
The process had a hopeful beginning, with ordinance. It divides the city into
jurisdictions representing more than 70% “areas of stability,” which are primarily
of the metropolitan area population established residential neighborhoods,
signing on. However, two of the fastest and “areas of change,” including the
growing counties, Adams and Arapahoe, city’s urban centers and transit corridors.
and one of the most populous, Jefferson, The document was the product of a
have refused to sign, citing concern over lengthy public process that has been
“property rights.”10 This unwillingness widely credited with forging a common
seriously constrains the Compact’s vision for growth in the city. Among the
325

early signs of its success is the recent densities along rail transit corridors. (See
adoption of two changes to the zoning Text Box 16.2.)
ordinance: one change downzones
established residential neighborhoods to Denver TOD Coalition. The Denver TOD
preserve historic character, and the other Coalition is a recently formed partnership
change creates a TMU-30 zone, which among the city and county of Denver,
substantially increases allowable RTD, and the Denver Urban Renewal
Transit Mixed-Use Zoning

In conjunction with the ongoing expansion of light-rail service into the Southeast Corridor,
the city of Denver has introduced a new transit-mixed use zoning district (TMU-30). Its
most notable features are the following:
Density. Developers may build up to 220 feet in height, with a maximum FAR of five to one
for their overall master plan. Previously the city would not allow heights greater than 140
feet within mixed-use districts outside of the central business district.
Flexibility. The zone provides a fair amount of latitude in how a project is designed.
Developers are encouraged to aggregate their required open space into a unified area around
the transit station to create a functional public plaza.
´
Parking. Developers are entitled to a 25% parking reduction vis-a-vis the city’s standard of
one off-street space per residential bedroom and two spaces per 1,000 square feet of office
space. Further reductions up to 50% are possible depending on shared parking and
transportation demand management strategies.
The TMU-30 zone may be thought of as a type of planned unit development district.
Property owners may apply if their site covers at least 12 acres and is within 1,500 feet of a
rail transit stop. A master plan for development is not required at the time of rezoning, but
owners must have an approved master plan before proceeding with development.
Since the adoption of the TMU-30 zoning district near the end of 2002, three property owners
have rezoned their properties to TMU-30 standards: Cherokee Denver LLC, which is
redeveloping the Gates Rubber Factory; the Union Station Alliance, a public-private
partnership which is redeveloping Denver Union Station; and the owners of the Belleview
site, a 54-acre golf course next to the Southeast Business District.
The city’s decision to have property owners voluntarily opt into the zone, rather than the city
undertaking a rezoning process, reflects a view that light rail creates the necessary impetus
toward higher-density development. As one developer noted, the time and effort associated
with seeking a change in zoning is only justified when there is a large potential return
associated with a major development.
Text Box 16.2
326

Agency (DURA). Its primary charge is to • Identify funding and grant sources; and
“link land use and redevelopment with
the expanding rapid transit system.”13 The • Develop implementation strategy.14
Coalition’s agenda is to
While the Coalition is less than a year
• Establish a clearinghouse for TOD old, the agencies involved have been
site information, technical support, collaborating closely on a number of
project review and feedback; ongoing developments such as the
Cherokee/Gates site and the Colorado
• Facilitate interagency cooperation to Street Station.
maximize TOD opportunity;
Implementing TOD
• Develop educational material on
TOD and local opportunities;
The cumulative payoff of the many pro-
• Conduct station-area planning and TOD initiatives in metropolitan Denver
assessments; is best reflected by action “on the
ground.”
• Conduct outreach to property
owners, developers, lenders, Market-Driven TOD in Lower
politicians, community advocates, Downtown. The 16th Street Transit Mall
policymakers, and consultants; lies in the heart of downtown Denver and
forms the backbone of the regional
• Establish a TOD fund; transit system (see Photo 16.1). Closed to
private automobiles, the 16-block mall
• Write and issue RFQs/RFPs for forms an active pedestrian spine.
TOD sites; Average weekday transit ridership along
Photo 16.1. 16th Street Transit Mall. Stretching approximately 15 blocks through the
heart of downtown Denver, the Transit Mall is integral to the success of downtown retail.
Quiet, compressed-natural-gas-powered, low-floor buses share the street with pedestrians.
In the photos above, the “Free Mall Ride” glides past the Denver Pavilions, a 350,000-
square-foot retail center that opened in 1998.
327

the bus-served Mall is 60,000, which foot as of the end of 2002.16 By

accounts for 21% of the region’s transit comparison, rents at 16 Market Square
trips, compared with 13% for the entire commanded a substantial premium at
light-rail system.15 Regional bus transfer $31.24 per square foot. For the office
stations at both ends of the Mall serve as market, the vacancy rate was 13% in
gateways to downtown. These stations late 2002, and weighted average rents
were RTD’s first joint development were $21.85 per square foot per year.17
projects and continue to bring in a steady In contrast, office space in the three
stream of ground-lease revenue. Rent subject buildings is fully leased and
premiums along the Mall reflect the commands a substantial market
accessibility benefits conferred by transit. premium. Offices at 16 Market Street
leased for $30.20 per square foot, a
After an office boom in the late 1970s substantially higher price than its
and early 1980s, downtown Denver saw comparables—16.8% higher than the
very little commercial development and Millennium Financial Center18 and
essentially no office growth from early 8.4% higher than 1899 Wynkoop.
1983 until the end of the 1990s. In 1999,
this began to change; a number of Transit-Ready Development in Arvada.
projects were built, including three Arvada seems an unlikely place to find
mixed-use buildings in close proximity some of the Denver area’s most ardent
to the Market Street Station. Each of TOD supporters. From westbound
these buildings is located in LoDo, a Interstate 70, Arvada appears to be a
vibrant district of renovated buildings massive big-box power center. Yet, this
filled with loft-conversion projects, book impression belies a community with a
stores, coffee shops, restaurants, and charming and well-preserved historic
bars. Located in the same neighborhood core and a very entrepreneurial and
and completed within months of one committed group of civic leaders. In
another, these buildings provide a good anticipation of the expansion of light-rail
opportunity to do a “comparables service to Arvada, these leaders have
analysis.” Each building contains been working diligently to create a
ground-floor retail with offices above; framework of transit-supportive land
one building contains residential uses (See Text Box 16.3).
condominiums on the top two floors.
Figure 16.1 presents the relevant market The story of TOD in Arvada is a nascent
data for each of the three buildings. As one. Light-rail service is several years
might be expected of high-quality, new away by the most optimistic estimates.
construction in a trendy part of town, Nonetheless, this community has made
each of these buildings is performing great strides in creating a pedestrian-
well relative to the overall downtown friendly and transit-oriented core. An
market, although two of the projects 800-unit residential development near
have had some difficulty in leasing retail Olde Town recently broke ground within
1
space. ⁄4 mile of the bus park-and-ride facility
and planned light-rail stop. A number of
For all of Denver’s CBD, the retail new businesses have also recently
vacancy rate was 7.1%, and weighted opened in Olde Town, and several
average rents were $19.50 per square buildings have been substantially
328

16 Market Square Millennium Financial Center 1899 Wynkoop
(A) (B) (C)
Distance to Market Street Station

0.0 Miles 0.3 Miles 0.5 Miles
Map of Lower Downtown Denver Weighted Average Effective Annual Lease Rates per Square Foot
Office $30.20/ Full Service Gross $25.85/ Full Service Gross $27.86/ Full Service Gross
Retail $31.24 NNN $21.00 NNN $17.31 NNN
Development Size
Height 8 Stories, 6 Stories 9 Stories
(2 Floors Residential)
Total (Sq. Ft.) 280,000 135,000 164,500
Office (Sq. Ft.) 180,000 125,000 153,000
Retail Size (Sq. Ft.) 23,500 7,000 12,000
Land Information
Land (Sq. Ft.) 37,500 25,000 25,000
Price Per Land Sq. Ft. $125 $132 $180
Date Purchased 4/98 – 12/98 4/99 11/98
Figure 16.1. Comparables Analysis, Lower Downtown Denver

Note: Map adapted from Downtown Denver Partnership, www.downtowndenver.com. NNN = “triple net” lease
Source: Will Fleissing, Continuum Partners, March 2003.
“Transit-Ready” Development in Arvada

In a 2002 report, Arvada Intermodal Transit Village Concept Plan, prepared for the city of Arvada
and RTD, the authors explain the concept of “transit-ready” development: it “anticipates transit,
rather than using transit as a catalyst for change.” The report further states that in “some cases
appropriate developments enhance a community’s opportunity to attract transit to an area, or
influence the station location.” In Arvada, city leaders are banking on this, hoping that RTD will
not be able to ignore the city’s efforts to establish a framework of transit-ready land uses when the
next round of light-rail expansion moves forward.
As it is currently conceived, the RTD FasTracks plan would build out the entire metro-wide light-
rail system by 2010. This is contingent on voter approval of a sales-tax levy. In the meantime,
four corridors are in various stages of planning and environmental work, including the Gold Line
through Arvada. None of these lines has yet been funded. With many in the community
convinced that the emergence of a vibrant downtown hinges on light rail, Arvada’s civic leaders
want to be ready for FasTracks, if it arrives, and be poised to proceed using alternative sources of
funding if it does not.
Source: RTD and City of Arvada, Arvada Intermodal Transit Village Concept Plan (prepared for the city
of Arvada and the Regional Transportation District, March 2002). See
http://www.vmwp.com/urban/urban_projects/Arvada/Final_ArvadaPlan(screen).pdf.
Text Box 16.3
upgraded (see Photo 16.2). Encouraged key policy outcomes emerged from the
by its success in Olde Town, the city process: AURA adopted Olde Town’s
plans to form a new urban renewal revitalization as its highest priority; the
district on Arvada’s western edge to county agreed to locate a new library in
facilitate the transformation of a former Olde Town; the city council agreed to
state institutional facility into a TOD support a housing renewal project in an
(see Text Box 16.4). area adjacent to Olde Town; and all
stakeholders agreed that
Early efforts to revitalize Olde Town
(e.g. streetscape improvements) did little continuing participation with RTD
to arrest the area’s decline and can best be and DRCOG to secure the Gold
described as piecemeal. While some were Line commuter connection to
focused on Olde Town’s revitalization, Metro Denver is an all-important
others, such as the Arvada Urban commitment for Arvada, probably its
Renewal Authority (AURA), were most important key to the future.19
moving ahead with a distinct mission.
An Olde Town Renaissance seems to be
In 1998, the Arvada City Manager’s underway, with a dozen new retailers
office spearheaded a planning process opening up in a single month during
called “The Olde Town Renaissance 2002. These included antique and
Project” to coordinate the efforts of collectible shops, which are the primary
various groups and establish a common space users in Olde Town; an art gallery;
vision for revitalization. A number of two wine merchants; and a deli. Maro
330

Photo 16.2. Olde Town Arvada. The planned extension of light rail to Olde Town
Arvada is the centerpiece of the Olde Town Arvada Renaissance plan. In the top picture,
the future site of the Arvada Intermodal Transit Station is shown. Urban renewal funds
have been used to facilitate façade renovations and streetscape improvements throughout
the area. In the photos below, New Town Arvada is juxtaposed with Olde Town. A
challenge for the area’s revitalization plans is the physical disconnect between the areas.
In the photo at left, a movie theater turns a blank wall toward Olde Town.
Dimmer, the president of the Historic Town in a way that the adjacent big-box
Downtown Association, believes development never did.
businesses are relocating to Olde Town
because the area is perceived as up and The Water Tower Project. Across the
coming. She attributes this in part to an railroad tracks from Olde Town Arvada,
expectation that TOD will help Olde at the western edge of the AURA project
331

Colorado’s Urban Renewal Authorities

Colorado state law allows the creation of Urban Renewal Authorities (URAs) for the
purpose of revitalizing blighted areas. Known as redevelopment agencies in other states,
these authorities operate as separate entities from the localities that create them. The
primary tools of URAs are TIF and eminent domain. URA project areas have a lifetime
of 25 years, after which the project area dissolves and tax increment revenue returns to the
establishing locality’s general fund. In Colorado, URAs are able to collect a tax
increment on both property and sales tax. In recent years, URAs have been essential
partners in leveraging TODs in greater Denver. Even so, in the absence of a clear
community-planning vision, these agencies have tended to focus on the bottom line,
supporting highest and best-use development from a tax-base perspective rather than from
a transit perspective.
What can happen when using URAs to foment TOD without a clear community-planning
vision is exemplified in the case of the Alameda light-rail station: the Denver Urban
Renewal Authority (DURA) helped to establish a major big-box retail center that turns a
blank back wall toward the station. DURA is today more cognizant of the benefits of
TOD, though it will be some years before the oversight at this station might be reversed.
Today, many URAs in the Denver area are full partners in efforts to encourage TOD. In
the case of Arvada, this results from a community-planning process, jointly conducted by
AURA and the city of Arvada. In Denver, the relationships between DURA, RTD, and
the city have recently been formalized through a partnership known as the Denver TOD
Coalition.
Text Box 16.4
area, lies a 29-acre site known as the AURA has spearheaded the Water
Water Tower District. The site, formerly Tower Village project. The agency
occupied by an excavating company and issued an RFP to select a developer,
200 single- and multifamily units, is assembled land, created a master plan
slated for reuse as a TOD. It lies only a for the site, and obtained necessary
few hundred yards from a planned light- approvals from the city. Initially, the
rail intermodal station as well as the site consisted of 48 separate lots with
existing bus park-and-ride facility; multiple owners. AURA spent $20
AURA expects transit connections to the million to assemble and clear the land,
development to be further strengthened in some instances exercising eminent
by the creation of local nonprofit bus domain. The land is in turn being sold
service that will connect the to private developers at a cost of
development to Olde and New Towns. approximately $13,500 per residential
The new development will consist of unit developed, for an overall price of
800 condominium and apartment units, approximately $10 million. While
including some limited re-use of AURA will be losing money in the short
rehabilitated multifamily buildings. run, the agency believes that in the long
332

term the investment will pay off by leadership in forging a common goal. In
bringing additional residents to the area, addition, Arvada’s experiences highlight
growing the tax base, and encouraging the importance of public-sector financial
the extension of rail service to the area. participation in suburban redevelopment.
Ridge Home Property. Another potential The private real-estate market is not
TOD site in Arvada is the Ridge Home likely to justify the costs of assembling,
property, located on the western edge of clearing, and preparing land, even transit-
Arvada, near the proposed alignment for accessible land, when other undeveloped
the RTD Gold Line. properties are readily available elsewhere.
Instead, AURA and the city are taking the
In 1995, the city of Arvada, the adjoining long view, making near-term investments
jurisdiction of Wheat Ridge, and the in hopes of a long-term payoff.
primary landowner (the Colorado Board
of Land Commissioners) completed a Public-Private Partnerships in
master plan for development of the site. Englewood. A widely cited example of
The plan focused on industrial, TOD in Colorado and one of the nation’s
warehouse, and office development, foremost examples of transit-oriented
proposing separated land uses and a redevelopment is Englewood’s
super-block street pattern. CityCenter.20 (See Photo 16.3.) Located
6 miles south of Denver, CityCenter sits
When DRCOG proposed extending at the site of a failed shopping mall.
rapid transit to Arvada, the city re- When it opened in 1968, Cinderella City,
examined the Ridge Home Property in with more than 1.3 million square feet of
1997 with the assistance of a Denver- space, was the largest mall west of the
area nonprofit organization, the Center Mississippi. For more than two decades,
for Regional and Neighborhood Action
(CRNA). The new plan called for
concentrating development near the
proposed light-rail stop and introduced a
block street grid to create a pedestrian-
friendly environment. With the city
moving toward the adoption of an urban
renewal plan for the Ridge property,
prospects are good for a transit-oriented
redevelopment of the site in the next
few years.
Lessons. While the city does not yet

have light rail, Arvada’s civic leaders Photo 16.3. Englewood CityCenter.
have embraced TOD as a central Office, retail, and residential space
component in the city’s revitalization have performed well in the Englewood
efforts. TOD has emerged as the CityCenter, a public-private
unifying concept for revitalization. redevelopment, which combines
Arvada’s experiences underscore the attractive urban design with big-box
tremendous importance of political retail.
333

it generated approximately half of by the former property owners, and the

Englewood’s sales-tax revenue.21 The remainder went toward demolition,
mall’s fortunes began to decline during structured parking, roads, and park
the 1980s, as competing properties space). Over $11 million were raised to
entered the marketplace. The last effort convert an existing department store into
to renovate and reposition the mall was a civic center using a certificate of
in 1984; this proved to be too little, too participation, a financing mechanism in
late, and sales dropped precipitously which someone buys a share of the lease
during the 1990s: from $54 per square revenues from a lease agreement made
foot at the start of the decade to $8 per by a governmental entity, rather than
square foot by 1995.22 bonds secured by those revenues.
Planning Process. Concerned about In light of its substantial investment, the

municipal finances and Englewood’s city decided to rescind its agreement
image, city leaders eventually acquired with Miller-Wingate and to act as the
the site. Through an RFP process, master developer through a city-created
the city chose a local retail developer, nonprofit, the Englewood Environmental
Miller-Wingate, which planned to Foundation.
replace the mall with a big-box
power center. Miller-Wingate was retained to act as a
broker for the city and sold a 12-acre
In 1995, RTD finalized plans for its parcel to Wal-Mart for $3.4 million; Wal-
Southwest light-rail extension, including Mart in turn opened a 134,000-square-
a stop at the backdoor of the proposed foot store in 2000. The inclusion of a
big-box center. In light of the general merchandiser on the site was a
announcement by RTD, Mayor Tom deliberate part of the master plan, based
Burns and Community Development in part on a survey of community
Director Robert Simpson felt that a big- interests and on the potential of a general
box proposal was shortsighted. In an merchandiser to generate sales-tax
interview with Grid Magazine, Simpson revenue. The city negotiated a “go-dark”
remarked, “It would have been dead in provision with Wal-Mart so that if the
ten years.”23 Instead, he pointed out, the store closes for more than 12 consecutive
redeveloped site should provide a sense months, the city can re-acquire the
of place for a community that lacked a property at fair market price. The
strong center as well as one that would Community Development Director views
“stimulate and sustain new jobs.”24 The this as instrumental to CityCenter’s long-
city brought in TOD planner Peter term health and foresees a time when
Calthorpe to develop a master plan, which Wal-Mart will no longer be the site’s
was adopted by the city council in 1998. highest and best use. Miller-Wingate
signed a $4.2-million ground lease for
Implementation and Financing. To 15 acres to build retail and office space.
leverage TOD, the following year the Finally, the Trammell Crow Company
city mustered $18.5 million to redevelop purchased 10 acres for $5 million to
the property. Approximately $7 million develop 438 apartments, including
came from general funds ($2.5 million ground-floor retail. Table 16.1 presents
went toward cleanup, an amount matched the site’s development program.
334

Table 16.1. Development Summary, Englewood CityCenter
Development Program Land Deal in millions

Retail 380,000 sq. ft. City of Englewood $18.5
Civic 145,000 sq. ft. RTD $5.7
Office 50,000 sq. ft. Trammel Crow $5.0
Housing 325, 00 sq. ft. Miller-Wingate $4.2
Total 900,000 sq. ft. Wal-Mart $3.4
Total $36.8
Parking spaces Benefits

Surface 1968 Leveraged $150 million in onsite public and private investment.
Structured 767 Brought 750 new jobs to the city.
Total* 2735 Estimated annual sales tax revenue of $2.5 per year.
*Includes 910 park-and-ride spaces

Source: R. Simpson, “CityCenter Englewood: Transit Oriented Development by Design” (presentation at the
APA National Conference 2003, Denver, Colorado, March 31, 2003).
Outcomes. As of June 2002, CityCenter $5,000 to $10,000 more per unit because
was performing quite favorably across all of the proximity of light rail.28
market segments. Office space was
nearly 100% leased at gross annual rates Lessons. The CityCenter development
of $21 to $25 per square foot; in exemplifies several important strategies
comparison, the vacancy rate for the for implementing TOD. First, the public
Denver area was 89.9%. Annual office sector was willing to invest substantial
lease rates in the city of Englewood, public resources and was focused on the
which has a limited amount of Class A goals of reinvigorating the community
space, ranged from $13.50 to $17 per and establishing a development with
square foot.25 Annual retail rents for long-term financial viability.
CityCenter averaged $18 to $20 per Interestingly, Englewood managed to
square foot, with occupancy of 90% redevelop Cinderella City without the
(compared with citywide gross retail benefit of support from its urban renewal
rents of $8 to $14 per square foot, with agency. The Englewood Urban Renewal
occupancy of 80%).26 Residential Agency had defaulted on a bond issued
rents had the most marked difference. in the early 1990s and was therefore
CityCenter apartments rented at an unable to provide assistance with land
average of between $1,005 and assemblage or financing for practical and
$1,735 per month in June 2002, more political reasons. This necessitated the
than double the $500 to $700 per month city’s use of a certificate of participation
elsewhere in Englewood.27 As further in lieu of bond financing. Second, the city
evidence of the strength of the made a strategic investment to relocate
CityCenter development, in April 2003, civic facilities to the CityCenter area,
Trammell Crow sold its 438-unit helping to encourage private-sector
apartment building for $52 million. investment. Third, the important role of
According to Jeff Hawks, an experienced political and nonprofit sector leadership is
broker in the Denver area who handled highlighted by Englewood’s experience.
the sale, Trammell Crow received about The mayor was a tireless supporter of
335

TOD. A group of experts from real transportation project in Colorado’s

estate, finance, banking, urban design, history. It involves rebuilding or
and transportation was formed to study widening 17 miles of Interstate highway
the site, assess its potential for TOD, and adding 19 miles of double-track
and offer suggestions for implementation. light rail, along with 13 new transit
These outside perspectives proved stations. T-REX is a unique partnership
instrumental in winning support among RTD, the Colorado Department
from the city council for TOD on of Transportation (CDOT), the FTA and
the site. FHWA. The light-rail component of the
project will cost $880 million. The
Finally, CityCenter serves as an example project was awarded in 2001 and is
of how big-box development can be slated for completion in 2006.
melded into TOD—something perhaps
demanded by municipal finances in More than doubling the length of the
regions without sales-tax revenue light-rail system in the Denver area,
sharing. In contrast to examples where T-REX will provide unprecedented
big-box retail backs up to transit, opportunities for TOD in the region. Of
creating an abysmal pedestrian its 13 new transit stations, T-REX project
environment, CityCenter greets transit managers believe that at least 5 have
patrons with a landscaped plaza and immediate TOD potential. Twelve
pedestrian-friendly “Main Street.” The stations will have park-and-ride lots so
big-box retailer is placed at the end of that even where TOD does not occur in
the main street near a major arterial road. the short-run, RTD will have land banked
Most parking in the CityCenter for future joint development possibilities.
development is shared, with time limits While T-REX is enormously important
placed on valuable spaces in front of for TOD, its design-build contract and
retailers to ensure that commuters do not rapid implementation schedule have also
park there. One criticism of the master posed challenges. With a tight schedule
plan layout is that most all-day park-and- and tight-fisted budget, the contractor has
ride spaces are situated so that transit refrained from reconfiguring station areas
patrons do not pass by retail en route to in response to developer proposals.
the train, which weakens the project’s
retail performance. The largest of the TOD projects slated
along the T-REX line is at the
The city of Englewood is pleased with Cherokee/Gates site. Situated at the
the success of CityCenter. It has recently confluence of three light-rail lines,
been in negotiations with RTD to between the two largest employment
include a second light-rail stop in the centers in Colorado—the Southeast
city in conjunction with a light-rail Business District and downtown
maintenance facility that RTD is Denver—the site occupies a strategic
planning. location. Cherokee LLC, a company
specializing in brownfield redevelopment,
Future Plans acquired 50 acres of the former industrial
site in 2001. With 3 years of remediation
TOD in the T-REX Corridor. At a cost ahead, full build out is still some years
of $1.67 billion, T-REX is the largest away. The developers are envisioning
336

7 million square feet of residential, office, discussion with T-REX managers about
hotel, entertainment, civic, and retail combining the park-and-ride and
space. maintenance facility on the CDOT
parcel and freeing the other site for TOD.
Cherokee has received support from the After some negotiation, the necessary
members of the Denver TOD Coalition. parties agreed, and the city contributed a
RTD has acted as a co-applicant in substantial sum of $6.9 million toward
Cherokee’s request for rezoning to the redesign and construction of the
TMU-30. Moreover, DURA has parking structure, which will house
proposed the creation of an urban the maintenance facility on its ground
renewal district at the site, which would floor. This maneuvering has freed
allow public investment in the property’s approximately 3 acres of prime land,
redevelopment. which the city plans to develop as a TOD.
Another 50-acre development site is At the far south end of the T-REX line
located at the Belleview Station, to the is Lincoln Station, situated in Douglas
south of the Cherokee/Gates site. Here County. As the only station outside of
a golf course sits adjacent to the the RTD district and consequently
Southeast Business Center, which has beyond the reach of eminent domain
120,000 employees. The project is authority, Lincoln Station offers
being driven by the presence of light insights into the process of planning for
rail; site owners are pursuing a rezone TOD as part of an enormous public
to TMU-30 and expect to develop works project. Out of necessity, T-REX
approximately 2,000 residential units, managers worked very proactively with
2 million square feet of office space, the owners, Bradbury Properties, to
250,000 square feet of retail space, and craft a station-area configuration that
a 150,000-square-foot hotel. Current would maximize opportunities for a
plans envision mixed-use development transit village. After agreeing to a
oriented around a pedestrian plaza suitable station-area configuration,
immediately adjacent to the light-rail Bradbury sold 6.5 acres to RTD for a
platform. park-and-ride facility and is in turn
contributing $2.63 million to add two
Further south along the corridor is additional floors to the structure. The
the Arapahoe Station in the city of deal with Bradbury represents the only
Greenwood Village. Original plans for situation in which a T-REX station-area
this station had an 820-automobile park- configuration was significantly
and-ride garage on the station area’s modified in response to private-sector
prime site—a parcel directly connected to interest in TOD.
the light-rail platform by a pedestrian
bridge spanning Interstate 25. Behind the Bradbury, which had originally planned
park-and-ride garage and tucked away a suburban office park at the location,
from the light-rail station, a CDOT now plans a transit village to include
highway maintenance facility was 800 multifamily residential units,
planned. Rather than lose the opportunity 200,000 square feet of retail space,
to create a town center for this enclave of and up to 1 million square feet of
12,000 inhabitants, the city began office space. As with each of the
337

large-scale TOD projects along the Bus-Based TOD in Boulder

T-REX line, build out is expected to
occur over the course of years, most Boulder flanks the foothills of the
likely by around 2015. Rocky Mountains, 25 miles northwest
of Denver. The city is home to more
Metropolitan Denver’s Experience in than 100,000 residents, as well as the
Summary state’s largest university and several
federal research labs. Identified as one
In greater Denver, there is a growing of three “free-standing communities” in
understanding of TOD on the part of the Denver metropolitan area, Boulder
public and private stakeholders. This is is ringed by protected open space
supported by efforts such as the CRNA totaling 33,000 acres.29 This buffers the
planning process and the education and city from the sprawling development
outreach efforts of RTD, which have extending westward from Denver along
had limited success with actual joint U.S. Highway 36.
development deal making, but have
stirred interest in TOD by preparing and While Boulder is known for its proactive
supporting station-area plans. Greater growth management strategies, including
Denver also offers evidence about the one of the nation’s first urban growth
market advantages of TOD. Experiences boundaries and an ambitious open space
in Englewood and LoDo suggest that preservation program, until recently,
whether TOD is a short-term ploy by a little in the way of TOD has taken form.
developer or part of a long-term hold (Recent TOD in Boulder is shown in
strategy, there is a monetary premium to Photos 16.4 and 16.5.) In 1994, the city
be reaped from a transit-accessible launched its Community Transit Network
location. Still, experiences from the (CTN) using a fleet of small, colorful
Denver area continue to suggest that in buses operating at high frequencies
suburban locations, redevelopment (see Text Box 16.5). Transit ridership
around transit stations requires benefited from a milieu of dense and
substantial public participation so long as diverse uses within the city core. Over
other developable parcels are available. the years, the CTN has expanded beyond
In Englewood and Arvada, this has the city center into less urbanized areas,
meant that municipalities have had to opening possibilities for TOD farther
take a long view of their investments, afield. Recently a number of mixed-use
contributing substantial resources up developments have been completed
front with the aim of recapturing value along CTN bus lines. While not
over the ensuing decades. In Boulder, fundamentally shaped by the presence
which is approaching the edges of its of bus service, these developments
UGB, developable land is less readily support transit ridership and provide
available, and, consequently, less public evidence that a well-conceived bus
financial participation has been network can support the incremental
required to incentivize favored types of advance of compact, walkable corridors
development. Nonetheless, developing beyond a city core.
TOD in Boulder has involved its own
unique set of challenges, a topic to which While TOD has largely flown below
we now turn. the radar of policymakers, evolving
338

Photo 16.4. Transit-Oriented

Development in Downtown Boulder.
Located adjacent to the downtown Boulder
transit station, condominiums at One
Boulder Plaza have sold exceptionally well.
Photo 16.5. Mixed-Use Parking

Structures in Downtown Boulder.
City-owned parking structures in downtown
Boulder are “wrapped” with ground-floor
retail uses to promote active street
frontages conducive to transit ridership.
as a result of broader land-use and development has occurred in the city’s

transportation policies and a favorable high, walkable, and transit-accessible
real-estate market, this is about to change. downtown. As of mid-2001, 10 new
The city is currently partnering with RTD mixed-use developments were planned
to create an intermodal transit center, in downtown Boulder. These included
accommodating current bus and future 250,000 square feet of new office space,
commuter-rail and BRT services. The 150,000 square feet of retail space, and
project, known as the Boulder Transit 91 residential units. Developments such
Village, will be a joint development that as One Boulder Plaza, immediately
integrates housing and commercial uses. adjacent to the downtown transit station,
The Boulder Transit Village is supported have sold exceptionally well at prices
by a strong financial commitment and in the mid-$400s per square foot or
marks the city’s first foray into proactive between $540,000 and $1.35 million.30
TOD planning. These prices are as high as any in the
metropolitan area, including prices in the
The Market for Mixed Use trendy LoDo area of Denver. Even in an
economic downtown, the residential
Over the past several years, the market market has held firm in Boulder.
for transit-supportive land uses,
particularly residential mixed use, has Outside of downtown, mixed-use
been strong in Boulder, and developers developments are commanding less of a
have found a banking community premium; still, prices are comparable to
familiar with these product types and areas surrounding downtown Denver.
willing to lend. Much of the mixed-use Residential units in the Dakota Ridge
339

Hop, Skip, and Jump

In 1989, the city of Boulder adopted its first
transportation master plan, establishing a
policy that directed transportation staff to
develop a demonstration transit service for
Boulder. From this was born the Community
Transit Network (CTN). The central concept
of the CTN is to provide a convenient
alternative to the single-occupancy vehicle,
using neighborhood-scaled buses that fit into The Hop Bus
the local context. CTN has worked to craft a
unique brand for its routes, naming each—
Hop, Skip, Jump, Leap, Bound, etc.—and
painting buses with colorful images and words meant to reflect the people and areas
they serve. In addition to skillful marketing, CTN brought enhanced service.
Redundant routes were combined, allowing for increased frequencies along key
corridors. In the case of the Skip route, when CTN replaced the existing RTD service,
service increased by 90% along the Broadway corridor. By 1998, Skip ridership had
increased two and a half times above the ridership of its predecessor route.
CTN has been a boon to transit ridership. In 2000, 9% of Boulder residents rode
transit to work compared with 4% in 1990. Crucial to the success of CTN is the Eco
Pass program. This program allows employers to purchase discounted transit passes
for their employees, sometimes as a required transportation demand management
(TDM) measure. Moreover, it guarantees a free taxi ride home in the event of an
emergency or when workers unexpectedly need to stay late. There is also a
neighborhood version that allows groups of 100 or more households to purchase
discounted passes.
Sources: T. Winfree and P. Puskarich, “Boulder Redefines Urban Transit,” Community Transportation
(November/December 1998) http://www.ctaa.org/ct/novdec98/boulder.asp; City of Boulder,
Transportation Division, Transportation Annual Report of Progress: Toward the Goals and Objectives
of the Transportation Master Plan for the Years 1999–2000 (January 2000),
http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/publicworks/depts/transportation/pdf_documents/2000annual_report.pdf.
Text Box 16.5

development have been selling for $335 per square foot. This is comparable
between $210 and $260 per square foot. to LoDo, where the neighborhood
As a comparison, the neighborhood average asking price was $329 per
average asking price for residential units square foot as of December 2002.32
in the popular Ballpark neighborhood in
downtown Denver was $257 per square In Boulder, demand is driven by
foot as of January 2003.31 Residential scarcity. According to the city’s Job-
units at the Steel Yards development Housing Study, 122,000 people live and
have been selling for between $260 and 104,000 people work in the Boulder
340

planning area. Up to 115,000 jobs are monitor its progress toward these goals.
projected in the future, compared with Foremost among these initiatives have
5,800 additional housing units, based been the efforts of the Transportation
on current zoning (see http://www.ci. Division’s Go Boulder Program, which
boulder.co.us/buildingservices/jobs_to_ has implemented the CTN and worked
pop/index.htm). The city hopes to to establish a number of transportation
redress this imbalance through more demand management (TDM) measures.
mixed-use zoning.
Current Planning. In an environment
Planning Framework where development pressures are high
and land supply is constrained, a
Speaking at the 1998 American Planning locality has considerable leverage
Association conference, Peter Pollock, through the regulatory process to
Director of Community Planning for the shape the face of development. The
City, noted, “Land-use planning is a city of Boulder has aggressively used
major fixation for Boulder, and [the] the development review process to
issues are continuously analyzed, constrain the presence of the private
discussed, and often hotly debated” (see automobile. Often, the city mandates
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings98/ some level of TDM from projects
Pollock/pollock.html). He might also going through discretionary review.
have added transportation planning to This sometimes involves an employer
his comments. For more than 20 years, purchasing transit passes for
there have been a number of interesting employees, but it may also include
and evolving planning efforts underway site design modifications.
in Boulder that help to shape the current
framework for TOD. One example of the use of development
review to promote more transit-friendly
Transportation Master Plan. In the design was in the city’s approval of a
1980s, the city council established an ad CompUSA development along the
hoc subcommittee on transportation, Bound bus line on 30th Street. The
which articulated a policy calling for, city hopes to see 30th Street redevelop
among other goals, a 15% reduction in as a pedestrian-friendly corridor and
the mode share of single-occupancy is preparing a detailed area plan to
vehicles.33 The city council formally expound its vision. After a year of
adopted this policy in its 1989 negotiations surrounding development
transportation master plan. In 1996, approvals for the CompUSA facility,
faced with projections showing that the large floorplate was designed with
even in meeting its mode share goal the parking in the rear and a minimal
city would still experience significant setback from the street. An attractive
increases in congestion, the council pedestrian plaza fronts the building.
revised the goal to focus as well on However, the development’s street-
VMT, establishing 1994 as the facing front door is presently kept
benchmark year and setting a goal of locked. People arriving by foot or transit
0% VMT growth within the Boulder must walk 250 feet around the building
Valley.34 Since 1989, the city has taken to enter through doors that front onto a
a number of steps to implement and parking lot. Thus, while the building was
341

designed to be transit-friendly, its like a village rather than a subdivision.

operation is automobile-oriented. This Currently under construction, the Dakota
wrinkle points to the risks of using ad Ridge project is platted with a New
hoc requirements imposed through Urbanist street grid, featuring alleyways
development review to “force” more to access parking behind buildings (see
transit-friendly land uses, particularly in Photo 16.6). The result is a pleasant
the absence of an area plan to provide pedestrian environment replete with
design guidelines. sidewalks, pathways, civic and open
space, and the screening of parking and
Development review has proved more utility areas.
successful in promoting transit-
supportive design in other locations. In Dakota Ridge contains a mixture of
North Boulder, the city had prepared a housing types—condominiums,
subcommunity plan, including language townhouses, and single-family detached
about the design character that it hoped houses—with higher-density units
to achieve: clustered near the village center and
planned transit stops. At build out, the
This area should be developed with project will consist of 390 residential
all the qualities of an attractive, units and 24,000 square feet of civic and
established neighborhood: beautiful retail space.
and walkable streets . . . convenient
transit and neighborhood services,
and proximity to a neighborhood Mixed-Use Zoning. Related to the city’s
park.35 transportation goals are efforts to
address a growing jobs-housing
In this case, the city worked with the imbalance. Over the past few decades,
homebuilder through the entitlement Boulder has emerged as a regional
process to create a development that feels employment center, with more people
Photo 16.6. Transit-Oriented Development on the Urban Fringe. Working

within the confines of a subcommunity plan developed for the area known as North
Boulder, the city helped to reconfigure the site plan for Dakota Ridge to ensure that
it would support the extension of bus service into the project. The city also required
that the developer purchase transit passes for each household as a TDM measure. At
55 acres, Dakota Ridge was one of the last large-scale development opportunities
within the Boulder Urban Growth Boundary.
342

commuting into the city than leaving to of properties, giving rise to transit-
work elsewhere. At present, the city has supportive projects like the Steel Yards
a jobs-to-housing ratio of 0.96 to 1, (see Photo 16.7).
compared to a ratio of 0.57 to 1 for the
region as a whole.36 Officials have Boulder Transit Village
drawn a direct link between this
worsening jobs-housing imbalance and Most construction along Boulder’s
increases in traffic impacts, noting that transit corridors has been developer-
those who “in-commute” make longer initiated and market-driven. In a
trips than Boulder residents and are community with limited land, developers
more likely to arrive in a single- have readily submitted to an arduous
occupancy vehicle. Since 1993, the city development review process that expects
has been looking for mixed-use transit-friendly design as a condition of
development opportunities, hoping to approval. The Boulder Transit Village is
stem the rise in in-commuting. In 1997, a bold departure from this mold, with the
the council adopted a number of new city playing an entrepreneurial role,
mixed-use zones and rezoned a number undertaking joint development to control
Photo 16.7. Mixed-Use Redevelopment Along Transit Corridors. Located along

30th Street, a corridor of industrial and automobile-oriented retail uses, the Steel
Yards is precisely the type of redevelopment the city of Boulder hopes will reshape
the area over coming decades. The $27-million project is being developed in phases
and will total 22 buildings, including 90 residential units and 137,000 square feet of
office and retail space, when completed. After rejecting earlier proposals for big-box
retail on the site, the city rezoned the property in 1997 to allow for mixed-use
development. The city views the Steel Yards as an example of the area’s
redevelopment potential and is studying similar opportunities along 30th Street. The
photo shows a view of the Steel Yards, with mixed-use commercial buildings fronting
onto 30th Street and parking and additional residential uses tucked behind.
343

the timing, orientation, and mix of uses using a low-interest loan provided by
around a new intermodal transit center. Fannie Mae. While it appears likely that
negotiations with the property owner
As a result of transportation studies to will lead to an open market sale, a city
evaluate mobility, the city identified a ordinance has authorized the use of
need for an intermodal transit center to eminent domain to acquire the site,
integrate regional and local buses as well something that the city staff described as
as future commuter-rail and BRT important in advancing negotiations for
connections along U.S. Highway 36 to sale of the property.
Denver. The choice of an intermodal
center over expanded park-and-ride The next step in the process will be to
facilities reflects the long-term thinking finalize design plans and issue an RFP
of the city’s Transportation Division, for development. The city expects the
which has long been concerned with housing and commercial portions of
the land-use impacts of investment the project to be financed by the
decisions. In a new intermodal center, developer. The development will
the city’s planners saw an opportunity to consist of 300 affordable and market-
advance two of the city’s top priorities— rate rental and ownership housing units
multimodal transportation and affordable and auxiliary commercial uses oriented
housing—through TOD. around a transit station with 100 park-
and-ride spaces.
Planning for the Boulder Transit Village
began in earnest in 2001 with a site- Completing the station will still require
selection process. The intermodal center additional funds, and the city has
team identified site evaluation criteria, brought on board some influential allies.
including the ability to efficiently In 2003, a U.S. congressional delegation
accommodate the transit center, the including Boulder’s representative, Mark
ability to provide for TOD and Udall, and James Oberstar of Minnesota,
affordable-housing opportunities, and the the ranking Democrat on the House
presence of necessary infrastructure. The Transportation and Infrastructure
team selected a site along an existing rail Committee, visited the site. Speaking to
alignment that best met its criteria. The the local newspaper about his tour along
process has not always been smooth. U.S. Highway 36, Representative
Property acquisition has taken longer Oberstar observed, “This is the finest
than expected. So far, a major hurdle has example of community cooperation I’ve
been assembling funds for the $7-million seen anywhere in America.”37
price tag for site acquisition. These funds
have been parsed together from a number In addition to serving as an example of
of sources, including a $2.5-million staff leadership, The Boulder Transit
commitment from RTD’s general funds, Village provides insights into when
$1.25 million from the sale of an existing and how RTD best responds to local
park-and-ride lot, and $3 million from planning efforts. In the case of Boulder,
the Department of Housing and Human timing appears to have been everything.
Services. Ultimately, bundling together The city’s plans to develop the
the housing funds required borrowing intermodal transit center are years ahead
against future departmental revenues of the extension of commuter-rail and
344

BRT service to the area. As a result, Valley is home to only around 60,000
the city has found a flexible agency, people, most of whom live in several
ultimately willing to back away from small towns dotted along a 40-mile
plans to develop another park-and-ride stretch of State Highway 82 (see
facility on U.S. Highway 36 and to Map 16.2). In the Valley, which has
direct funds toward the intermodal traffic congestion and some of the
center. Experience suggests that when nation’s least affordable housing,
cities convince RTD to adjust its capital discussions are underway about
spending plans, requests tend to come expanded transit service and “small
years ahead of planned expenditures. town” TOD. While at this point, TOD
Moreover, RTD seems much more in the Valley is still largely on the
responsive to the concerns of local drawing board, there are examples of
jurisdictions than to developers. By transit-supportive projects already on
playing a lead role, the city has been the ground, and at least one large-scale,
able to establish a mutually rewarding resort-based TOD is moving through
partnership with RTD. the final stages of the entitlement
process.
Boulder’s Experience in Summary
Traffic congestion in the Valley is driven
To date, Boulder’s land-use pattern has by a number of factors, not the least of
affected transit more than vice versa. which is the city of Aspen’s cachet as an
High-frequency transit is relatively new international destination. This world-
and has had relatively little time to affect renowned resort is home to fewer than
real-estate development. On the other 6,500 people, but, with an average
hand, Boulder’s increasing transit daytime population of over 20,000, it
ridership stems from a long-standing generates millions of vehicle trips per
commitment to compact development. year.38 Most are made by workers,
In the past, the city’s emphasis on traveling into the city from “down valley”
walkability and dense, diverse land uses where housing is more affordable.
has largely focused on its downtown. Aspen’s average home price today
More recently, market dynamics have exceeds $2 million. Also contributing to
opened the potential for transit-oriented traffic congestion is the area’s geography.
mixed-use redevelopment along bus- The main activity centers are located at
served corridors. As infill development either end of this narrow, mountain
continues, transit-supportive corridors valley. There is only one route in and one
are beginning to take form. route out, Highway 82. Even with two
big-ticket projects planned over the next
Resort-Based TOD in the Roaring 10 years, conditions on Highway 82 are
Fork Valley expected to deteriorate to level of service
F by 2015 unless radical changes are
While a commute of 1 hour or more introduced.39
each way to work may sound like a
distinctly metropolitan phenomenon, Alarm that the Valley’s traffic is getting
it is also the reality for many people as bad as Denver’s or that of any big city
living in the Roaring Fork Valley of has contributed to a slowly building
Colorado. Hardly a metropolis, the consensus around the importance of
345

Map 16.2. Roaring Fork Valley and Environs

Source: Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, West Glenwood Springs to Aspen Corridor
Investment Study (May 2003) http://www.rfta.com/executivesummary.pdf.
transit to the region’s future. Beginning as (RFTA). Established under enabling

a local bus service in Aspen and Pitkin legislation passed by the state legislature
County, the Roaring Fork Transit Agency in 1997, this was Colorado’s first Rural
grew “down valley” as a means of Transportation Authority. With its
bringing workers to jobs in Aspen and creation, the operation of regional and
Snowmass. In 1997, with assistance from local bus service throughout the region
CDOT and Great Outdoors Colorado, and the duties of RFRHA were subsumed
Valley jurisdictions joined together as the under RFTA. Today, RFTA operates bus
Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority service from Aspen to Rifle, a distance of
(RFRHA) to purchase the Denver and 70 miles, which extends 30 miles along
Rio Grande Western Rail line between the I-70 corridor. RFTA’s main line is its
Glenwood Springs and Aspen. This Roaring Fork Valley service, which
action has preserved a Valley-wide operates on approximately 15-minute
corridor for transit and trail development. peak-hour headways. Since its creation,
In 2000, Valley residents across seven RFTA has emerged as the state’s second
jurisdictions approved the creation of the largest transit operator, serving almost
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 4 million riders annually.40
346

RFTA recently completed a corridor The study estimates that percentages of

investment study exploring long-range people likely to use mainline transit
transportation alternatives in the Valley. service would be quite high under either
Options include BRT, light rail, and an improved bus or new rail system
commuter rail. scenario, thanks in large measure to
geography, which has channeled
An integral part of the planning process development along the narrow Valley
to expand transit service has been the floor. Even so, shares of trip origins and
exploration of TOD potential in the destinations within close proximity to
Valley. As part of this process, RFRHA transit are expected to decline over time.
commissioned a study in 2000 to According to the study, “These findings
illustrate “potential town planning and may suggest that communities in the
transit-oriented design solutions and Valley review their land-use plans with
considerations for the Roaring Fork a goal of intensifying use adjacent to
Valley.”41 This study examines two basic station areas.”42 This recommendation
transit options: enhanced bus service or is particularly important, given that in
rail service. The study found that many instances the report has assumed
substantial percentages of people live development will occur at levels of
and work in the would-be service area of density not supported by current zoning.
an improved bus or new rail system. The study’s findings, many believe,
Looking at the ability of transit service are a warning that traffic congestion
to impact future land uses, the study and environmental degradation will be
projects the percentages of Valley a lot worse if TOD is not aggressively
population and employment that would pursued.
be contained within 1⁄4-mile rings of
station areas in the years 2003 and 2020. A number of Valley communities have
These projections assume compact, begun to explore the idea of intensifying
mixed-use infill around each station by land uses around transit stops through
2020 and do not necessarily reflect community plan updates. Of the “down
current zoning ordinances. Projected valley” communities, Basalt has made
station-area population and employment the most progress in this regard. In 1999,
percentages are shown in Table 16.2. the town of Basalt adopted language in
Table 16.2. Planned Station-Area Population and Employment as a Share of

Total Population and Employment in the Roaring Fork Valley, Current (2003)
and Projected (2020)
Population Employment
Transit Option 2003 2020 2003 2020
Improved Bus 20% 18% 31% 25%
Rail 42% 37% 60% 48%
Note: Population is permanent resident population, and employment is winter employment. Bus station
areas are based on a 0.25-mile radius, and rail station areas are based on a 0.5-mile radius.
Source: Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority, Glenwood Springs to Aspen/Pitkin County Airport
Corridor Investment Study, Transit Oriented Community Design Report (February 2000).
347

its master plan calling for TOD planning orientation that complements the town’s
principles to be utilized in the design and historic past. The largest development in
layout of areas surrounding transit downtown Basalt, the Ute Center contains
stations.43 It also made modifications that 48,000 square feet of office and retail
were informed by expectations about space and 42 residential units. All parking
future transit service to its Future Land is below grade and accessed through a
Use Map.44 These policies are reflected single driveway. Located immediately
in a recently adopted PUD for the across the street from a bus stop, the Ute
Willits Town Center, which features a Center is both an origin and a destination
commercial core that uses a small-block along RFTA’s route from Glenwood
gridded street pattern and includes a Springs to Aspen.
transit center for use by RFTA’s regional
buses. Another community that has been
planning for TOD is Snowmass Village.
Even before recent discussions about With more than 700,000 people arriving
BRT and rail transit, Basalt had begun by bus each winter, Snowmass Village is
planning for TOD. In 1997, the town clearly not your average small town. It is
approved the Ute Center (see Photo 16.8). home to some of Colorado’s best skiing
The development plan was shaped in and served by a free skier shuttle,
large measure through a town design operated by RFTA and paid for by the
charrette and reflects an interest in Aspen Skiing Company to the tune of
supporting a vibrant downtown through more than $1 million per year.45 The
the addition of more residential and community expressly favors maintaining
commercial uses to the area. The Ute “the character of its small-scale, two-
Center contains a mix of residential, lane road system,” and has adopted
office, and retail uses with a pedestrian the following policy language in its
comprehensive plan to support transit:
Snowmass Village shall make land

use decisions, which result in a
reduction of automobile traffic,
better use of transit, more effective
parking management and more
linkage of pedestrian/bicycle trails.
Public transit service and access to
transit will be required of all future
development. Impact assessments
on development should cover both
capital and operating costs.46
Such policies are as progressive as any

to be found in the United States, not only
Photo 16.8. Small Town TOD. requiring a transit connection for new
Located in Basalt, Colorado, a town of development, but also requiring that it
2,700 people, the Ute Center combines pay the capital and operating costs of
retail, residential, and office uses across service delivery. Snowmass Village’s
the street from an RFTA bus stop. commitment to transit and alternative
348

modes of transportation is shared by the a necklace of compact, transit-served

city of Aspen. Both jurisdictions, along communities. It is a daunting challenge
with Pitkin County, have adopted a for any region to coordinate land-use
policy goal of “limiting vehicles in planning efforts; however, more than
2015 to levels at or below those of most places, the Roaring Fork Valley has
1994.”47 As resort communities, a shared economic interest in sustainable,
both are aware that their economic transit-served development. This is true
well-being is closely tied to an efficient from the perspective of the resort
and uncongested transportation system, communities, dependent on the area’s
which not only delivers visitors to their idyllic charm, as well as the “down
destinations, but also helps to secure valley” residents who in-commute to
those areas as vibrant, pedestrian- jobs, which are inextricably linked to the
friendly places. tourist industry’s economic well-being.
Snowmass Village is currently working A number of efforts are underway to

out the details of transit-supportive strengthen the Roaring Fork Valley’s
policies as it reviews a development institutional capacity to coordinate
application to create a new base village. transit and land use. These include the
This development, known by the town’s “Community Economics and Land Use in
name, Snowmass Village, is to include the Mountain Rural Resort Communities
635 condominiums and 184,000 square Project,” an effort sponsored by the
feet of nonresidential space comprising Northwest Colorado Council of
a children’s center, conference space, Governments and a local nonprofit,
restaurants, and shops. Current plans Healthy Mountain Communities. The
show buses arriving at a new central purpose of this planning effort is to
transit and check-in center that sports “develop an approach for integrating
seven bus pullouts. This is in keeping demographic, economic, and land use
with the city’s policies and the information into a decision making tool
developers’ vision of a quaint for community leaders and policy
pedestrian village. makers.”49 One product of the effort is a
GIS-based tool to help decision-makers
While there is a growing appreciation of and community members visualize the
transit’s role in the region’s future, there impacts of various land-use policies and
is still much to be done by way of land- transportation investments. Another effort
use planning and interjurisdictional is the Affordable Housing Initiative,
coordination if transit is to significantly sponsored by Healthy Mountain
alter the Valley’s land-use character. Communities. The initiative has led
As the RFRHA’s study from the year to the development of a regional
2000 notes, localities in the Roaring affordable-housing needs analysis and a
Fork Valley need to review land-use framework for regional collaboration,
ordinances to intensify development as well as a model affordable-housing
around transit stations.48 Without a ordinance, which has been adopted by
comprehensive plan for how growth will two jurisdictions to date.50 Placing
be managed, the Valley is more likely affordable units near transit stops is a
to fill with low-density development, key element of the initiative. These
unconnected to transit, than to develop as efforts should provide a solid foundation
349

for land-use planning cooperation friendly, bus-oriented development. This

around the issue of TOD. has come with its own set of challenges,
including limited control over the pace
Conclusions and Lessons of redevelopment along transit corridors.
As the city prepares for the arrival of a
In Colorado, TOD is occurring across a rail transit connection to Denver, it has
broad array of landscapes. Numerous assumed a more proactive role, familiar
implementation tools are being used to to other TOD-friendly communities in
bring about TOD, suited to each area’s the Denver area such as Englewood and
political and economic realities. Even Arvada. A particularly important lesson
so, the motivations for TOD are quite from Boulder is that transit-supportive
similar. Coloradoans are displeased with development is not necessarily
the current face of their state’s physical dependent on steel-wheel technology.
growth, and, while opinions are mixed High-quality bus-based services,
about how best to proceed, TOD is introduced under the CTN initiative,
gaining traction in a number of highlighted by the popular and colorful
jurisdictions. Hop-Skip-Jump “brand,” and backed by
proactive planning, Boulder shows, can
In the Denver area, rail transit spur moderately dense, mixed-use
investments are opening up growth along major routes, even in
unprecedented TOD opportunities, moderate-size communities.
although they will not necessarily
translate into TOD over the short term, In the Roaring Fork Valley, TOD offers a
particularly in redevelopment contexts. potential solution to a pattern of land
Where TOD has occurred in the Denver consumption that threatens the region’s
metropolitan area, public entities have tourism-based economy while increasing
generally stepped forward to make commute distances and traffic tie-ups.
long-term investments in station-area A worsening jobs-housing imbalance,
development. These public-sector owing in large part to service-industry
investments have been rooted as much workers being priced out of local housing
in “placing making” as in transportation markets, has catapulted transportation
benefits. They reflect long-term thinking and land-use integration toward the top
and dedicated political leadership to of the list of local concerns. Even in
translate the ever more familiar idea rural-like Pitkin and Garfield Counties,
of TOD into a shared vision for TOD is being seized on as one of the
community revitalization. more viable means of better integrating
transportation and land development.
In Boulder, TOD has evolved under a While hard and fast lessons about the
policy framework that is distinct from implementation of TOD in the Valley
other communities in the Denver region. may still be some years away, the
There, land supply is tightly constrained ongoing execution of comprehensive
as a matter of public policy. As a result, plan policies that encourage a fine-
TOD has not required the same level grained connection between development
of public participation and has instead and transit services has begun to yield
been guided by a regulatory process promising results. In many ways,
that emphasizes compact, pedestrian- Colorado’s Rocky Mountains stand as a
350

test bed for the viability of TOD in a with the regional plan, asking each member
non-urban setting. jurisdiction to complete an assessment of its
local comprehensive plans. Only 4 of the
50 member jurisdictions bothered with the
process. DRCOG has since ratcheted up its
Notes incentives for local jurisdictions to take note
of the regional plan by assigning points in the
1 Pew Center for Civic Journalism, Straight TIP for compliance with certain aspects of
Talk from Americans (2000). See Metro Vision 2020. Thus far, these points
http://www.pewcenter.org/doingcj/ have been targeted largely at establishing a
research/r_ST2000denver1.html. UGB; transportation projects submitted as
2 T. Lomax and D. Schrank, 2002 Urban part of the TIP process, which come from
Mobility Report (College Station, Texas: jurisdictions that have adopted a UGB in
Texas Transportation Institute, 2003). conformance with Metro Vision 2020, receive
an additional 20 points out of 125 possible
3 K. Schneider, “Five Commutes That Make points, making these projects more likely to
You Feel Better About Yours,” New York receive funding. This initiative has been
Times, October 20, 1999. Retrieved from relatively effective, with 26 of the member
archives, http://www.nytimes.com. jurisdictions adopting UGBs thus far,
4 Healthy Mountain Communities, Local and representing more than 80% of the
Regional Travel Pattern Study (1997–1998), metropolitan area’s population. Other
(Carbondale, Colorado, 1998). See http:// Metro Vision elements have been assigned
www.hmccolorado.org/travelpatterns.htm little or no consideration in the allocation
of transportation funds. As an example,
5 Noel, T. J., Mile High City: An Illustrated DRCOG assigns only a single point in the
History of Denver (Carlsbad, California: TIP process for transportation projects that
Heritage Media Corporation, 1997). are located in a defined “urban center”; as a
6
Ibid. Noel explains this problem, noting the result, only a handful of jurisdictions have
example of Federal Heights, a blue-collar gone through the process of designation.
town, “caught in between two much larger Staff members at DRCOG indicate that
and more aggressive Adams County they are considering a reallocation of points
neighbors. Westminster and Thornton used within the TIP system to attempt to affect
tax breaks and other ploys to persuade giant other elements of the Metro Vision plan. It
K-Mart and King Soopers stores to move out remains to be seen whether this will be an
of Federal Heights, leaving that town with outcome of the Metro Vision 2030 planning
giant empty stores—and a loss of 30% of its process.
sales tax revenues.” 12 City and County of Denver, “Chapter 2,” in
7 Blueprint Denver (2002), 14.
Denver Regional Council of Governments,
Metro Vision 2025 Interim Regional 13 City and County of Denver, “Denver TOD
Transportation Plan: The Fiscally Coalition,” Unpublished program description.
Constrained Element (April 17, 2002). 14 Ibid.
8
Denver Regional Council of Governments, 15 Regional Transportation District, Fast Facts
Metro Vision 2020 Plan (July 2002). See
and Figures, Updated May 11, 2003. See
http://www.drcog.org/downloads/
http://www.rtd-denver.com/History.
2002_Metro_Vision_Plan-1.pdf.
16
9 Fredrick Ross Company, View: Commercial
Ibid., p. 27.
Real Estate Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1
10 (January 2003).
A. Rhines, “Mile High Compact Seeks
Regional Planning,” The Boulder County 17 Cushman and Wakefield, Denver Colorado,
Business Report, August 25, 2000.
Office Market Fourth Quarter 2002. See
11 Shortly after Metro Vision 2020 was adopted, http://www.cushmanwakefield.com/flyers/
DRCOG produced a checklist for consistency Den_Off4Q02.pdf.
351

18 33
Lower office rents at the Millennium City of Boulder, Department of Public
Financial Center reflect a discount given to a Works, Transportation in Boulder:
single large user, who rents three floors of the Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, video
building for $24.75 per square foot. recording of presentation, October 22, 2001.
Otherwise, office rents in the project average See http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/publicworks/
$27.50 per square foot. depts/transportation/master_plan/
19
traninboulder.html.
City of Arvada and Arvada Urban Renewal
34
Authority, Olde Town Renaissance Plan City of Boulder, Transportation Division,
(August 1999). Boulder Transportation Master Plan (1996).
See http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/
20 See Caltrans, Statewide Transit Oriented publicworks/depts/transportation/
Development Study Factors for Success in master_plan-new/1996TMP/full_tmp_
California, Technical Appendix (September document.html.
2002), pp. 25–27, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/
35
MassTrans/tod.htm; D. Sokol, “Glass Slipper City of Boulder, North Boulder
Redux,” Grid Magazine (December 2001); Subcommunity Plan (1995), 11.
C. Lockwood, “Town Centers Ascendant,” 36 J. Straub, “Jobs-to-Worker Disparity
Grid Magazine (December 2001). Grid Underscored,” The Boulder County Business
Magazine was hosted at http://www.gridsite. Report, December 3, 1999. See http://www.
com/dec2001-reduxhtm, but is no longer bcbr.datajoe.com/app/cda/djo_cda.php.
available.
37 T. Neff, “Officials Show Off Transit Plans,”
21 Sokol, December 2001, op. cit. (See Note 20.) The Daily Camera, April 23, 2003. See
22 http://www.thedailycamera.com.
E. Payne and R. Simpson, “Memorandum
from Office of Neighborhood and Business 38 City of Aspen and Pitkin County, Visitors
Development to Department of Finance, City Information, website, retrieved May 15,
of Englewood” (December 11, 1996). 2003. See http://www.aspenpitkin.com/misc/
23
visitors/population.cfm.
Sokol, December 2001, op. cit.
39 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority,
24 Ibid. West Glenwood Springs to Aspen
25 C. Lockwood, “Raising the Bar,” Urban Corridor Investment Study (May 2003).
Land, Vol. 62, No. 2 (February 2003). http://www.rfta.com/executivesummary.pdf.
40
26 Ibid. Ibid.
41
27 Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority,
Ibid.
Glenwood Springs to Aspen/Pitkin County
28 J. Rebchook, “Trammell Crow Sells Airport Corridor Investment Study, Transit
Complex,” Rocky Mountain News, April 25, Oriented Community Design Report
2003. See http://www.insidedenver.com. (February 2002), 6.
42
29 Denver Regional Council of Governments, Ibid, p. 5.
Metro Vision 2020 Plan (July 2000). 43
Town of Basalt, Town of Basalt Master Plan
See http://www.drcog.org/downloads/2002_ (August 1999), 100.
Metro_Vision_Plan-1.pdf
44 Ibid. The Town of Basalt Master Plan notes
30 A. Stogner, “High-End Lofts, Condos Join “There are several factors that have
Boulder’s Urban Mix,” Boulder County influenced the decisions incorporated in the
Business Report, July 13, 2001, Sec. 2, p. 45. Future Land Use Map. One of the most
31 J. Myslik, Distinctive Properties LLC, significant of these is the proposed valley-
Unpublished market data (January 2003). wide transportation system between Aspen
and Glenwood Sprints. . . . Trustees believe
32 J. Myslik, Distinctive Properties LLC, the transit corridor should be located along
Unpublished market data (December 2002). Alignment C (Highway 82 right-of-way)
352

through the Three Mile Planning Area. This 49 G. Severson, Memorandum from Executive
belief drives many elements of the Future Director to the Executive Committee and
Land Use Map, including the location of the Board of the Northwest Colorado Council
potential transit stations, limits of the urban of Governments (December 7, 2000).
growth and urban services area boundaries, See http://www.nwc.cog.co.us/
and the development pattern around the Executive%20Director%20Reports/2000/
potential transit station area” (p. 108). 12-2000.pdf.
45 Roaring Fork Transit Agency, Economic 50 See Healthy Mountain Communities website:
White Paper:Mobility and Economic http://www.hmccolorado.org.
Interdependence RTA Action Plan
(February 1999). Photo Credits
46
Town of Snowmass Village, Chapter 7,
Comprehensive Plan (January 1999), 1. All photos by S. Murphy
47
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, May
2003, op. cit., p. S-22.
48
Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority
(February 2002) op. cit.
353

Chapter 17
Portland’s TODs: Building Community on a Regional Scale
The Portland region has the most describes how TOD planning has
aggressive TOD program in the United evolved over time and describes the
States. In Portland, TOD is linked to “toolbox” used by various jurisdictions
many goals and has been broadly to facilitate TOD. This is followed by
implemented. Nearly every one of the profiles of three TODs that illustrate
region’s light-rail stops has witnessed some of the opportunities and constraints
TOD activity to some degree. At the of pursuing TOD in different settings,
same time, Portland has very high even in a favorable setting like Portland.
expectations of its TODs, and thus The concluding sections speculate on the
its experiences may not be easily future of TOD in Portland (e.g., whether
transferable to other cities and regions. it is trying to do too much and whether it
Notwithstanding government’s strong can succeed on all fronts) and
role in promoting TOD and “shaping” summarize lessons learned.
growth, market forces still matter, as
some of the TODs profiled in this case The Regional Policy Framework
study illustrate. While other studies of for TOD
Portland’s TOD have only focused on its
most successful light-rail examples Over the past 25 years, TOD has become
(e.g., Orenco Station), this case study part of the underlying policy framework
highlights TODs that have received less of Portland’s comprehensive growth
attention in the past and describes two management at a community and
projects (The Round and Central regional scale. TOD has become one of
Commons) that experienced difficulties the primary policy and implementation
when governments pushed the envelope tools that the state, the region, and local
of what could be expected from TOD.1 governments regularly call on to help
Although these projects are now on maintain a compact urban form, reduce
course for long-term success, they dependence on the automobile, and
nevertheless provide lessons for other support reinvestment in centers and
regions and developers attempting to corridors. Over time, sophisticated
achieve multiple objectives in building developers have learned that sites
TOD. This study also takes a look at adjacent to transit are more likely to
development activity presently occurring come with incentives for development
along the Portland Streetcar line. than sites that are not near transit.
Portland’s experiences with TOD have The greatest attention to TOD is focused
evolved over 25 years, from being on the stations of the Portland Streetcar
largely an afterthought to becoming one and the region’s three light-rail lines. For
of the primary considerations in rail- example, legally binding station-area
facility planning. The next section plans were funded by TriMet, the
355

regional transit agency, and adopted by officials, local government staff, land
local governments before the Eastside owners, and neighborhoods; and
and Westside light-rail lines opened for
service. Minimum densities, parking • Setting up a self-sustaining
maximums, design requirements and framework to promote TOD once
prohibition of automobile-oriented uses the planning is complete.2
(through interim zoning overlays) are
features of the plans for areas within TriMet’s involvement in TOD has been
walking distance of the stations. Local as an advocate, an educator, and a
governments along the corridors funder. The agency has been willing to
participated in these coordinated multi- provide substantial time and resources to
jurisdictional planning programs because further the implementation of TOD and
they saw light rail as a means to the region’s vision of “growing up, not
implement their comprehensive plans. out.” At the same time, TriMet has been
a major beneficiary of those regional
The core objectives of station-area policies. By focusing growth next to
planning in Portland have remained transit stops, the policies help to fill
fairly constant over the years. They TriMet’s trains and buses. Since 1990,
include the following: ridership on buses and light rail has
grown at a rate significantly higher than
• Reinforcing the public’s investment both population and vehicle miles
in light rail by ensuring (via rezoning) traveled (see Figure 17.1).3
that only transit-friendly development
occurs near stations; Station-area plans are just one slice of a
larger pie. The Portland region arguably
• Recognizing that station areas are has the nation’s most aggressive TOD
special places and the balance of the program, but it has also placed the
region is available for traditional highest stakes on what it expects from
development;
• Seizing the opportunity afforded by

rail transit to promote TOD as part
of a broader growth management Population 24%
strategy;
• Rezoning the influence area around Vehicle Miles Travel ed 35%

stations to allow only transit-
supportive uses;
TriMet Ridership 49%
• Focusing public agency investment
and planning efforts at stations with
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
the greatest development
opportunity; Percent Change
• Building a broad-based core of Figure 17.1. TriMet’s Comparative Ridership

support for TOD with elected Growth, 1990–2000.
356

TOD. The region’s vaunted growth abatements. Nonetheless, nearly 8,000

management strategy is built around housing units have been permitted in the
transit. The 2040 Growth Management Westside Station areas in those three
Strategy (“build up, not out”) features a communities (see Map 17.1). This
tight UGB, focusing growth in existing includes the National Association of
built-up areas and requiring local Homebuilders’ 1999 Planned
governments to limit parking and adopt Community of the Year, Orenco Station.
zoning and comprehensive plan
changes that are consistent with the Evolution in Transit to
growth management strategy. By Encourage TOD
2040, two-thirds of jobs and 40% of
households are to be located in and The Portland region’s approach to TOD
around centers and corridors served has evolved over the past 30 years as bus
by buses and light-rail transit.4 and rail systems have grown. Moreover,
transit development strategies have
Over more than two decades, the evolved to reflect the region’s growing
Portland region has raised the bar of interest in using transit as a community-
what it expects from TOD, and along building tool. The result is that today,
with this it has continued to add new transit and TOD planning are linked
regulatory and financial tools to its TOD inextricably.
implementation toolbox—tools that are
not generally available in other The roots of the region’s progressive
communities (see Table 17.1). The approach to land use and transportation
breadth of regulations and incentives integration can be found in Portland’s
directed at TOD naturally raises the celebrated 1973 Downtown Plan. The
question of what the region is getting in Plan envisioned a transit mall as the
exchange. Is TOD overly subsidized and centerpiece of the downtown
loaded with incentives, as some critics revitalization strategy. When the Transit
argue? Is TOD something the market Mall opened in 1978, it was the region’s
would not produce on its own? first major improvement in transit and
the first installment in a signature
Portland’s TOD planners answer these strategy that would repeat itself over and
questions by saying that financial over across the region—using transit
incentives, such as tax abatements, are infrastructure investments to achieve
provided to push the private market broader community objectives.
further than it would otherwise go with
respect to features and amenities desired The evolution of the region’s strategy
by public policy, achieving higher has changed from TOD being largely an
densities, better urban design, reduced afterthought (with Portland’s first rail
parking, cleaner air, and greater housing line) to proactively expanding transit to
affordability. The cities of Portland and build new communities (a primary
Gresham are currently granting TOD tax rationale for building the Portland
exemptions. The cities of Hillsboro and Streetcar). As local decision-makers
Beaverton, and Washington County gained experience using rail investments
along the Westside light-rail line, to achieve broader community
however, have opted not to grant tax objectives, the design, financing,
357

Table 17.1. Portland TOD Toolbox Snapshot

TOOL BRIEF DESCRIPTION
Statewide Tools
Urban Growth A central tenet of Oregon’s Land-Use Planning Program. Ensures a 20-
Boundary (UGB), year land supply inside and preserves rural areas outside the UGB.
1979 Portland’s UGB includes 254,000 acres.
Transportation Requires metro areas to set targets and adopt actions to reduce reliance
Planning Rule, 1991 on the automobile. Directs metro areas to implement land-use changes to
promote pedestrian-friendly, compact, mixed-use development.
Transportation & Promotes high-quality community planning by providing local
Growth Management governments grants, Quick Response Teams, and Smart Development
Program, 1993 Code Assistance. Over $6.7 million in grants from federal transportation
funds were provided between 1993 and 2002.
TOD Tax Exemption, Allows eligible projects to be exempt from residential property taxation
1995 for up to 10 years. The cities of Portland and Gresham have utilized this
program.
Regional Tools
Regional Growth The region’s 2040 Growth Concept focuses growth on transit centers
Management, 1994 and corridors inside a tight UGB. Local governments must comply with
Regional Functional Plan requirements by adopting growth targets,
parking maximums, minimum densities, and street connectivity
standards.
TOD Implementation Uses a combination of local and federal transportation funds to spur the
Program, 1998 construction of TOD. The level of involvement in 12 TODs has ranged
from $50,000 to $2 million. The primary use of funds has been for site
acquisition and TOD easements.
Metropolitan Regionally controlled transportation funds targeted to implement the
Transportation 2040 Growth Concept. Since 1996, the region has been flexing, on
Improvement Program average, $46 million annually in federal transportation funds in support
of the growth concept.
Local Tools
Westside Station-Area TriMet, Metro and ODOT funded preparation and adoption of plans by
Planning, 1993–1997 local governments for the area within 1⁄2 mile of LRT stations. Plans
included minimum densities, parking maximums, a design overlay for
building orientation to transit, and prohibition of automobile-oriented
uses.
Joint Development, TriMet has written down the value of project land reflecting “highest
1997 and best transit use” to leverage three innovative infill projects along the
Westside LRT
TOD Tax and Fee The city of Gresham provides 10-year TOD tax exemptions and a 26.9%
Exemptions discount on traffic impact fees as an incentive to locate development in
TOD districts.
358

extension when planning for the line

commenced in 1996. Bechtel
Enterprises contributed $28.2 million
toward the $125-million light-rail
project. In return, Bechtel, in
partnership with Trammell Crow, is
to develop a 120-acre TOD at the
entrance to the airport.7 To date, none
of the expected 10,000 jobs and $400
Map 17.1. TriMet’s MAX Light-Rail million in development has occurred
System, 2003. Source: TriMet. since the line opened in 2001. A soft
economy and the events of 9/11 are
and rationale behind Portland’s growing cited as reasons for the delay.
rail network changed. Some milestones
include the following: • Community revitalization and
reinvestment have been guiding
• TOD was a novelty when Portland’s principles in the planning and
Eastside light-rail line was designed implementation of the Interstate
in the mid-1970s. Consideration of light-rail line (opened in May 2004).
TOD did not occur until after the As part of the city of Portland’s
alignment and station locations “Community Livability
were fixed.5 Implementation Strategy,” the
Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal
• Informed by the Eastside experience, Area will provide $30 million of the
the approach for the Westside light $350-million project cost.
rail was markedly different. In the
late 1980s, the Westside alignment • For the planned I-205 light-rail
and station locations were designed segment in east Portland, the region
specifically with future development has again incorporated real-estate
in mind. As Newsweek put it in 1995, development into the design,
Portland is “building transit first, construction, and financial strategy.
literally in fields, in the hope TriMet’s recent RFP seeks a
development will follow.”6 contractor/developer to “effectively
integrate land development
• Planning for the Portland Streetcar in opportunities into the final design
the early 1990s focused on spurring and construction of the project.”8
housing construction in the Central
City, particularly in undeveloped TOD in Portland
areas like the River District. The
Streetcar, which opened for service in TOD implementation has accelerated
2001, has been described as a housing since the opening of the region’s second
and redevelopment tool as much as a light-rail line (Westside) in September
transportation project. 1998. By TriMet’s estimate, more than
$3 billion in new development has
• TOD was a central feature in the occurred within walking distance of the
financing of the airport light-rail stations along the 38-mile system.9
359

Reflecting the role of TOD as a Center Commons

fundamental city-shaping tool in the
Portland region, TOD planning and The Center Commons is a mixed-use,
implementation is today being pursued primarily residential community with
at multiple levels. Agencies actively 314 housing units located 5 miles east of
working on TOD include the state of downtown Portland (see Photo 17.1).
Oregon’s Community Solutions Team, The project is immediately adjacent to
TriMet, Metro (the regional the south side of the Banfield (I-84)
government), the Portland Development Freeway, about 1⁄4 mile from the
Commission (Portland’s urban renewal 60th-Avenue MAX light-rail station,
agency), and the cities of Portland, which abuts the north side of the
Gresham, Beaverton, and Hillsboro. freeway.10 It is also within 1⁄3 mile of
A product of these collective efforts three Tri-Met bus routes (#19, #71, and
has been three new TODs—Center #20). Downtown Portland is just 19
Commons, The Round, and the Pearl minutes away by light rail.
District. As discussed in this section, the
path to becoming a TOD has at times The Center Commons is notable in the
been rocky, but as lessons are learned Portland region for having gone the
and put to good use, the region is poised farthest in developing mixed-income
to be both smarter and more measured as and for-sale housing on a single site.
it pursues the next generation of TODs. In addition, it is the first major infill
Photo 17.1. Center Commons. Center Commons is a mixed-use TOD combining 314
units of for-sale, market-rate and affordable rental housing on a 4.9-acre site. The TOD has
high transit use; 46% of work trips and 32% of non-work trips are on transit, a significant
increase from residents’ previous levels. Rendering (top left): Otak Incorporated.
360

TOD along the freeway section of light housing affordability (part of the project
rail in the city of Portland. This section would be earmarked for low-income
of the Eastside MAX parallels the housing), and, in redeveloping an old
freeway for 4.5 miles and was never Department of Motor Vehicles lot,
given much TOD consideration. Thus, neighborhood revitalization. PDC
the project illustrates the challenges of purchased the site for fair market value
trying to serve physically constrained from the ODOT in 1996.
light-rail alignments. Finally, this
project introduced mixed-use infill to a There were no significant zoning
neighborhood that is not well connected obstacles to overcome, as the site was
to other major activity centers and that located in a designated Light-Rail
has no recent precedent for mixed uses Station Area in Metro’s 2040 Plan.
or infill. Transit-supportive zoning for the area
had been adopted as part of the Transit
Planning for a potential TOD project Station-Area Planning Program in the
began in 1994, when the city of Portland early 1980s. Under the city’s code, the
and the local neighborhood convened site could include up to 500 housing
meetings to discuss how the site could be units and had a 100-foot height limit.
developed. The Oregon Department of Off-street parking would be required.
Transportation (ODOT) owned the site, Other “assets” included proximity to a
but had ceased operations in the early large local grocery store, a hospital, and
1990s. In the end, the neighborhood was a MAX station; a “stable” surrounding
receptive to the idea of building a TOD neighborhood; a relatively large site; and
so long as it met the following mature trees.
conditions: pedestrian safety and access
to MAX would be improved, the project On the constraints side of the ledger, the
would include open/recreation space, site area had narrow sidewalks, congested
building heights would be compatible arterial access, industrial uses on the
with the neighborhood, and the large oak other side of the freeway, and no
trees on the site would be preserved. precedent for high density or mixed uses
in the neighborhood. In addition, local
In 1995, the Portland Development commercial rents were too low for new
Commission (PDC), the city’s construction. Finally, access to light rail
redevelopment agency, conducted a in the freeway median is not ideal, and
feasibility study on developing the 4.9- the freeway generates lots of noise.
acre parcel using Transportation Growth
Management funds from the state. At the PDC held a development offering in
time, the parcel contained a vacant one- 1996 and selected a proposal from
story office building and a large surface Lennar Affordable Communities (LAC),
parking lot (used informally by MAX who would become the master developer
park-and-riders, and weekend carpoolers of the project. PDC selected LAC’s
to regional recreation destinations). The proposal because LAC offered to
study determined that a TOD project construct more affordable housing than
would fit well with Portland’s growth the preliminary development plan
management objectives: density near required, within the budget established
light rail, a mix of housing products, for the project. PDC required that at least
361

40% of the constructed units be pedestrians, a playground, a bosque of

affordable, and the LAC proposal trees, parking, drop-off zones, and
reserved 75% of the project’s 288 rental generous sidewalks that are short-cuts to
units for residents making less than the transit.”13 In addition, mature oak trees
area’s median income. were preserved by using context-
sensitive design to set some buildings
As the final development program began back from street. The master plan
to take shape, market-driven cost cutting masses the largest buildings on the edges
and engineering considerations were of the property facing the freeway and a
threatening to reduce some of the transit- freeway off-ramp. The design gives a
supportive elements of the project (e.g., sense of modest density, using the
mix of housing types and high-quality largest buildings on the edge as a “town
pedestrian connections). In February wall” to act as a sound and visual buffer.
1999, the Metro TOD program (see The townhouses are particularly
Text Box 17.1) purchased the site from appealing and include three levels, two
PDC for about $1 million (the appraisal bedrooms, bonus rooms, birch and
value), subdivided the parcel, and stained concrete floors, wood-frame
established TOD easements, covenants windows, open metal stairs, glazed
and restrictions to ensure that local doors, metal decks, balconies, patios,
residents could use on-site pedestrian and single-automobile garages.
paths to access the nearby MAX
station.11 The property was then sold to Development costs for the Center
three different development entities Commons TOD totaled $30 million.
constituting the LAC team after the land Funding sources included low-income
value was reduced to $250,000 to reflect housing tax credits, state of Oregon tax-
changing market conditions.12 exempt bonds, a PDC loan, a Fannie
Mae loan, general partner equity, and an
Environmental remediation on the site FTA TOD grant. Additionally, the
occurred shortly thereafter and included project received a 10-year property-tax
removing surface soil contamination to a exemption.
highway roadbed, removing asbestos,
and recycling the old concrete building The Center Commons project is one of
as site fill. The developer paid for the the few Portland-area TODs in which
remediation with assistance from “before-and-after” travel behavior has
ODOT, and project construction started been systematically measured. A survey
in April 1999. of the 288 rental apartments found that
transit mode share increased nearly 50%
The Center Commons was completed in for work trips (from 31% before to 46%
early 2001 and consists of four separate after moving into the Center Commons)
buildings, each serving a different and by 60% for non-work trips (from 20%
clientele. Table 17.2 describes the to 32%).14 By comparison, transit work-
buildings and their target markets. trip mode share for the city of Portland
was 12.3% in 2000 according to Census
In the words of project architects, “the 2000. While the high number of low-
focal point for Center Commons is a income households is a major reason for
‘woonerf’ space that congregates cars, the high mode share in general (76% of
362

Metro TOD Implementation Program

To help simulate the construction of transit villages, Portland’s regional government,
Metro, operates the innovative TOD Implementation Program using federal
transportation funds. The TOD Program operates through a series of cooperative
agreements between Metro and local jurisdictions, and it utilizes development
agreements with private developers. The primary use of TOD-Program funds is site
acquisition. Operating with two full-time staff members, the Program has been directly
involved in the funding of 12 different TOD projects with a level of involvement
ranging from $50,000 to $2 million in site control and direct financial participation in
TODs. Another Portland program is the CMAQ TOD Program run by the Portland
Development Commission. This program was funded with $3.5 million in CMAQ
funds; the money is used to acquire land and design and construct transit amenities as
part of TODs. A total of nine projects received funding.
According to Metro’s Marc Guichard, “Real-estate development economics often make

the dense mixed-use TODs sought in local plans infeasible in much of the region. A
development rule-of-thumb is buildings should be constructed over parking and uses
should be stacked when land is more expensive than a parking structure. In the
Portland region, this rarely occurs if market dynamics are generating land values less
than $50 to $60 per square foot. In fact, parcels near most of the transit stations in the
region, outside downtown Portland, generate land values of only $6 to $10 per square
foot.”
“Metro’s TOD Program pushes the development envelope by using public-private

partnership techniques to secure more TOD-like projects than would otherwise be
developed on a given site. For example, on a site where the free market would likely
produce three-story apartments with surface parking and no retail, the TOD Program
would push for five-stories with podium parking and ground-floor retail that may have
four to five times more dwelling units and induce significantly more transit ridership.”
Property is acquired, re-parceled, and planned, then sold with conditions to private
developers for constructing TOD and/or dedicated to local governments for streets,
plazas, and other public facilities where appropriate. In many cases, the land value is
written down to cover the high development costs required to construct a specific TOD
project. In such cases, a “highest and best transit use” appraisal is used to establish the
sale price.
The program is the first of its kind in the United States to use flexible federal
transportation funds for TOD implementation and has been instrumental in helping
shape the joint development policies of the Federal Transit Administration.
Text Box 17.1
363

Table 17.2. Center Commons Buildings

BUILDING UNITS AND USES MARKET DESIGNATION
Center Village 60 apartments Families at or below the median income
Leasing office (20% of units available to households
Grandma’s Place Daycare below 30% of the area’s median)
The Commons 172 apartments Available to seniors making 55% of the
median income or lower
5819 Building 56 apartments Modified market rate (income restrictions)
Ground-floor commercial
(H&R Block)
Center Townhouses 26 for-sale townhouses Market rate
respondents had an annual household on the market, however, 12 remained

income of $25,000 or less), transit use has unsold. The developer, Innovative
still increased significantly among new Housing, Inc., was spending nearly
residents of Center Commons. The survey $20,000 per month covering mortgage
also found that the top reasons for moving costs. This practically destroyed the
to the project were new buildings, nice company. Virtually all parties agree
designs, and proximity to transit. that the townhomes are relatively
inexpensive, given their high quality
The project is parked at 0.6 spaces per compared with other townhouse/
unit, and parking in and around the condominium locations. Several
project has been problematic. The tight reasons have been offered for the
ratios were justified in part by the high poor absorption, including
proportion of senior units in the project.
The aforementioned survey found that • Location: For its location, the
almost 30% of respondents own fewer project’s density and design may
automobiles now than they did at their be ahead of the market. The
previous residence. Nevertheless, the neighborhood and the distance from
project appears to be generally under- downtown—5 miles—may not be
parked, and parking often spills into the attractive to younger buyers. Also,
adjacent neighborhood. Residents the townhomes face two busy streets.
complain there is not enough visitor
parking. All of the parking is above • Market: According to Innovative
ground (some is located in podiums), Housing, Inc., too many townhomes
which, according to some residents, were built. This was a concession to
makes the development feel denser neighbors who wanted more owner-
than it actually is. occupied units in the project.
While the project is meeting or exceeding • Tenant mix: Proximity to the

its transportation objectives, it has affordable units may have been a
struggled financially. The lease-up for deterrent to attracting home buyers.
the market-rate apartments happened
quickly and experienced no problems. • Price: The goal was to make the
One year after the 26 townhomes went townhomes affordable to first-time
364

buyers, but costs escalated rapidly In closing, the overall goals set for the
because of a changing regulatory Center Commons have been largely met
environment (i.e., building code or exceeded. The neighborhood got an
changes; separate design reviews by attractive development where there had
the city, PDC, and the state; slow previously been an empty eyesore, the
final permitting; construction delays; project met the increased density targets
and construction cost overruns). for the site, transit use for work and non-
work trips has increased markedly, the
• Design: The contemporary design, project has helped to revitalize the
while awarding-winning, may not be immediate neighborhood, and the project
appealing to everyone. Two levels of provides a range of affordable-housing
stairs may be difficult for seniors, opportunities. The project also
and some contend that the project is incorporates attractive designs.
not “kid friendly.”
At the same time, the project has fallen
• Project management: A developer short of its financial targets. According
agreement was entered into between to one of the development partners, the
PDC and Lennar Company. private developers have struggled
Innovative Housing, Inc., which financially, and only PDC has not lost
contracted with Lennar, did not have money on the project so far. Financially,
the project may have tried to accomplish
enough control over the designs and
too much on a small site.
costs and bore the brunt of the
financial problems.
Regardless, at the end of the day, the
community has a well-performing, well-
The last townhouses were finally sold for designed mixed-income TOD. Whether
prices from $165,000 to $175,000, others can afford to copy Center
below the initial level of $200,000. Commons without large subsidies
remains to be seen.
The initial lease-up of the senior-
designated apartments was also The Round
problematic, as many seniors indicated
that they disliked living in proximity to The city of Beaverton, located 5 miles
families with children. The apartment west of downtown Portland, is in the
units closest to the highway and farthest midst of building an entire community
from the play areas were the first to rent. and high-density town center around the
The units facing the play area do rent Beaverton Central light-rail station.
out, but senior turnover has been high, Called “The Round” for the crescent-
and non-seniors are now filling these shaped buildings that enclose the station
units (as allowed in the development area, the project experienced significant
agreement). This change in resident mix early setbacks and has been a long time
may have exacerbated the parking in the making. Now, however, it is on
problems. As the project mix included course to be the most intensively
fewer seniors, the assumed lower developed station on the Westside MAX
parking ratios did not match the line and is widely anticipated to become
changing reality of the project. “the heart of downtown Beaverton.”
365

Located 23 minutes from downtown The project was initiated by the city of
Portland on light rail, The Round is a Beaverton, which owned the site,
pioneering project in a city with no formerly a sewage treatment plant.
precedent for mixed-use infill Downtown Beaverton is designated to
development (see Photo 17.2). On become a Regional Center in Metro’s
completion, the project will include 2040 Plan, and development on this key
240 market-rate housing units, upscale parcel was envisioned to create the city’s
restaurants, 125,000 square feet of retail highest-density node within the Center.
uses, 375,000 square feet of Class A A significant TOD project would also
office space, and an 860-space parking strengthen the connection between light
garage.15 Its extensive public plaza, rail and the city’s traditional downtown,
located between crescent-shaped which is also part of the Regional
buildings and the station platform, gives Center, but is planned to remain a
the project a distinctively European lower-density special district.
design flavor. The plaza, which includes
an amphitheater and water fountain, The city released an RFP to develop a
offers views of Mt. Hood and serves as project in 1997. The winning developer
the focal point of the TOD. Covering proposed to build a mixed-use project
8.5 acres, 4 acres of which are buildable, with 230,000 square feet of office and
The Round will be one of the largest retail space, 100 to 150 townhouses and
building complexes in Beaverton. apartments, an 800-space parking
Photo 17.2. The Round. The Round stands out as a pioneering suburban downtown
mixed-use infill project.
366

garage, a 50,000-square-foot theater The primary reasons for the initial

center, and a 100-room hotel. The entire project failure were the following:
project was initially valued at $50
million, and the first phase was expected • The cost to completely stabilize the
to open in the fall of 1998. From the ground for dense development was
outset, the project was expected to be significantly higher than expected.
costly because of relatively high densities,
high-quality pedestrian amenities, parking • The developer became overly
structures, large foundations and stem attached to his comprehensive
walls, and fire sprinklers. program and tried to finance the
whole development at once, rather
To facilitate the project, TriMet than finance individual phases,
relocated its light-rail station from a which is more typical (but adds the
nearby arterial road to the center of the risk of lender-required changes). The
site to enhance access to the TOD, even rules of mixed-use finance make
though this made the station somewhat this funding approach virtually
more isolated from existing development. impossible to pull off.
Federal funds of $800,000 were secured
for site improvements, new road access • The city did not realize that the
into the site, and construction of a public developer had not lined up financing,
plaza. An additional $440,000 in CMAQ but rather had only secured letters of
funds was used for pedestrian credit. In retrospect, it may not have
improvements. selected the developer.
The developer was expected to build • To get cash into the project, plans for
infrastructure for the site and turn it over very dense apartments were changed
to the city. The city tried to expedite to more expensive condominiums. At
development approvals, dedicating a full- the time, there was no market
time staff inspector to the project. The precedent for high-end
city’s most significant contribution was to condominiums, and only a limited
provide tax abatements totaling $3 million regional precedent (the Pearl District
over 10 years. This was to reimburse the in downtown Portland was only
developer, who unexpectedly had to beginning to emerge). In addition, the
invest $3 million of his own capital to site is surrounded by automobile-
stabilize subsurface soils consisting dealer parking lots, which appealed to
primarily of “industrial muck.”16 few prospective condominium buyers.
In the end, this last-gasp effort turned
The developer began construction using out to be a losing strategy.
his own equity, but was subsequently
unable to secure take-out and permanent In 2001, the city and Microclimates, Inc.,
financing. Construction stopped bought the property out of bankruptcy
completely in 1998 when the developer court. The property was sold to a new
went bankrupt, owing $7 million to developer, Dorn Platz Properties, in
creditors. Two partially constructed 2002, for $2.3 million.17 Dorn Platz,
buildings sat dormant for more than experienced in building high-quality
3 years. commercial projects in Southern
367

California, completed construction of connections between the buildings and

the buildings, but also changed the the station. Over time, improvements to
overall development program to create local streets will better connect the
more intensity around the station. The project to the traditional downtown and
new developer is getting no subsidies to Canyon Boulevard, a major arterial
from the city. nearby.
The Round is being constructed in Under construction (south of the station)

phases, and a “fluid” development are a 24-Hour Fitness Center that will be
program will determine what gets built topped with 54 condominiums and a
when and where on the basis of four- to five-story, single-use parking
changing market opportunities and garage. Other buildings planned for the
tenant preferences. On completion, site include another office building
however, the development must meet the behind the Crescent/Promenade
overall program goals described earlier. buildings and a five-story office building
across the tracks from the existing five-
Buildings and structures open for use are story office building. Both office
listed below by location: buildings may include housing on top.
South of the tracks will be two more
• South of the station platform: A six- to seven-story office buildings with
5-story, 120,000-square-foot office ground-floor retail space. Both the
building with 21,000 square feet of theater and hotel have been dropped
ground-floor retail space is 90% from the original developer’s plan due to
leased. To meet program goals, lagging markets. At full build out, The
housing may be added later to the Round will be an $80- to $100-million
top of the building. development.18
• North of the station platform: The While the overall development program
Crescent and Promenade buildings has intensified significantly since the
have 65 condominium units situated initial groundbreaking, the amount of
above 10,000 square feet of ground- total parking is not likely to increase
floor retail space. Forty units are open proportionately, making the project even
in the two buildings, and 10 have more “transit-friendly.” Like the entire
sold thus far. The condominiums are development program, the parking
priced at $170 to $200 per square requirements are a work in progress, and
foot and include a mix of traditional the developer is actively seeking to
and “loft” units with two-story reduce the amount of structured parking
ceilings. provided.19 The parking plan is still in
the approvals process, but the developer
• North of the station platform: There has proposed implementing shared
is public plaza with wide walkways, parking, valet parking, and reduced
seating areas, landscaping, and small parking ratios.
waterfalls.
To conclude, Beaverton is in the midst
The city has also made streetscape of building an “urban island in a
improvements to enhance pedestrian suburban sea,” and a reborn TOD is
368

moving forward. Even while the regional businesses in abandoned warehouses, and
development market is weak, the market home to a large artist community, the
for TOD in Portland is now established Pearl District is now an emerging mixed-
and strong, benefiting The Round and use neighborhood of upscale loft housing,
other planned TOD projects. parks, art galleries, boutiques, cafes,
and restaurants. In early 2001, 1,600
In retrospect, it appears that early project condominiums and apartments were under
setbacks were due primarily to the construction or permitted—a pace that has
inexperience of the initial developer and continued unabated.21 The district is one
the city and poor execution by the of Portland’s hottest neighborhoods and
developer. The initial developer had has fueled the downtown’s largest housing
never completed a project as large or boom since the 1905 Lewis and Clark
complex, and the city should have known Centennial Exposition.
the status of the developer’s financing. In
addition, the city could have advocated A major catalyst to the transformation of
for program changes to move the project the Pearl District was the construction of
forward or contributed subsidies.20 the Portland Streetcar, the first modern
streetcar system to be built in the United
Why is The Round likely to become States. As in many cities, streetcars were
successful? Since groundbreaking in a fixture in Portland in the 1950s. In the
1998, both the Pearl District in Pearl District, the streetcar investment
downtown Portland and Orenco Station has been strategically used to leverage
in suburban Hillsboro have established large-scale redevelopment of a
markets for “urban” condominium living functionally obsolete warehouse and
and have demonstrated the success of industrial district, as well as brownfields
mixed-use communities. The Round is formerly owned by Burlington Northern
no longer an urban pioneer and is Railway. In this case, the streetcar
positioning itself to become an “edgy” has been equal parts housing and
Pearl District (at about half the price transportation tool, as streetcar
per square foot). In addition, the new construction was explicitly linked to
developer is more experienced, high-density development via an
sophisticated, and patient and thus is innovative developer agreement. As a
more likely to construct a successful result of this agreement, the average
project, albeit over a longer time frame. density of the Pearl District is now
120 housing units per acre, the highest in
The Pearl District the city. The Pearl District had only a
handful of residents in 1990 and 1,300 in
The creation of the Pearl District is the 2000. At build out, it will be home to
most dramatic transformation of over 10,000 residents in 5,500 housing
downtown Portland in the last 20 years. units, and 21,000 jobs. The area will
“The Pearl” is 90 city blocks bounded by also have 1 million square feet of new
I-405 to the west, West Burnside Street to commercial and retail space.
the south, NW Broadway Street to the
east, and the Willamette River to the north Table 17.3 provides a snapshot of some
(it is north of and adjacent to Portland’s of the buildings and projects that have
COB). Once an “incubator” for start-up been built to date. In this section, the
369

Table 17.3. Snapshot of Pearl District Development Along Portland Streetcar Line24
Project Name Value Year Residential Commercial Description
(000's ) Completed Units Sq. ft
Pearl Court $10,000 1997 199 Apartments
Pearl Townhomes $4,000 1997 10 Townhouses
McKenzie Lofts $15,500 1997 67 11,500 Condo & ground-floor retail
Riverstone $25,000 1998 123 10,000 Condo & ground-floor retail
Pacific Northwest $1,000 19 98 40,000 Renovation—art college
College of Art
Powell's Books $5,000 1999 50,000 Expansion & renovation
Wieden and Kennedy $20,000 1999 200,000 Full block renovation
North Park Lofts N/A 1999 66 Condo
Johnson Townhouses $7,000 2000 13 Townhouses
Park Northwest N/A 2000 18 Condo
Pearl Townhouses N/A 2000 10 Townhouses
River Tec $10,000 2000 35,000 Office renovation
Tanner Place $31,000 2000 121 12,000 Condo & ground-floor retail
Lovejoy Station $13,500 2001 181 Apartments
Vollum Natural Cap. Ctr. $8,000 2001 70,000 Office/retail renovation
Workspace Lofts $1,100 2001 N/A N/A Workspace Lofts
The Gregory $29,500 2002 145 47,000 Condo/Retail/Office
Streetcar Lofts $28,000 2002 139 9,000 Condo & ground-floor retail
Marshall Wells Lofts $34,000 2002 164 Condo
Mazana Restaurant $1,950 2002 N/A Building renovation
9th & Hoyt Bldg N/A 2002 N/A Office
Brewery Blocks $300,000 2002–04 367 673,000 Multi-phase mixed-use
housing, office, retail
Bridgeport Condos $35,000 2003 123 8,000 Condo & ground-floor retail
Park 13 $20,000 2003 139 N/A Apartments & retail
The Edge / REI $27,000 2003 126 35,000 Condo & ground-floor retail
Park Place $47,000 2004 124 15,000 Condo & ground-floor retail
10th & Hoyt Apts. $20,300 2004 178 15,000 Apartments & retail
Burlington Tower $22,000 2004 163 10,000 Condo & ground-floor retail
Elizabeth Lofts $38,000 2004 172 14,500 Condo & ground-floor retail
Total $753,850 2648 1,255,000
370

planning and build out of the Pearl adverse environmental impacts.23

District as a whole is discussed. Readers Finally, the Plan called for a new transit
should refer to other sources for detailed “circulator,” to facilitate short downtown
descriptions of individual projects within trips, and new incentives to increase
the Pearl District.22 downtown housing, safeguard historic
buildings, provide covered walkways,
Historically, the Pearl District was and preserve open space.
marshland along the Willamette River,
north of an emerging downtown In the early 1980s, a series of city and
Portland. The area was filled to create consultant reports documented the
land for expanding railroad yards and changing character of the industrial area,
warehousing, and, by the early 1900s it speculated on alternative futures, and
had become the transportation hub of the called for the city to undertake a
city. Transit, storage, manufacturing, and concerted planning effort for the area.
ancillary uses proliferated, and the area These reports generally noted that in
prospered as a warehouse and industrial the rail yards and warehouse area
district for 50 years. redevelopment was likely, and they
suggested that a broad economic/market
Beginning in the 1950s, the area began analysis be undertaken prior to re-use for
to reflect central-city dynamics industrial or commercial purposes.
witnessed in many other places.
Transport shifted away from rail and The 1988 Central City Plan built on the
water to highways and air, resulting work of the Downtown Plan, extending
in an industrial district that was its geographic scope and expanding its
increasingly vacant and marginalized. range of policy concerns. It established
Low rents attracted artists and start-up the Central City Plan District, which
businesses, and dwelling units were includes the Pearl District. The Central
created legally and illegally. Over time, City Plan illustrated the intended
the area became an eclectic mix of changes for the industrial area from rail
automobile shops, specialty outlets, yards to a residential/commercial area.
and art galleries. To facilitate this transformation,
the Plan
Planning for the area began with the
1972 Downtown Plan. The Downtown • retained existing industrial zoning
Plan recognized the important but allowed central employment
supporting role of the north downtown zoning when services could be
area as an industrial and distribution provided;25
center. At the same time, the Plan also
acknowledged changing development • adopted residential district zoning
patterns and recommended replacing regulations; and
some industrial uses with mixed-use
development. The Plan advised that • allowed use of FAR residential
density limits and height and bulk bonus provisions.
restrictions (throughout the downtown
generally) should enhance skylines, How the actual transformation would
protect views and vistas, and avoid take place, however, was unclear.
371

In the early 1990s, private citizens and redevelopment. In entering into the
landowners in the area convened to craft agreement, the city’s main goals were to
a vision statement for the River District. preserve historic buildings, increase
(At the time, the Pearl District was not density to create vibrancy and attract
officially recognized as such and rather business, promote transit use, and support
was part of a large River District, which existing and new arts organizations. The
generally shared the same boundaries, essential elements of the Development
except that it extended further east to the Agreement were
Willamette river.) The vision statement
noted that the River District should 1. Housing: Proposed housing densities
become a vital urban community of were significantly higher than for
connected, diverse, and mixed-use anything built previously. The
neighborhoods. The vision statement developer agreed to increase the
also called for the District to minimum density from 15 to 87 units
accommodate a significant portion of per acre when the city commenced
Portland’s expected future population removal of the Lovejoy Viaduct that
growth. The Portland City Council crossed the abandoned rail yards.
acknowledged the River District vision Also, on completion of the Portland
statement in 1992 and asked the city Streetcar, minimum densities would
agencies and the community to craft increase to 109 units per acre. Finally,
strategies for its implementation. when construction commenced on the
Pearl District’s first park, density
The resulting River District Development would rise further, to 131 units per
Plan, which provides a development acre.
and public finance framework for the
area, was endorsed by the Council in In addition to meeting density
1994. The Council then directed various requirements, the developer also
city offices to undertake specific agreed to help meet the city’s
actions toward implementing the housing-affordability goals. At least
Development Plan. The Bureau of 15% of all rental units and 10% of all
Planning, for instance, revised land-use for-sale units must be 700 square feet
regulations to support the Plan and or smaller. And at least 15% of
adopted special River District the total housing units must be
design guidelines. affordable to families earning up to
50% of the area’s median family
To execute the plan, in 1997 an innovative income (MFI), and 20% of the units
Master Development Agreement was must be affordable to families
entered into by the city and Hoyt Street earning up to 80% of the area’s MFI.
Properties (HSP), the owners of 40 acres HSP’s commitment is predicated on
of contaminated rail yards in the heart of the availability of public financial
the River District.26 This area (the western assistance, recognizing that these
part of the River District) officially units typically require public
became known as the Pearl District. With subsidies. If HSP does not build
the Hoyt Street Yards under single affordable housing, the city can
ownership, the city recognized a unique purchase up to three 1⁄2 blocks of
opportunity to pursue large-scale property for that purpose.
372

2. Parks: HSP agreed to donate prompting two of the original partners to

1.5 acres of land for new parks in back out of the agreement.
exchange for the city’s commitment
to build them. In addition, the city Two major public works projects proved
has the option to acquire up to to be the kindling that sparked major
4 acres for public open space. redevelopment: the Portland Streetcar
and the Lovejoy Viaduct removal. The
3. Infrastructure: Transportation main goals of the Streetcar were to
improvements were essential to attract downtown housing and ease
develop the area. The agreement parking and traffic hassles. The Streetcar
stipulated that HSP would donate the began service in 2001, running 2.4 miles
right-of-way for all local streets, through downtown Portland and the
sidewalks, and utilities (6 acres) at heart of the Pearl District. The Streetcar
no cost. HSP also paid $121,000 to connects the Pearl District to downtown
remove the Lovejoy Viaduct and offices, the cultural/arts district, Portland
$700,000 towards the Portland State University, and other upscale
Streetcar. neighborhoods. Today, ridership exceeds
5,000 daily passengers. Most of the route
To fund the city’s obligations, an urban lies in a fareless zone; otherwise, trips
renewal district was formed in 1998, cost $1.25 per ride.
allowing for tax-increment financing.
In the first 5 years of its existence, over The cost of constructing the Streetcar
$70 million have been spent for removal was $57 million (for seven cars, track
of the Lovejoy Viaduct, construction of and stations). It was financed using non-
the Portland Streetcar, construction of traditional, non-FTA sources, including
affordable housing, and the development bonds backed by city parking revenues,
of Jamison Park and other amenities.27 TIF funds, and one-time payments from
A prime reason for being able to spend property owners along the route who
public funds quickly was that public voted to “tax” themselves (i.e., a benefit
expenditure plans had already been assessment). The Streetcar is currently
agreed on in previous planning efforts. being expanded three-quarters of a mile
Since 1998, the assessed value of the area to the south, to RiverPlace, a mixed-use
has doubled to $719 million, $200 development on the bank of the
million more than the city anticipated. Willamette River. Eventually it will go to
the planned South Waterfront District.28
Finally, many affordable housing
projects in Portland get 10-year Several Pearl District developers and real-
property-tax abatements. While the estate brokers have praised the Streetcar
abatements are loosely related to for transforming the area.29 According to
projected price levels and affordability, Debbie Thomas, the Pearl District’s most
their primary purpose is to ensure denser successful broker, the Streetcar
development than the market would
otherwise support. In this case, when the is quieter, more predictable, and
density requirements were established in creates less pollution than buses on
the developer agreement, some parties the same route. The Streetcar has
fully expected HSP to “lose its shirt,” helped solidify the connection
373

between Northwest Portland and District has evolved into a trendy, urban
downtown. It’s friendly, easy, and area replete with restaurants, bookstores,
not super fast, but I don’t think it art galleries, boutiques, and other
was intended to be. specialty shops with attractive street
presence. The area has “gentle” walking
Pat Prendergrast, a one-time HSP blocks (e.g., short distances, street
partner, calls the Streetcar one of the furniture, plantings, and awnings) that
most significant public projects that make it easy to get around and an
shaped the Pearl District. And Homer inviting place to linger. Notable
Williams of HSP says, amenities are Jamison Park (with a
programmable fountain), “modernist”
I think the streetcar is key, because totem poles that support the Streetcar
in reality you don’t have to do catenary wires (public art), several small
everything—school, library, parks. pocket parks, a community center, and
If you buy into the Streetcar, you’re
space for a public market. (Views of the
never 10 or 12 minutes away from
Pearl District are shown in Photo 17.3.)
anything. That’s true urban thought
process, but you have to buy into the
Streetcar.30 Four progressive developers have been
active in the Pearl District. The first was
Since 1998, about 2,700 housing units Al Solheim, who noticed that the
and over 1.2 million square feet of architecture of the existing warehouses
commercial space have been built in the was well suited for the kinds of loft
Pearl District. Rather quickly, the Pearl spaces found in New York and Chicago.
Photo 17.3. The Pearl District. The Pearl District is

fast becoming the Portland region’s densest and most
successful TOD. Planned around the Portland
Streetcar, over $750 million in transit-supportive
projects have been leveraged along the line in the
Pearl District since 1997.
374

Solheim completed several historic loft southwest quadrant, and, at build out, it
renovations (e.g., the Chown Pella Lofts) will include 200,000 square feet of urban
and established the market for urban retail, 400,000 square feet of Class A
living that other developers later built on. office space, 200,000 square feet of
Solheim also renovated an industrial residential loft space, and 1,300 parking
building so that the Pacific Northwest spaces.31 Two historic structures, the
College of Art could move to the Pearl former Brewhouse and the Armory, are
District in 1998, energizing the arts scene. being retained and integrated into the
redevelopment (with buildable densities
HSP has the most at stake. HSP has being transferred to other adjacent
developed five blocks of new parcels). When complete, the project will
apartments, condominiums, and retail provide a highly urban transition between
space, and three more are under the CBD and the Pearl District.32
construction. HSP also owns 12
additional blocks that will be built as During the 1970s and 1980s, downtown
market conditions warrant. As called for Portland witnessed the construction of a
in its agreement with the city, HSP few office towers over 20 stories, but
project densities have changed over rarely saw residential housing over
time. An example of an early low- 7 stories. Now, over half of the
density project (about 20 units per acre) residential buildings in the Pearl District
is the Johnson Street Rowhomes. are 10 stories or higher. Densities are
Middle-phase projects (about 110 units now exceeding those required by the
per acre) are Tanner Place and the developer agreement; the Pearl District
Riverstone Condominiums. More is a very strong market for urban
recent projects are the Park Place housing. Seeking to capitalize on the
Condominiums and Bridgeport demand for large buildings (175 feet
Condominiums (more than 130 units per and higher), HSP has approached the
acre). Currently, the “Block 16” project city to change the zoning north of Hoyt
is slated at 150 units per acre. Street, where the allowable massing
makes it difficult to build tall
Building on the success of HSP, John buildings.33
Carroll, an original HSP partner who
withdrew from the developer agreement, The Pearl District’s housing is now the
is pursuing several projects on his own. most expensive in the region on a per-
These are south of Hoyt Street, where square-foot basis, surpassing even the
bigger, bulkier buildings are allowed lakefront trophy homes in some close-in
(massing of 6:1 “bonusable” to 9:1). suburbs. Loft condominiums in the
John Carroll mixed-residential projects Pearl District go for between $280 and
include the The Gregory, The Edge, $320 per square foot, compared with
and The Elizabeth. $200 per square foot (including land)
for lakefront property in other upscale
Lastly, Gerding/Edlen is building a neighborhoods.34 Most condominium
“mega-development” on the former site projects are sold to new owners
of the Blitz-Weinhard Brewery. The before they open. Of the 1,200 loft
$300-million Brewery Blocks project condominiums in the Pearl District,
covers five blocks in the Pearl District’s only 6% are currently available for sale.
375

Apartment rents generally range from demand to absorb these high-end units,
$800 to $2,000 per month. as “there is no other location like the
Pearl in the City.” The Pearl District’s
In keeping with the city’s affordable- major developers contend that the area,
housing target, three projects serve low- in fact, is constrained in supply, not
and very-low-income households demand. New tenants are not likely to be
(seniors and others) and are rent found in the downtown core; rather, they
controlled. The Housing Authority of will be people who would otherwise
Portland built Pearl Court (194 units) locate in the suburbs. If the apartment
and Lovejoy Station (177 units), in market is not deep enough, surplus units
which all the units are below market will be converted to condominiums.
rate. In addition, a new PDC project,
Station Place, will include an affordable- While short-term surpluses are likely and
housing component. are normal in housing construction, most
developers active in the area think that the
Residents in the Pearl District tend to fit “boomer” market, in particular, will be
the demographic profile found in other strong for at least another 10 years, when
Portland area TODs. They are childless— the Pearl District will largely be built
either young people seeking smaller lofts, out. As it now stands, the demand for
older professionals looking for an urban downtown living seems to be insatiable.
lifestyle with little upkeep (“downsizing
boomers”), or retiring seniors. This Of all the retail markets in the urban
variety of homeowner types has core, the Pearl District is currently the
contributed to the depth of the market. strongest in terms of high demand and
low vacancy rates. Annual triple-net
Some observers are now questioning rents are currently $22 to $40 per square
how long developers will be able to find foot. Some downtown retailers are
buyers who can afford to pay for cachet adding locations in the Pearl District,
in a down economy. Some softening of and some are moving to the Pearl
the market for $550,000 to $750,000 District from downtown and other
condominiums is occurring. These units districts.35 Retailers are attracted to the
generally have 2,000 square feet of fast-growing residential base, the
living space. Smaller units, with 600 to Streetcar, and the interesting blend of
800 square feet, however, are continuing new and old structures. Almost constant
to sell quickly and are appreciating 8% redevelopment is creating opportunities
to 12% annually. for retailers who have wanted to locate
in the Pacific Northwest.36
Most market-rate units built so far have
been condominiums, and the market One potential problem could be too
for expensive apartments is still much planned retail space. Some
relatively untested. Four buildings with investors question whether it is feasible
730 apartment units, currently under to ring every residential building with
construction, will target the high end of retail on all four sides, as required by
the market, with rents at around $1,000 zoning. Retail space, they fear, will
for a one-bedroom unit. The developers outstrip area population growth; already,
are confident that there is sufficient the Pearl District is cannibalizing retail
376

from other shopping districts. Others neighborhoods. Encouraging housing

argue that the liberal provision of ground downtown and near transit, they argue, is
floors pushes down rents and allows a a significant public good.38 The issue is
more interesting and diverse set of local far from resolved, but it is receiving
retailers to gain a market foothold. increasing attention as tax breaks are also
proposed to stimulate development in
Revitalization and development of the the North Macadam District, where a
Pearl District has been a success on development agreement is currently
virtually all fronts. Underutilized land and being negotiated along with planned
buildings have been reclaimed, a new type expansion of the Streetcar.39
of housing product has been successfully
introduced, retailers have a greater variety The Future of TOD
of locations and building types from
which to choose, and the Streetcar is TOD has taken center stage in the
popular among residents and visitors. Portland region’s growth management
strategy. The Portland TOD story is
Perhaps the only “blemish” so far is actually a community-building story
housing prices that are increasingly out more than it is a TOD story. The
of reach of the working class. To date, jurisdictional support TOD enjoys in the
HSP has actually exceeded its affordable region is due to community leaders who
housing targets, and the city has not have learned to use TOD as a tool to
exercised its option to buy land for this help achieve broader quality-of-life
purpose. At the same time, some contend objectives. TOD in Portland has become
that “affordable housing” (affordable up a means to the end of creating a livable
to 80% of MFI) has been too loosely community, not an end in itself.
defined, and that prices for market-rate
units are too high for the average As the region has gained experience,
consumer. High rents have displaced attention has focused on crafting
many of the original artists and regulations and incentives that promote
businesses that once gave the Pearl TOD. One might ask, “Have these tools
District its “edgy” character. and the market met the region’s
expectations?” Based on the experience
PDC continues to subsidize projects in so far, the answer has to be “yes.” Still,
the Pearl District,37 and a debate has projects like The Round and Center
emerged about the need to continue Commons reveal some of the stumbling
offering property-tax waivers to blocks that can be encountered in raising
developers at the same time that the bar for what is expected of TOD. Not
condominiums sell for over $500,000 in all TOD projects have gone smoothly,
some buildings, and two-bedroom units and the private market on its own
rent for $2,000. Tax-break critics have probably could not replicate the types of
called the District an exclusive “yuppie TOD taking form. At the same time,
theme park.” Others argue that incentives planners who visit the region in search
are necessary to increase density beyond of lessons generally find Portland’s
what it would otherwise be in order to TODs to be dense, well-designed, and
relieve growth pressure on the fringe well-integrated with their surroundings,
and keep growth out of established as well as active, vibrant places. Overall,
377

Portland’s TODs seem to be working as a small part of the region’s total TOD
well as or better than expected. inventory. But this is hardly a problem
unique to TOD; without incentives, new
To date, Portland has experienced two construction is always expensive.
major phases of TOD implementation.
The first entailed building the That said, Portland’s long-term growth
institutional capacity to plan for TOD; management strategy depends critically
that is now well established. The region on people and employers agreeing to
is currently in a second phase of locate in TODs for the next 30 years. It
grooming sophisticated developers, is for these markets that many TODs are
lenders, and contractors to build TOD. being envisioned today. Thus, a final
While some initial developers have evaluation will be more appropriate
suffered setbacks (as is typical for the in 30 years, when the region’s
pioneers of any new product), current “experiment” is nearing maturity.
and future developers are benefiting
from the experience, and TOD projects In speculating on the future of TOD in the
today generally proceed smoothly. region, Portland’s TOD planners observe
that the real-estate demand for TOD was
Whereas TOD is still unique in most other not created by the region’s regulatory
parts of the United States, in Portland it framework. The market for TOD in
has become almost a way of life. Virtually Portland and elsewhere is being driven
every light-rail station has seen TOD by larger demographic changes and
activity. Together, they form a critical customer preferences for urban living.
mass of TOD. Some are beginning to ask, Portland’s regulations aim to ensure that
however, “Is there too much TOD in the the underlying demand will be met.
region?” and “How deep is the market for
TOD?” At present, these questions are The prospects for these trends to play
probably unanswerable. Despite out in the future seem encouraging.
occasional hiccups, today’s TODs Portland is becoming a national
continue to enjoy healthy demand. The destination for a young, creative
Pearl District commands the highest per- professional class that is attracted to
square-foot residential sales prices in the TOD.41 Thus, the region continues to
region. Residential sales prices at Orenco promote TOD as part of its long-term
Station are running 20% to 30% above the economic development strategy.
local area average. Commercial Similarly, Portland seems to have only
occupancies at Orenco have been high, scratched the surface of the retiring
and rents are estimated to be roughly 10% boomer market. In the end, TOD in
higher than surrounding properties.40 Portland may become very prevalent
and simultaneously less “visible” as it
The success of TODs like the Pearl becomes more of the rule, not the
District and Orenco Station also has a exception, for new development.
darker side. Perhaps the most significant
criticism that can be levied against Conclusions and Lessons
Portland’s TODs is that they need to do
more to promote affordability. Affordable The Portland region is unique in the
TODs such as Center Commons represent United States for its scale, extent, and
378

sustained commitment to TOD. While line to the core rationale behind the
Portland’s ability to create innovative Portland Streetcar.
planning regulations seemingly knows
no bounds, planning does not create real- • Continuing to raise the bar for TOD
estate demand. The construction of is important. Greater Portland’s
Portland’s suburban and urban TODs is policymakers have not been content
being fueled by consumers purchasing to simply channel growth next to
the products built by suppliers, that is, transit. They have sought to raise the
the invisible hand of the marketplace. density, lower the parking, increase
the quality of design, and increase
Given the complexity and breadth of the the mix of uses in TODs. Whether
undertaking, it seems unlikely that any developers will build these enhanced
other region will choose to replicate TODs on their own or will hold out
Portland’s approach to TOD. The for continued financial and regulatory
lessons learned from individual projects incentives remains an open question.
and the evolution of the Portland
approach, however, continue to have
application to other communities as they Notes
chart their own course for TOD. Among
1
these are the following: For information about numerous TODs
throughout the Portland region, see TriMet’s
Community Building Sourcebook at
• Leveraging transit infrastructure http://www.trimet.org/inside/publications/
can help achieve broader objectives. sourcebook.htm.
Since the Portland Transit Mall 2
G. B. Arrington, 2000, “Reinventing the
opened in the mid-1970s, the region American Dream of a Livable Community:
has repeated its signature strategy Light Rail and Smart Growth in Portland,”
over and over—using transit (paper presented at 8th Joint Conference on
investments as a means to the end Light Rail Transit Investment for the Future,
of accomplishing multiple goals. Transportation Research Board and American
Public Transportation Association, Dallas,
Portland’s policymakers see TOD as Texas, November 11–15, 2000).
providing a sustainable alternative to
3
the automobile, enhancing downtown Portland Metro, “The Portland Region: How
Are We Doing?” (report brochure) March
revitalization, containing sprawl, and 2003.
revitalizing communities. 4
G. B. Arrington, At Work in the Field of
Dreams: Light Rail and Smart Growth in
• The “early bird” catches the TOD. Portland, (Portland, Oregon: TriMet,
The earliest decisions on the September 1998).
planning and design of light-rail 5 Planning for the Eastside line to Gresham
systems shape the opportunities for started in 1975. The line opened for revenue
TOD. Portland’s approach to the service in September of 1986. Planning for
design, location, and planning for the Westside line to Hillsboro started in the
major transit investments has late 1980s after a lapse of many years. The
project opened for service in 1998.
evolved with each rail line in order
6
to leverage opportunities for TOD. G. B. Arrington, 2000, op. cit.
TOD has evolved from being an 7 D. Hamilton, “Three Men, One Dream,”
afterthought with the first light-rail Portland Tribune, September 7, 2001, p. 1.
379

8 TriMet, “1-205 Segment Request for Development Labs sources, “We’re funded
Proposal—Step 1” (Portland, Oregon: mostly by folks in the Silicon Valley, and it’s
July 2003). a big deal for them to be able to hit the
9
airport, come straight out here on light rail
TriMet, “Facts 2002” (Portland, Oregon: 2002).
and turn around and go home” (GlobeSt.com,
10 The station is accessed via 60th Avenue, Open Source Development Labs Moving to
which crosses over the depressed freeway, “The Round,” May 6, 2003).
and has stairs going down to the platform. 19 Dorn Platz expects that providing too much
11 PDC’s primary roles were to secure the site structured parking will raise lease rates to
for development, manage the project, and help unsupportable levels in the current market.
secure other types of public funding. PDC did 20 On a related note, the initial developer
not want to invest significant funds in the installed an innovative, high-performance
project, as it is not located in a TIF district, heating/cooling plant to serve the entire
and the agency was financially constrained. planned development program. The innovative
12
Construction costs throughout the region heating/cooling system has reduced noise and
were increasing rapidly in a hot market. visual impacts compared with typical systems
13
and is also cost-effective. The customized
Otak Incorporated, “Transit-Oriented system design, however, required potential
Development,” brochure (Lake Oswego, new developers to build a similar TOD
Oregon n.d.). program. While this inadvertently kept the
14
See C. Switzer, The Center Commons Transit city’s broad vision intact, it may also have
Oriented Development: A Case Study, delayed recruitment of a new developer.
Master’s Thesis (Portland Oregon: Portland 21 Three hundred and seventy-six loft
State University, Master of Urban and condominiums opened from January to
Regional Planning Program, Fall 2002). September in 2003, and 676 units are
15 The developer agreement currently in effect expected to open in 2004.
only specifies the total number of housing 22 For an excellent description of the Pearl
units to be built and does not distinguish District and individual projects, see The
between condominiums and apartments. To Portland Tribune, special section on “The
date, only condominiums have been built. New Pearl,” September, 2003. See
16 At groundbreaking, neither the city nor the www.hoytstreetproperties.com for projects
developer realized the extent of the soil developed by Hoyt Street Properties, the
problems. The project went bankrupt before District’s major developer. See
the original developer could realize any tax www.breweryblocks.com for detailed
savings. information about the Brewery Blocks
development. For projects developed by
17 The original developer claimed that the value Carroll Aspen, see www.edgelofts.com/
of his investment was $10 million. The developer/.
appraisal value was reduced to $2.3 million
23
because no parking had been approved or As a result, dense housing in the Pearl
built, and thus the buildings could not be District and the downtown, generally, more
occupied. The $10-million figure was thus closely resembles mid-rise Florence or Paris
declared “speculatory value.” The city used than high-rise Vancouver, British Columbia.
all of the $2.3 million in sale proceeds to pay 24 Portland Development Commission, “An
off lien holders. Application for National Achievement in
18 In addition to 24-Hour Fitness, current and Smart Growth,” n.d.
prospective retail tenants include Coldwell 25 Central Employment (EX) zoning was
Banker Barbara Sue Seal Properties (a established in 1988 to encourage grand,
residential real-estate company), two upscale visionary thinking. It was established in
restaurants, and Open Source Development response to initial redevelopment proposals
Labs (headquarters for a high-tech for uninspired tilt-up office parks. The zoning
consortium). According to Open Source allows almost anything and is meant to
380

facilitate the transition between the industrial equipment, which is required for buildings
past and a “wide-open” future. with more than seven stories.
26 35
HSP had purchased the yards in the early 1990s. The Brewery Blocks development is so
27 intense and successful, in fact, that it could
The city has invested $150 million in the
conceivably shift the whole downtown retail
district over 22 years.
core northwest from its current location (as
28
The South Waterfront area is planned to be has been mentioned in ongoing studies of
Portland’s most intensively developed district. downtown retail). The project has significant
It will be connected to downtown by the cachet and is rapidly leasing commercial/
Streetcar and to the city’s largest employer, retail/office space in a bad market. Whole
Oregon Health Sciences University, by an Foods has become the “flagship” for the
aerial tram spanning the city’s west hills. At project and has attracted many other tenants.
build out, Vancouver-style glass “point towers”
36
are envisioned to include 3,000 housing units, In addition to the Brewery Blocks commercial
and the district will be home to 10,000 new jobs. tenants listed earlier, the district is also home
29
to Uptown Hardware, Storables, Childpeace
See “Focus on Real Estate,” Business Journal Montessori School, REI, 24-Hour Fitness,
of Portland, June 20, 2003, pp. 13–29. Patagonia, Sherman Clay Pianos, Este’s Men’s
30
While the Streetcar was under construction, a Clothing, Weiden & Kennedy (advertising),
long viaduct that bisected the area was and numerous galleries and restaurants.
shortened to create land for redevelopment and 37 In 2002, developers were awarded
improve traffic circulation. The Lovejoy
$163 million in property-tax exemptions.
Ramp, which connects to the Broadway
Bridge and Portland’s Eastside neighborhoods, 38 Complicating the debate is an overall lack of
used to touch down at 14th Street, but now information regarding the profitability of the
touches down at 9th Street. The new Lovejoy projects. Apartment developers are required
Ramp opened in 2002. to submit to PDC projected rent levels with
31
PDC helped to fund/build a three-level and without tax breaks; projects with returns
underground parking garage spanning of less than 10% are eligible for tax breaks.
2.5 blocks. Projects receiving tax breaks, however, do
not have any rent regulation, and rent levels
32 The project includes a 15-story condominium are free to fluctuate with the market. PDC
tower, The Henry, with units ranging from does not check to ensure that the lower profits
750 to 3,000 square feet (prices range from projected by developers to secure tax breaks
$200,000 to $1.2 million). Also planned is a turn out to be low in the end. One exception
16-story apartment tower. Commercial to this is the Brewery Blocks, where the
tenants include Portland Energy Solutions,
developers submit annual financial statements
Whole Foods Market, Baja Fresh (restaurant),
to substantiate the need for tax breaks.
Diesel (restaurant and retail), P. F. Chang’s
(restaurant), Peet’s Coffee, Sur La Table, 39 Homer Williams, owner of HSP, would also
Perkins Coie (law firm), Mio Gelato, GBD be the major developer at North Macadam.
Architects, The Art Institute of Portland, 40
M-Financial Group, and PPM Energy. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas
“Orenco Station Profile,” for Urban Land
33 A future study by the city will evaluate the Institute (July 2001).
impacts of increasing the allowable massing
41
from 5:1 to 7:1. Pearl District residents are See R. Greg, “Destination PDX: A Youth
likely to support the density increase only if Culture Convergence,” The Sunday
all of the three parks specified in the Oregonian, December 12, 2002, p. 1.
development agreement are built. One park
has been built, and a second park should be
completed by early 2004. Photo Credits
34 The high prices make it feasible to construct
buildings with expensive fire and safety All photos by G. B. Arrington
381

Chapter 18
The San Francisco Bay Area: The Challenge of
Creating a Transit-Oriented Metropolis
Exurban sprawl, unaffordable housing, agencies, 100 city governments, countless

ever-worsening traffic congestion, and nonprofit organizations, and local and
environmental degradation are just a few national developers. This chapter outlines
of the reasons that TOD is being actively the sometimes complementary and
embraced in the San Francisco Bay Area. sometimes conflicting roles of various
Private interests, not-for-profits, and actors in the TOD planning and
public agencies have all invested time implementation process. Getting actors
and money in pursuing TOD projects. “to march to the beat of the same
However, this keen interest in TOD by so drummer” is no easy task, given the
many different groups has been difficult region’s Byzantine institutional and
to coordinate, at times resulting in an ad governance structure. Still, smart-growth
hoc, fragmented regional approach to principles resonate in many quarters of
TOD. Each group has carved out its role the region, and the MTC has taken a
in the TOD planning process and leadership role in incentivizing the
employed its own implementation tools construction of affordable housing
and strategies. Goals and objectives of and the design of pedestrian-friendly
the many actors are not always aligned. communities around regional transit
Everyone is left grasping for their piece nodes. The region’s heavy-rail transit
of TOD, and no one is willing or able to operator, BART, has also become
take a leadership role on a regional level. an active participant in leveraging
The result of this fragmented approach development opportunities around
to TOD is several successful yet its stations through public-private
detached projects that have minor overall partnerships. Several Bay Area
impacts on regional transportation and developers today specialize in mixed-use,
development patterns. TODs in the Bay infill development around transit nodes.
Area are like individual fish swimming In examining the efforts of organizations
against the current in a stream of like the MTC and BART and a growing
sprawling development. Islands of cadre of progressive developers, this
TOD in a sea of automobile-oriented chapter gives visibility to the challenges
development will not resolve the traffic, and unfolding opportunities of building a
housing, and environmental problems metropolis—not just a few stations—that
that gave birth to the TOD movement. As is more oriented to transit.
it stands, the sum of TODs is no greater
than its individual parts. Regional Initiatives
Planning a TOD in the Bay Area requires The Bay Area has several public agencies
a great deal of coordination, given that that work on a regional level, seeking to
there are 9 county governments, several coordinate planning efforts across
regional agencies, more than 40 transit jurisdictional boundaries. However, these
383

regional agencies have limited and and fiscal competition. Notwithstanding

fragmented power. This lack of regional these and other obstacles, ABAG has in
control significantly impedes the recent times sought to build a collective
planning and implementation of TODs. regional vision that places the Bay Area
As consensus-building entities with little on a more sustainable, smart-growth
purse-string prowess and virtually no pathway.
land-use “teeth,” regional entities largely
provide forums for elected officials to In 2000, ABAG embarked on a visioning
confront cross-border issues. In recent process with five other regional agencies:
years, however, several important the Bay Area Air Quality Management
initiatives have been introduced by District, the Bay Conservation and
regional agencies that could plant the Development Commission, the MTC,
seeds for future smart growth and, more the Regional Water Quality Control
specifically, TOD. This section reviews Board, and the Bay Area Alliance for
initiatives introduced by three important Sustainable Communities. Through a
regional entities—the Association of Bay series of workshops with residents and
Area Governments (ABAG), the MTC, stakeholders across the nine Bay Area
and congestion management agencies counties, a series of smart-growth policies
(CMAs)—that provide small but were agreed on. They included locating
important steps toward creating a future both housing and job centers close to
metropolis that is more transit-supportive transit and promoting “transit oriented
in its design and composition. and walkable communities.”1 Although
these smart-growth policies are not
ABAG’s Smart-Growth Initiative enforceable, they give attention to TOD
and encourage individuals and agencies
ABAG, which is the region’s council to consider the longer-term and spillover
of governments, guides land use, impacts of development decisions.
housing, economic development, and
environmental planning. However, Based on the smart-growth policies,
local land-use decisions and zoning are ABAG altered its methodology for
left to individual cities, and ABAG making official projections of population,
does not have the power to change land housing, and employment growth for the
uses or density requirements. Fiscal region: “The policy-based projections
zoning and municipal competition for suggest a regional shift toward better job-
tax base is as strong in the Bay Area as housing balance, preservation of open
anywhere, a product of Proposition 13 space, and development focused in urban
(the 1978 statewide referendum that and transit-accessible areas.”2 ABAG
capped property-tax income) and the factored in the availability of land for
high cost of doing business, including development, including infill and
the provision of public services like redevelopment. Therefore, the projections
education, in the region. Jobs-housing are based on assumptions that growth in
imbalances and a disconnect between the Bay Area will follow smart-growth
transportation investments (including principles. Since ABAG projections are
transit) and large-scale urban used to determine funding and priority of
development have been among the projects for infrastructure improvement,
most visible outcomes of parochialism especially for transportation, the new
384

methodology may give more attention program created by the City/County

and funding to TODs. Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG). With housing
MTC’s Transportation for Livable shortfalls and increased traffic congestion
Communities Program in San Mateo County, C/CAG wanted
to provide incentives for governing
In 1970, the California State Legislature agencies to develop housing near transit
separated the responsibility of regional stations. For projects within 1⁄3 mile of a
transportation planning from ABAG transit station and with a density of at
and created the MTC. The MTC is the least 40 units per residential acre, the city
region’s MPO, controlling the allocation or county can receive up to $2,000 per
of federal and state funding for bedroom constructed. (See Text Box 18.1
transportation projects throughout the for eligibility criteria.) With the “carrot”
nine-county Bay Area. approach, the TOD Incentive Program
uses transportation funds (from the State
In 1998, the MTC made a bold move Transportation Improvement Program)
for a regional transportation agency: it to encourage smart-growth land-use
acknowledged that land use and decisions.4 With money in hand, it is
transportation are indelibly linked to each expected that localities can prepare
other, opening the way for funds to be specific plans for station areas and fund
used for purposes other than transportation various amenities, like pedestrian ways
construction, such as the construction of and civic spaces, that can help “spruce
affordable housing near transit stops. up” a neighborhood and leverage private
That year, the agency created the investment. In recognition of this
Transportation for Livable Communities innovative program, San Mateo received
(TLC) program to provide funding for the EPA’s national award for “Smart
projects that “strengthen the link between Growth” in 2002.
transportation, community goals and land
use.”3 The TLC program has evolved over Recognizing San Mateo County’s
the past 5 years to include three success at spurring housing development
components: capital grants, planning near transit stations, the MTC added the
grants, and the Housing Incentive Program HIP component to the TLC program in
(HIP). TLC allocates $27 million per year 2001. Local jurisdictions that receive
(from TEA-21, and state Transportation awards determine how and where
Development Act monies) to local and to spend the funds; however, the
county projects that meet various “smart- transportation projects funded through
growth” criteria defined by the MTC. This HIP must be consistent with TLC goals.
program has materially enhanced TOD Also, HIP provides supplemental
activities in the Bay Area by providing funding for higher-density developments
funds for strategic planning and and affordable housing units. As shown
construction of ancillary improvements in Table 18.1, MTC provided nearly
around stations, including bicycle and $4.7 million for HIP projects in Fiscal
pedestrian amenities and compact housing. Year 2001–2002. The program
encouraged the addition of over
HIP, which is the housing component 1,600 bedrooms along main bus routes
of TLC, was adopted from a similar and rail transit stops in 2001 through
385

HIP Eligibility Requirements

1. The applicant must be a local city or county, and the proposed housing project
must be in the initial planning stages.
2. Eligible projects must be within 1/3 mile walk from the center of the development
site to a trunk-line transit station. Eligible transit services are bus, ferry, or rail
transit with no more than 15-minute headways during the peak commute period.
3. The density thresholds and award amounts proposed are the following:
25 units per acre: $1,000 per bedroom
For all affordable units, an additional $500 per bedroom will be awarded.
4. Standard federal match of 11.5% must be provided.
5. A pedestrian path of travel from the center of the project to the transit stop must
be provided and demonstrated on a site plan and project maps.
6. Mixed-use development is encouraged but not required.
Text Box 18.1
2002—65% of which were affordable. transportation planning and funding

Programs like HIP are important, if not through a Congestion management plan
the only, funding sources for station-area (CMP). The CMP is a short-range plan
housing construction; however, while that dictates how gas-tax funds are spent
they are very much welcomed by local on transportation projects. California law
governments, private developers are requires all counties with more than
more lukewarm in their assessment. 50,000 inhabitants to prepare a CMP, a
One affordable-housing developer condition that was mandated as part of
commented that TLC and HIP serve as the 1991 statewide dedicated sales tax
“gap fillers.” Although they are helpful, referendum.
they are not a decisive factor in building
a project. The developer noted, “To be a CMAs in the Bay Area have taken
more important factor, the grants would various stances in their level of support
have to be larger and easier to use.” for TOD. C/CAG is a fairly progressive
Critics also charge that HIP suffers from agency, having taken a proactive
appeasement—essentially all submitted approach by administering the TOD
projects have received funds to date, Incentive Program. Santa Clara County’s
eroding the amount of money that top CMA has similarly sought to incentivize
projects would have otherwise received. TOD through measures like sliding-scale
impact assessments that reduce traffic-
Congestion Management Agencies generation estimates for projects near rail
stops. Other CMAs (notably those in the
Congestion management agencies Contra Costa Transportation Authority
(CMAs), like C/CAG, are statutorily and Alameda County) are more cautious,
responsible for coordinating countywide showing a willingness to promote and
386

Table 18.1. MTC’s HIP Projects (FY 2001–2002)

Units Market-
Transit Per Total Rate Affordable
Sponsor Service Housing Project Acre Units Bedrooms Bedrooms HIP Funds
Berkeley AC Westminster House Expansion: 40 40 43 0 $86,000
Transit* Multi-story dormitory rooms.
Berkeley AC Transit Acton Courtyard Apartments: 1,420 71 102 40 $304,000

Mixed-use five-story building
with ground-floor retail and
housing above
Berkeley AC Transit Mixed-use building with ground- 148 65 84 24 $228,000
floor retail and housing above
Daly City MUNI, Landmark Site Development: 42 70 89 89 $311,500
SamTrans Mixed-use development
East Palo SamTrans Nugent Square: Mixed-use 30 32 0 82 $123,000
Alto development
East Palo SamTrans University Avenue Apartments: 60 30 38 10 $101,000
Alto Multifamily rental apartments
El Cerrito AC Mill and Lumber Site: Mixed-use 39.5 158 208 36 $384,000
Transit, retail and residential development
BART
Richmond BART Richmond Transit Village: 25 231 348 345 $865,500
Mixed-use development
San Bruno BART, The Crossing/San Bruno: Four- 60 300 357 89 $936,500
SamTrans story, 300-unit multifamily
development
San Mateo SamTrans Prometheus Project: Multifamily 61.2 218 300 33 $682,500
residential development
Union AC Independent Senior Housing 49 40 1 39 $79,500
City Transit,
Union City
Transit
Union AC Assisted Living Senior Housing 60 95 66 29 $204,500
City Transit,
Union City
Transit
Vallejo Vallejo Sereno Village Apartments: 25 125 0 255 $382,500
Transit Affordable-housing adjacent to
the Sereno Village Transit Center
Total 1,475 1,636 1,071 $4,688,500
*AC Transit = Alameda Contra Costa Transit District
invest in TODs only if the opportunity is their work is mainly on a project-by-

presented to them, and the private sector project basis and is not regional in
shows a development interest in station scope. As one CMA director commented,
sites. These and most other Bay Area “TODs cannot be planned on a regional
CMAs serve as facilitators or mediators level. The market decides. Unless you’re
in the TOD planning process. Therefore, talking about major transportation
387

investments, the regional coordination the creation of the MTC’s HIP, which is
doesn’t happen.” a component of their TLC program. If
imitation is the strongest form of flattery,
Franklin Street Project the Franklin Street project deserves credit
for helping to spur local governments to
In 1999, when the San Mateo County zone for and promote housing near
TOD Incentive Program was approved, transit nodes elsewhere in the region.
the first project to be awarded funding
was the Franklin Street mixed-use Transit Agencies
development in Redwood City (see
Photo 18.1). The project included The San Francisco Bay Area has over
206 new residential units, 31 of which 40 transit agencies that provide bus,
were affordable units, and street-level light-rail, cable-car, streetcar, heavy-rail,
retail space. Since the project was commuter-rail, and ferry service.
located 0.4 miles from the Redwood (See Map 18.1 for the service coverage
City Caltrain station and had a density of of the region’s transit providers.)
50.6 units per residential acre, the project Unlike regions that have a single transit
met C/CAG’s program requirements. authority, the Bay Area is blessed
Redwood City received $707,000 for the and cursed with a multitude of
402 bedrooms that were constructed. transit agencies that provide both
This money went to upgrade landscaping complementary and competing service.
along Roosevelt Avenue. This in turn For example, to get across the Bay from
helped to temper the resistance of some Oakland to San Francisco, one can ride
residents to the project. commuter rail, multiple transbay buses,
or a ferry. Riders enjoy the benefit of
The success of the Franklin Street project having choices in terms of mode, time
and C/CAG support of housing schedules, and fares. Redundancies also
construction near transit helped to ignite ensure a backup alternative in the event of
interest in a TOD incentive program at a labor strike or (as demonstrated in the
the regional level. This ultimately led to 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake) a natural
disaster. However, transit agencies end
up competing for passengers and vying
for similar federal, state, and county
transportation funds. Timetables, fares,
and routes are not as coordinated and
integrated as they could be.
In terms of TOD, having multiple transit

services creates numerous opportunities
for intensifying development close to
bus, rail, and ferry hubs. However, the
diversification of transit services
complicates coordination efforts. Each
Photo 18.1. Franklin Street Project agency develops its own guidelines or
Taking Form at the Redwood City Caltrain policies related to TOD and takes a
Station. different approach to working with local
388

Map 18.1. Bay Area Transit Agencies. Source: www.transitinfo.org.
389

governments to initiate zoning changes recommends a mix of housing densities,

around stations and to attracting private ownership patterns, costs, and building
developers. Two major transit agencies types within a TOD to reflect the varied
in the Bay Area, VTA and BART, needs and desires of residents.
have been most active in TOD to date.
However, their TOD guidelines and joint Public initiatives such as VTA’s design
development programs reflect the guidelines have no doubt helped to
differing perspectives and priorities of leverage TOD in Santa Clara County,
two agencies, each with its own budget, but, at least as important, if not more
professional staff, and board of directors. important, have been sheer market forces.
During the late 1990s, dizzying rates of
VTA TOD Design Concepts growth and traffic-clogged arteries
prompted a flurry of building activities
By the early 1990s, several jurisdictions around VTA light-rail stations. Between
within Santa Clara County had gained 1997 and 1999, an estimated 4,500
experience with planning, designing, housing units and some 9 million square
and constructing TODs. Early TOD feet of commercial-office floor space
successes like Almaden Lake Village were added within walking distance of
paved the way for TOD interest to the Tasman West light-rail line serving
ratchet up a notch as traffic congestion the heart of Silicon Valley. Cities needed
and the affordable-housing crisis peaked little coercion to revise their zoning codes
on the heels of the high-tech boom of to make them more supportive of transit.
the late 1990s. In recognition of these The city of Mountain View rezoned
and other early successes, the VTA 40 acres of industrial land to
prepared a forward-looking, well- accommodate more than 500 housing
received document called Transit- units adjacent to the Whisman light-rail
Oriented Development Design Concepts. station. In Sunnyvale, density bonuses
The goal of publishing the document were introduced to spur infill
was to “bring together a set of critical development in the Northside industrial
ideas and techniques useful for effective district near the Borregas and Fair Oaks
coordination of development patterns light-rail stations. At Sunnyvale’s Moffett
around major transit stops.”5 In the Park Station, bonuses increased allowable
nicely illustrated Transit-Oriented FARs by 60% in return for a private
Development Design Concepts, VTA developer agreeing to foot a major part
gives particular emphasis to creating a of the bill for the $2.5-million station
mix of uses within walking distances of project. Further, in the city of San Jose,
a transit station. The design guidelines the Irvine Company recently built several
define a TOD as lying within 2,000 feet thousand luxury apartments within
or a 10-minute walk of a transit node. walking distance of the Guadalupe light-
Densities and design patterns are rail corridor, helped along by the city’s
recommended to intensify and diversify willingness to expedite the building
land uses and improve pedestrian access review process. The pace of station-area
and circulation. VTA suggests not only development cooled off in the early 2000s
ensuring a mix of land uses, but also in the wake of the County’s economic
encouraging diversity within each downturn; however, this lull is widely
land use. For example, the agency viewed as temporary, with quite a few
390

developers still believing that smart review process. These advocacy groups,
money lies in parcels within an easy representing environmental interests on
walk of VTA light-rail stops. one extreme and high-tech industry
interests on the other, supported the link
Ohlone Chynoweth: VTA’s Proactive between affordable housing and transit.
Joint Development Program With such a breadth of support for
TOD, NIMBY resistance was quelled.
In 1998, VTA created an in-house joint
development program principally to tap Given a 75-year ground lease from VTA
the development potential of under- with annual payment of $250,000
utilized park-and-ride lots. The original (subject to increases in Area Median
Ohlone Chynoweth light-rail station, Income), Eden Housing constructed 195
which is located between two major affordable housing units, a retail center,
highways south of downtown San Jose, a community center, and a child-care
had an oversupply of parking: only 20% to facility (see Photo 18.2) on the former
25% of the spaces were utilized on a surface park-and-ride lot. The project’s
typical workday. VTA worked with the residential density comes in at 27 units
city of San Jose to develop a concept plan per acre and just under 2 parking spaces
for a 1,100-space parking lot. An adjacent per dwelling unit. All of the housing
site had already been developed with 135 units were rented before construction
affordable-housing units by BRIDGE was completed. However, the retail
Housing. FTA’s revised joint development component is not fully occupied, and
policy that allowed transit agencies to retail rents are below market value. This
retain proceedings from private land sales, may be because the retail area is not
even if land was purchased using federal easily accessible from the main street
funds, was instrumental in the agency and is set back behind the main VTA
moving forward with this initiative. park-and-ride lot. (See Chapter 6 for
further discussions on the challenges of
In 1999, VTA and the city of San Jose making retail work at TODs.) Another
released an RFP to build on part of the design complaint has been the poor
parking lot that originally did not connectivity of the “Commons”—
include affordable housing. Tepid meant to be the civic centerpiece of the
developer interest prompted a change of TOD—to the surrounding single-family
focus to constructing affordable units on community. Although the development
the site, and a not-for-profit developer, at Ohlone Chynoweth is not perfect, the
Eden Housing, was selected as master collaborative process of the city, VTA,
developer of the Ohlone Chynoweth and Eden Housing to transform an
site. Initially, there was considerable underutilized suburban park-and-ride
community opposition to this project lot into a new transit-oriented
because of the proposed concentration community has been exemplary.
of affordable housing in the area.
According to Eden Housing, support BART TOD Design Guidelines
from interest groups as diverse as
the Sierra Club, Silicon Valley Ten years after VTA’s Transit-Oriented
Manufacturers Association, and Development Design Concepts was
Greenbelt Alliance helped the public published, BART released Transit-
391

Ohlone Chynoweth Commons Entrance Courtyard Entrance
Retail Center
Photo 18.2. Ohlone Chynoweth Mixed-Use Development, San Jose. This parking-
lot infill “conversion project” was one of the Bay Area’s first.
Oriented Development Guidelines. The over park-and-riders in accessing

primary goal of the guidelines in this stations. The document also recommends
document is to promote “vibrant and how station parking facilities should be
livable station areas” and “the use of designed so as to minimize disruptions
BART as a primary means of to pedestrians. However, the guidelines
transportation.”6 The guidelines have do not mention how to deal with existing
few regulations or standards for parking facilities and current parking
development. Instead, they are intended policies that impede TOD at BART
to inform planners, developers, elected stations. The guidelines recommend
officials, and individuals about the lowering parking standards for
important components of TOD to take both residential and commercial
into account during the planning and developments near BART stations.
site-design process. The guidelines They show that providing parking has
emphasize providing good pedestrian, associated costs and note that “parking
bus, and cycling access to stations. provisions can account for 20% of the
cost of a typical apartment in Silicon
BART’s TOD guidelines implicitly give Valley.”7 However, they do not go as far
pedestrians, cyclists, and buses priority as recommending that BART’s own
392

parking standards should be reduced, development is quite meager, especially

and they ignore the fact that the high when compared to “peer” rail agencies
cost of providing parking is one of the like WMATA. Presently, BART receives
major barriers to TOD at BART stations. $75,000 annually in ground-lease
As discussed in the next section, current revenue at the Castro Valley Station.
BART policy of one-to-one parking ratio This number is expected to rise sharply
replacement drastically increases the in coming years, especially with mixed
cost for a developer to build on existing residential-commercial projects planned
BART parking lots, which are prime for surface parking lots at the Fruitvale
locations for TODs. The guidelines and Richmond stations, among others.
do not address this issue and do not After two slow decades, BART’s joint
provide alternative methods for development activities are today taking
improving the feasibility of developing off. In total, BART has over $1 billion in
BART parking lots. joint development projects in the works,
some still on the drawing board, and
BART’s TOD guidelines are also others, like the Fruitvale Transit Village,
somewhat quixotic in their discussions that have broken ground and are well on
of the pricing of parking. Also, the their way to completion.8
guidelines cite research that shows that
charging for parking can reduce the While BART welcomes lease income, the
demand for parking at employment agency is just as interested in facilitating
centers by 7% to 30%. However, the initiatives amongst other parties in hopes
guidelines are silent about BART’s of shifting growth to station areas and
current practice of providing free parking thus increasing patronage. For example,
at most BART stations, a practice that to accommodate a joint development
underwrites the cost of driving an venture between the city of Hayward and
automobile to transit and in so doing a private developer to build a new city
undercuts the market potential for TOD. hall and multifamily housing close to the
Additionally, parking fees could provide Hayward Station, BART swapped land
an important revenue source for station- with the city. One BART official notes:
area improvements and TOD planning. “This was a first for us. BART has never
done such a land swap before. It turned
BART Joint Development and out to be a win/win situation.”9 The city
Outreach of Hayward proceeded to sell the
swapped parcel to a developer who built
To date, BART has approached TOD and 77 townhomes. The city did not have to
joint development cautiously. Rather write down land costs because transit-
than outright deal making, the agency has oriented, mixed-use development added
opted mainly to co-participate with local enough value and property-tax proceeds
and developer interests in promoting to render a subsidy unnecessary.
transit-supportive development in the
vicinity of stations. While the agency Notwithstanding recent progress, what
has received funds from a downtown has historically hampered the ability of
San Francisco retailer through a special BART to engage in joint development
entrance agreement (i.e., station deals has been the agency’s “one-
interface), BART’s income from joint for-one” parking replacement
393

policy. BART’s 1984 “Station Area living near transit stations to identify
Development and Implementation what they want to see, what services
Policy” requires that TOD projects their community lacks, and what unique
provide a competitive rate of return for assets should be stressed.11 Jeff Ordway,
the value of agency-owned land. BART’s manager of property development for
policy is to support only those projects BART, remarks “We try to build on the
that can cover the cost of replacing existing strengths of each community,
surface parking (which today can run up which may be cultural or physical.
to $75 per square foot of land). This has The only ones who can identify those
proven to be a lofty hurdle, leaving most strengths are the people who live
of BART’s potential development sites there.”12 In commenting on past practices
as surface parking lots. As one BART that sited BART stations in inhospitable
planner put it, “The ability of the market settings, like the medians of freeways,
to support development that includes Ordway further remarked,
100-percent replacement parking, with
no revenue to support that parking, has Sometimes we have to heal not only
been a huge hurdle to TOD.”10 For the the wounds left by car-oriented
most part, only when other government infrastructure, but rebuild a lost sense
entities agree to subsidize replacement of trust. That’s why the community
parking, as the city of Oakland did (with visioning process is so important.
the help of an FTA grant) in funding You need to listen to what the
citizens say—what development
the first-phase garage at the Fruitvale
they want in their community—
Transit Village, have parking-to-infill if it’s ever going to work.13
conversions occurred. Even if BART’s
board were to relax the one-to-one
replacement requirement, parking Fruitvale BART Station: Fulfilling a
supplies might not change, since local Community’s Vision
jurisdictions usually require that
BART replace parking displaced by BART’s more community-friendly
development on agency land out of fear approach to joint development and the
that BART parkers will spill over into importance of grass-roots leadership
surrounding neighborhoods. Moreover, are underscored by experiences at the
in cases where developers have agreed Fruitvale BART station. In 1991, when
to provide replacement parking, this BART proposed a new parking structure
has been at the expense of ground-rent at the Fruitvale Station, the community
income due to the board’s policy of rebelled and opted to create its own
providing rent credits to developers who plan. Although neighborhood residents
pay for replacement parking structures. recognized the need for parking, they
disagreed with the location and design
An essential component of BART’s of the structure. Some feared the area’s
recent joint development efforts has main street would be tarnished by
been outreach to local cities and other outsiders coming into the neighborhood
government agencies with a vested simply to park their cars. With the
interest in seeing TOD move forward leadership of an active community
(see Text Box 18.2). BART begins joint group called the Unity Council, a mixed-
development efforts by asking residents use village with local retail shops, a
394

San Francisco BART’s Interagency Initiatives

Public-agency working groups and coordinating committees have been formed at
nearly half of all BART stations, providing forums for local governments, transit
agencies, nonprofits, and other civic-minded groups to move TOD projects forward:
➢ Pittsburg/Bay Point: A Technical Working Group was created among three entities—
BART, Contra Costa County, and the city of Pittsburg—to prepare a TOD-oriented
Specific Plan for the Pittsburg/Bay Point Station. Each entity contributed funds for
this effort.
➢ Pleasant Hill: The Pleasant Hill BART Station Area Steering Committee was created
in the mid-1980s, composed of representatives from the cities of Walnut Creek,
Pleasant Hill, and Concord. Represented as well were BART, Contra Costa County,
private land owners, and home-owner associations. Most recently, at the committee’s
urging, the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors approved Specific Plan Amendments
and certified its Environmental Impact Review.
➢ MacArthur: BART and the city of Oakland formed a Citizens Planning Committee
consisting of merchants, home-owner associations, and residents to guide TOD
planning. The Committee has been involved in a visioning process.
➢ West Oakland, Ashby, Coliseum, Union City, Hayward, Balboa Park: BART has
entered into memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with cities to conduct station-
area planning. Co-participants have included the Oakland Housing Authority (at
West Oakland), Muni and Caltrans (at Balboa Park), and the Pacific Gas and Electric
Company (at Union City). All entities have provided funds for TOD planning efforts.
➢ Richmond: BART and the city of Richmond joined forces to conduct a feasibility
study for the station area, which led to the issuance of an RFP, the selection of a
developer, and the approval of a TOD project.
➢ El Cerrito del Norte, El Cerrito Plaza: BART and the city of El Cerrito co-funded
private development workshops conducted by working groups led by the City
Council. Workshops have helped build community support of new development at
the stations.
➢ Fruitvale: MOUs were executed between BART and the Spanish-Speaking Unity
Council to create the Fruitvale Transit Village, currently under construction.
➢ San Leandro: A Technical Working Group involving BART and the city of San
Leandro was formed to seek out TOD opportunities and to improve the physical
connection between the BART station and the city’s downtown.
➢ West Dublin/Pleasanton: A Policy Group has been formed between BART and the
cities of Dublin and Pleasanton to guide private and station-infill development.
➢ Glen Park: A multi-agency effort is currently underway to conduct a charrette to

guide redevelopment of the station area. BART, Caltrans, and the city of San
Francisco are funding the initiative.
Text Box 18.2

community center, library, housing, and contributed $20 million to the

new structured parking was proposed. transformation of the Fruitvale
BART accepted the idea and decided to neighborhood.
work with the community to construct
their vision. The Unity Council created During the first phase of construction,
the Fruitvale Development Corporation completed in 1998, 67 affordable senior
to create the mixed-use TOD. housing units were built, and the water
and sewer infrastructure was updated to
The negotiation and planning process for prepare for later phases of large-scale
the Fruitvale project was complicated development. Also, over 100 businesses
because of multiple funding sources. have received small-business loans and
The risks and uncertainties inherent in grants for façade improvements since
massively redeveloping a declining retail 1998. In 2002, more than 10 years after
district from the 1950s required that costs the original BART proposal, construction
be spread and shared among many began on a new 300-space BART
interests and stakeholders. In the end, parking garage. This structured parking
more than 20 different sources were used will replace surface parking lots, which
to fund the $100-million mixed-use are in turn being replaced by a new
project. It received considerable public- transit village (see Photo 18.3). The jury
sector support, including the FTA’s first is still out as to whether the Fruitvale
Livable Communities grant and funds Transit Village, long in the making, will
from the city of Oakland. A new zoning inject new-found vitality into the once-
classification, TOD district, was created struggling Fruitvale district; however,
specifically for the Fruitvale Station the amount of planning and the number
area to encourage balanced, mixed-use of resources put into the project are
development. The zoning district permits impressive by any standard, and
residential, commercial, and civic proponents maintain very high hopes.
(such as child-care, education, and Working on the project’s side has been
healthcare) activities and allows the strong and unbending leadership. One
highest residential densities in the city. BART staff member has remarked: “In
Fruitvale also lies within Oakland’s each joint development, we’ve found
Empowerment Zone, which provides you need a champion. In the case of
potential tax benefits to new businesses Fruitvale, it was Arabella Martinez, the
locating there. Additionally, the city Unity Council’s CEO. I doubt the village
reduced the parking requirements for both would be happening without her.”14
residential and commercial uses in the
Fruitvale district. Instead of requiring one The Fruitvale project brought attention to
space for every unit (the city’s minimum the need for proactive community input
standard), a special overlay zone was in station-area planning. Far too often in
created that required one space for every the past, community input has been an
two units. BART agreed to a land transfer afterthought in the joint development
and contributed in-kind staff support. process. In the 2003 update of the BART
To supplement the public funding, Strategic Plan, the need for community
organizations and businesses, including participation is explicitly stated: “In
the Ford Foundation, the Levi-Strauss partnership with the communities it
Foundation, and PG&E Corporation, serves, BART properties will be used
396

View from the BART Platform Center Courtyard
Corner Retail Near BART Station Entrance

Photo 18.3. Fruitvale Transit Village Taking Form. Since its inception in 1993,
the Fruitvale Transit Village is finally taking shape as a transit-supportive inner-city
redevelopment project. The decade it took to go from concept to reality reflects the many
hurdles that must be overcome and the multiple funding participants who have a voice in
what is done. The Fruitvale Transit Village either currently has or is slated for a number
of amenities, including an internationally themed retail shopping area, a large pedestrian
plaza, and various community services ranging from a state-of-the-art healthcare facility
to a child-care center. In addition, the Fruitvale Transit Village is to house the Unity
Council’s headquarters, a public library, several community organizations, a computer-
technology center, a seniors’ center, and mixed-income housing. For residents, workers,
and businesses alike, BART will be a short and convenient walk away.
in ways that first maximize transit and county redevelopment agencies

ridership and then balance transit-oriented throughout the Bay Area have been
development goals with community active over the past two decades in
desires.”15 BART is committed to seeing seeking to leverage development around
that communities shape the environment rail stations. Perhaps most attention has
that takes form around the stations that been given to efforts by the Contra Costa
directly serve them. County Redevelopment Authority to
concentrate mixed-use development
Local Government Initiatives around the Pleasant Hill BART station.
Since the early 1980s, the County’s
In addition to regional bodies and transit redevelopment agency has targeted a lot
agencies, a number of municipalities of resources at the Pleasant Hill Station
397

area to entice private investment: the to build market-rate housing that would
preparation of a specific plan, TIF to pay attract professional-class residents to
for streetscape improvements, road the downtown area. Hayward’s
widenings, and the undergrounding of redevelopment agency swapped parcels
utilities, mixed-use zoning, and the of land with BART to create a buildable
assembly and packaging of land into site. The redevelopment agency then
developable parcels. With over 2,000 selected a local developer, Regis Homes,
housing units and several million square to form a partnership that would bring
feet of commercial development within the plan to fruition through a risk-and-
walking distance of the Pleasant Hill reward-sharing arrangement. Regis
Station, these efforts have largely paid Homes purchased the majority of the
off. A survey in May 2003 showed that land from the redevelopment agency at
62% of households residing near the an agreed-on re-use value based on the
Pleasant Hill BART station commute by assumed use of 83 for-sale townhomes at
transit, a share three times higher than the an average density of 30 units per acre.
share of Pleasant Hill residents who live To make the project pencil out, the
between 1⁄2 and 3 miles of the station.16 As redevelopment agency was repaid for the
reviewed in Chapter 9, studies also show land through a note, which was
that residential parcels—for both rental subordinated to the construction loan
and owner-occupied dwellings—near the and ultimately repaid from the sales of
Pleasant Hill Station enjoy appreciable homes.17 When they were completed in
land-value premiums. Critics note that 1997, all of the market-rate units were
subsidies, like TIF and public assistance sold within a year at prices ranging
with land assembly, were needed to from $143,000 to $180,000. Today,
jump-start development; however, townhomes in Atherton Place are selling
backers point out that the increased for two to three times these amounts.
property and sales tax proceeds from the The project has also been a ridership
development drawn to Pleasant Hill have success, clearly appealing to those
far exceeded public subsidies. As seeking a transit-oriented residence that
Pleasant Hill seeks to “reinvent itself” allows them to avoid having to drive
through residentially oriented infill to work. A recent survey found that an
development on existing surface parking estimated 52% of Atherton Place
lots, many hope that the station area will residents take transit to work, more than
become a more vibrant, walking-friendly seven times the share of those living
1
neighborhood in coming years. ⁄2 to 3 miles away from the Hayward
BART station.18 Also, unlike some Bay
In recent years, a number of East Bay Area TODs, the Atherton Place project
cities, including El Cerrito, Walnut never became a major financial drain
Creek, Richmond, and Hayward, have on the city of Hayward. The city
borrowed a chapter from Pleasant Hill’s made infrastructure improvements
experience, becoming proactive partners incrementally, as pieces of the
in the quest for TOD. In the mid-1990s, development project were completed.
the city of Hayward issued an RFP for This more cautious approach reduced
the development of the 2.8-acre Atherton costly upfront infrastructure expenses
Place site immediately adjacent to its and kept city coffers from needlessly
downtown BART station. The aim was being drawn down in the event that the
398

developers did not follow up on their call mobility options to households near
ends of the deal. the rail station without automobiles.
While much of the city of San Francisco For-Profit Developers

is transit-oriented, a continuing
affordable-housing crisis, coupled with In expensive real-estate markets like the
the elimination of freeways in the wake of San Francisco Bay Area, private capital
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, has and resources are pivotal to TOD. Even
prompted city officials to actively seek with the proactive actions taken by public
out TOD redevelopment opportunities in agencies to promote TOD, projects do
recent years. One of the most prominent not get built around the region’s light-,
TOD redevelopment efforts in the city is heavy-, or commuter-rail stations unless
the Transbay Terminal in the recently a developer is willing to invest time,
refurbished South-of-Market energy, and money. Developers rely
neighborhood (see Text Box 18.3). heavily on market performance indicators
Also of note are activities underway to search out projects that are likely to be
at the Balboa Park BART station, one successful and profitable. In 2002, Lend
of the busiest transit hubs in the city, Lease Real Estate Investments and
hosting BART, streetcars, trolley buses, PricewaterhouseCoopers issued a report
and diesel coaches. In 2000, San that resonated with the Bay Area’s
Francisco’s Planning Department began development community, advising that,
working with those living near the station “Markets served with mass transportation
to develop a neighborhood plan centered alternatives and attractive close-in
on the Balboa Park BART station (see neighborhoods should be positioned to
Photo 18.4). Through a series of sustain better long-term prospects as
community workshops and ongoing people strive to make their lives more
discussion with residents and business convenient.”20 The aging population,
owners, various streetscaping, pedestrian- changes in lifestyle preferences, and
access, and civic-space improvements are worsening traffic are all trends that
being made in hopes of leveraging private support walkable, higher-density, transit-
redevelopment. Parking management oriented communities. Traffic congestion,
strategies are also being proposed. The in particular, continues to prod more and
draft station-area plan proposes that new more Bay Area households to seek out
development on city-owned land be housing near rail transit. The 2003
required to “unbundle” the cost of Urban Mobility Report by the Texas
parking from rents. According to the plan, Transportation Institute ranks the region
“Currently most new ownership housing as the nation’s second most traffic
and some new rental housing has parking choked, behind Los Angeles, with 41% of
included in the base price of a unit.” daily travel spent in congestion.21
Further, “Individuals and families who do
not own or may not need a car must pay All seven Bay Area developers
for the space anyway, needlessly driving interviewed for this study noted that
up the cost of their housing.”19 The plan proximity to transit gives projects a
also calls for neighborhood automobile competitive edge. Even though the
sharing, as currently provided by City market seems supportive of TOD,
CarShare, to be expanded to provide on- coordinating with numerous government
399

Inner-City TOD: The Transbay Terminal Redevelopment Project

Not all Bay Area TOD activities are in the suburbs, nor are all spearheaded by BART and
VTA. In downtown San Francisco, an interagency effort is underway to build a new Transbay
Terminal on a 66-acre site created by the removal of an old freeway. The existing Caltrain
terminus in downtown San Francisco will be extended to the new facility, providing
something akin to a “grand central station” wherein bus and rail services interface. Working
to plan and design the new terminal and development around it are the city of San Francisco
and two joint powers authorities (JPAs): the Transbay JPA (a collaboration of Bay Area
government and transportation bodies) and the Peninsula Corridor JPA, which operates
Caltrain. San Francisco’s redevelopment authority is spearheading efforts to revitalize
existing publicly owned parcels on which the freeway once stood. Money from the sale of
parcels and from tax increments generated by the development will help defray the cost of the
new Transbay Terminal and Caltrain extension. Among the goals set for the project are
➢ Develop a new downtown neighborhood to help redress the city’s affordable-

housing crisis, support regional transit use, and provide financial support for
the new multimodal facility;
➢ Establish the area as a gateway to the central city and a unique transit-
oriented neighborhood in San Francisco;
➢ Create a livable urban community with prime access to downtown and the
waterfront as well as well-designed streets, open space, and retail areas;
➢ Create a pedestrian-friendly urban environment that encourages walking as
the primary means of circulation within the project area;
➢ Create a state-of-the-art, multimodal transit facility that is an integral part of
the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhood; and
➢ Encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation by future residents,
workers, and visitors, and support the new Transbay Terminal as a major
transit hub while still providing local vehicular access.
Current plans call for adding some 4,500 residential units to the Transbay Terminal area over
the next 20 years. Planners believe that a major residential presence will create a vibrant and
safe 24-hour place, something that some major intermodal transit facilities across the United
States have historically lacked.
Text Box 18.3

Photo 18.4. Balboa Park Plan Area. Neighborhood

redevelopment efforts have focused on an area within 1⁄3-mile
walking distance of the Balboa Park BART station.
entities adds complexity to the projects developers, allow them to build projects
and can discourage developers from that reflect current market realities. Part
pursuing projects. of the entitlement process also includes
gaining public support and approval.
According to the recently released Some elected officials are reluctant to
Caltrans statewide TOD study, the Bay support TOD because of residents’
Area’s development community is concern about increased congestion
conflicted about the role of government in caused by higher-density developments.
TOD, calling for “less government” red A proposed parking garage and mixed-
tape in one breath and “more use development near the El Cerrito
government” financial assistance and BART station was vehemently opposed
risk-taking in the other.22 In the minds of by nearby residents. One member of the
most developers, local governments, community commented, “I’m afraid
transit agencies, and regional planning this development is the one straw that
organizations can both impede and breaks the camel’s back in terms of
facilitate the TOD planning and congestion and traffic.”23 Residents of
implementation process. Particularly the Bay Area oppose higher-density and
bothersome to many developers is the infill development not only in fear of
entitlement process, which restricts the increased congestion, but also for
flexibility of project development. Zoning obstructions of Bay and bridge views. At
restrictions sometimes make it difficult several BART stations prime for TOD,
for developers to create a project that fits communities have rejected plans for
into land-use regulations and is profitable. anything higher than two stories.24
Increasing accommodations for mixed-
use projects, allowing conversions from In addition to the entitlement process
one use to another, and expediting the and NIMBY opposition, coordination
entitlement decision-making process with several government agencies can
would, according to the region’s TOD hinder and lengthen the implementation
401

process. For any given TOD project, a capitalize on the existing market
developer may end up having to work for TODs.
with local governments (city and/or
county), redevelopment agencies, transit Nonprofit Affordable-Housing
agencies, MPOs, CMAs, and councils of Developers
governments. Red tape adds delays, and
uncertainties over whether government According to the National Association of
agencies will renege on promises or Homebuilders, San Francisco has the
“change the rules of the game” creates least affordable housing market in the
impatience and distrust. Planning, nation. Home ownership rates for San
designing, land leasing, fee-simple Francisco are 22.4% below the national
acquisitions, permitting, and funding average.25 Expensive housing has
become more complicated because each pushed residents further away from job
agency brings its own objectives and and activity centers while increasing
agendas to the negotiating table. congestion. Additionally, the demand
for housing is expected to increase.
Although government agencies can According to the California Department
impede developers in planning TOD, they of Finance, the population of the Bay
also serve as a catalyst and important Area will increase by over 1.5 million
funding source for projects. The MTC’s inhabitants over the next 20 years.
TLC/HIP program, redevelopment Building affordable housing near transit
agencies’ 20% affordable-housing funds, provides a smart-growth alternative to
and state and federal transportation funds the historic pattern of placing affordable
each provide resources for strategic development on less expensive
station-area planning and much- greenfield land on the fringes of the
welcomed pedestrian and streetscape metropolitan area.
improvements. Combinations of various
funding sources make a project more California’s housing crisis has created a
feasible for a developer to build. In competitive market for affordable units.
the statewide study, TOD developers There are over 70 nonprofit affordable-
reported needing between 20% and housing developers that are members of
100% public financing for items such as the Non-Profit Housing Association of
environmental remediation, infrastructure Northern California. Since additional
improvements, and affordable housing; funding and special financing are needed
otherwise TOD projects could not to make affordable housing projects
be built. feasible, developers often vie for
governmental tax credits and grants to
Developers recognize the need, appeal, make affordable projects pencil out.
and potential profits of TOD. However,
given the complex coordination required One major form of financing affordable
and uncertainties involved, developers units is federal housing tax credits, which
may avoid entering the TOD market. were used to help finance affordable-
With fewer government restrictions, housing construction around BART’s
better interagency coordination, and Castro Valley Station (see Photo 18.5).
additional financial support, Bay Area The federal government gives each
developers will be more likely to state an allotment of housing tax credits,
402

Affordable Units Across from BART Historic Stobridge House

Photo 18.5. Castro Valley BART Station: Affordable Housing for BART’s First
Joint Development Project.
A truly intergenerational housing project at Castro Valley BART station has brought
together residents at various stages in life and involved the construction of new housing
units along with the rehabilitation of the historic Stobridge House. Bridge Housing
Corporation, a nonprofit affordable-housing developer, worked with Alameda County
and BART to build 96 affordable units with 66 units set aside for seniors. Remaining
units are available to families. The first joint development agreement that BART entered
into in its 26-year history, the project was built on land leased from BART. As part of the
project, a BART police station was constructed.
The $13-million project was financed with low-income housing tax credits, grants
from MTC and the S. H. Cowell Foundation, and Alameda County predevelopment
funding. After its completion, all units were rented. Today, there is a waiting list to
move into the project.
and the state is responsible for allocating 20 minutes during the hours of
credits to low-income housing 7–9am and 4–6pm, and the project’s
developers. The state of California density [must] exceed 25 units
added its own criteria to the federal per acre.26
requirements for affordable-housing
plans and created a scoring system to Lower densities, less frequent service,
evaluate potential projects. In order and further distance from transit (up to
1
to encourage affordable-housing ⁄2 mile) reduce the number of points
construction close to transit, points are awarded. Whether the density and transit
awarded for proximity to transit services. service frequency requirements, which
Out of the 150-point total, 7 points can were only added in January 2003, will
be earned for being within a TOD. To increase the supply of affordable units
receive all seven points, the development near transit is unclear.
must be located with a
In addition to federal tax credits, HUD
transit station, rail station, commuter administers several programs to fund
rail station, or bus station, or stop both low-income and special-needs
within a quarter mile from the project housing. Support for elderly housing is
site with service at least every granted through the HUD Section 202
403

Program, and housing for persons with the region’s environmental advocacy
disabilities can be funded through the groups have an increasingly active voice
HUD Section 811 Program. These grants in promoting transportation and land-use
provide construction funds and also coordination in general and TOD in
rental assistance for residents. Similar to particular.
tax credits, Section 202 and Section 811
funds are allocated on the basis of a set The Surface Transportation Policy
of criteria. Although it is not as strong as Program (STPP), a high-profile national
California’s tax credit stipulations, HUD advocacy group committed to balanced
does encourage and support TOD. As transportation solutions, has a California
stated in the Section 202 and 811 office. STPP has actively sought to
handbooks, “Residents must have ready remove barriers to smart-growth projects
access to religious institutions, hospitals like TOD. For example, several Bay
or clinics, and other community services, Area infill TOD proposals were blocked
shopping, recreational facilities, and because, opponents argued, they would
public transportation.”27 One nonprofit create significant traffic congestion,
developer interviewed for this case study measured as “level of service” (LOS).
mentioned that a project was denied California law, under the Congestion
HUD funding partly because it did not Management Act, requires that
provide adequate transportation service. congestion be mitigated by supply-side
However, what constitutes an improvements (like road widenings) that
“adequate” level of transportation often have adverse impacts on pedestrian
service is not explicitly stated, so it is environments. In 2002, STPP sponsored
left largely to the judgment of HUD a state bill (SB 1636) that changed the
staff. Several nonprofit developers active LOS and mitigation requirements for
in the Bay Area who were interviewed areas that city or county governments
felt that Sections 202 and 811 should declare as an “infill opportunity zone.”
more clearly define the minimum An “infill opportunity zone” must be
thresholds for achieving “ready access.” within 1⁄3 mile of a transit stop, with
transit service having a maximum
Advocacy Groups headway of 15 minutes. The streets and
highways within the infill zone are
The San Francisco Bay and the exempt from CMA LOS standards.
surrounding hillscape enjoy a natural Mitigation methods for traffic congestion
beauty that is cherished by residents and are flexible and can be in the form of
visitors alike. Many independent pedestrian or transit improvements.
nonprofit groups have recognized the STPP is also a leader in promoting
importance of the Bay Area’s natural LEMs, not only in the Bay Area, but
resources and have adopted missions also in other rail-served regions (see
of conserving and protecting the Text Box 18.4).
environment. Some groups are
particularly focused on transportation The Greenbelt Alliance is another
issues and have long endorsed TODs as nonprofit environmental group that
an effective tool for preserving open supports TOD. The organization’s
space by curbing sprawl and reducing broader mission is to protect open space
automobile dependence. Accordingly, and natural habitats from encroaching
404

© Institute for Location Efficiency
Another financing mechanism for TOD housing in the San Francisco Bay Area is the
availability of Location Efficient Mortgages (LEMs). After housing, transportation is
the second largest expenditure in the average annual budget of Bay Area households.
People living in transit-rich communities are less likely to drive to work, stores, schools,
or recreational activities, research from the region consistently shows. Therefore, they
spend less on transportation costs, such as vehicle purchase, maintenance, insurance,
and gas, and have more expendable income available. Underwriting LEMs increases
the borrowing capacity of homebuyers by allowing a maximum housing-to-income ratio
of 39% as opposed to the standard 28%. Ultimately, this adds buying power to the
budgets of people shopping for homes in location efficient neighborhoods.
The idea of LEMs was a joint effort between the Natural Resources Defense Council,
the Surface Transportation Policy Project, and the Center for Neighborhood
Technology. Together, they formed the Institute for Location Efficiency and conducted
research on household transportation spending and transportation patterns related to
urban form. The research reported that neighborhood density and transit access have a
statistically significant influence on vehicle miles traveled and vehicle ownership rates
for households. From the research results, Fannie Mae, the nation’s largest source of
mortgages, agreed to authorize lenders to issue LEMs in four metropolitan areas,
including the San Francisco Bay Area.
In determining the additional buying power for a specific location, the number of
businesses within walking distance, proximity to transit stops or stations, and the
frequency of transit service are all variables taken into account. The lender uses this
information to predict how much money the household will spend on transportation and
compares this amount to the cost of transportation for a similar suburban household.
The savings of the transportation costs are then added to the purchasing power. The
LEM concept is relatively new and largely unproven; the jury is still out as to whether it
will significantly increase station-area living in America’s rail cities. This is something
that will no doubt be carefully watched in coming years.
Source: www.locationefficiency.com.
Text Box 18.4
405

sprawl. The Greenbelt Alliance views through their coordinated efforts. They
TOD as a critical component of smart serve as “watchdogs” to ensure that
growth, along with affordable housing, public agencies do their part to encourage
mixed uses, and flexible parking smart growth around transit agencies.
standards. The Greenbelt Alliance has They also provide a much-needed voice
established an endorsement program for of support for infill development when
new development projects, including there is community opposition. This has
TOD, which embraces these principles. shielded public agencies from accusations
of parochialism and unfairness. If
STPP and the Greenbelt Alliance are nongovernment groups representing
both members of the Transportation and broader regional interests back TOD
Land Use Coalition (TALC). TALC is a projects, local opponents face a tougher
partnership of 90 different Bay Area challenge in trying to block proposals.
organizations that endorse smart growth
and transportation choices. TALC’s It has not only been environmentalists
views are taken seriously by the powers- and political “greens” who have
that-be in the region’s transportation coalesced to form advocacy groups that,
circles. TALC publishes reports that are among other things, promote TOD and
often aimed at shaping policy decisions other smart-growth initiatives in the Bay
and expenditure plans for the Bay Area. Area. Pro-business organizations have
In these reports, lay people and decision- also entered the scene. The Silicon Valley
makers alike are informed about the Manufacturer’s Group, which represents
benefits of smart-growth measures like the interests of some of the world’s
TOD. In 2003, TALC released a widely leading high-tech companies, has
circulated report on the best and worst identified “promoting transit-oriented
developments of the Bay Area (see development” as one of the
http://www.transcoalition.org/reports/ organization’s primary transportation
b-w/best-worst.pdf). For each of the nine goals.28 Representing the larger corporate
Bay Area counties, TALC staff selected interests of the region, the Bay Area
two development projects—one that Council has gone on record as
captured smart-growth visions for the recommending that “funding incentives
area and one that was poorly planned. for transportation infrastructure should be
Developments winning the “Best” provided to jurisdictions to accommodate
awards were higher density and . . . increased densities along
walkable, had affordable-housing transportation corridors and at transit
components, and were located in close hubs.”29 Smart-growth interests have
proximity to transit. TALC regularly reached the level in the Bay Area where
provides success stories for public pro-environmental and pro-business
agencies and private developers to use as factions have joined forces. The Bay Area
models for guiding future development. Alliance for Sustainable Development,
whose steering committee includes
Despite differing views on the specific members from the Bay Area Council as
components of TOD (such as appropriate well as the Sierra Club, recently issued a
densities or walkable distance to transit), Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area,
environmental advocacy groups provide wherein members from the public and
strong support for TOD in the Bay Area private spheres committed themselves to
406

reach out to financial institutions to compete for rather than coordinate land
encourage diverse housing types use, the Bay Area has nonetheless
and mixed-use investments at become one of the more progressive
transit-supportive densities within regions of the country at seeking to
urban areas, near transit, which incentivize TOD-like growth. The
reuse underutilized or deteriorated
livable communities and affordable-
areas; . . . [and] advocate in support
of mixed-density and mixed-income housing initiatives of the MTC have
residential development, including been exemplary, as have subregional
adequate affordable housing, programs, such as the one introduced by
particularly in areas with transit the San Mateo County Council of
and other services.30 Governments. A number of watchdog
NGOs—TALC, the Greenbelt Alliance,
Conclusions and Lessons and STPP—have also played a role in
ensuring that legislative and statutory
As a diverse region of nearly 7 million mandates regarding transportation and
people, the San Francisco Bay Area has land-use integration are adhered to and
actively embraced TOD over the past two that smart-growth principles receive
decades, albeit often in a piecemeal, plentiful airplay. And despite having the
community-by-community fashion. nation’s priciest housing market,
While many planners and professionals in numerous nonprofit housing developers
the region understand the importance of have surfaced over the years, many of
building a united front to coordinate which have seized upon neighborhoods
activities across jurisdictional boundaries, surrounding transit stations as the perfect
strong home-rule controls and the settings for constructing affordable
parochial instincts of localities and housing with “location efficiencies.”
special districts have thwarted progress in Pioneering programs introduced in the
this area. Development, whether around region, such as LEMs and sliding-scale
transit stations or freeway interchanges, impact fees, have sought to reward those
continues to unfold in a largely ad hoc residing and building projects near
fashion, making the often-expressed transit stops in financial terms.
regional goals of smart growth and
coordination of transportation and land Market conditions remain ripe for TOD
use more conceptual than real. One in much of the Bay Area, and a growing
outside observer put it like this: number of real-estate developers are
positioning themselves to fill the
Although the Bay Area is widely continually expanding niche for rail-
known for its livability, coordination oriented living. Some developers
of land use and transportation
complain that red tape, institutional
planning, and the historic streetcar
system in downtown San Francisco, foot-dragging, and “too many cooks in
the region has suffered its share of the kitchen” still overly burden the
growing pains and serious missteps TOD-building process. While most
along the way to restoring a regional welcome the progressive efforts of the
framework for transit.31 MTC and other institutions to fund
ancillary and streetscape improvements
Despite a fragmented institutional around rail stations, what many want
landscape and a tendency for localities to most is a more streamlined and efficient
407

station-area planning and decision- off; however, proponents feel one good
making process. success story—whether Fruitvale,
Pleasant Hill, or elsewhere—will be all it
While development is being drawn to takes to unleash a floodgate of developer
private parcels that surround Bay Area interest in TOD.
rail stations, building communities on
agency-owned land, particularly To date, some of the more successful
strategically located surface parking joint development projects in the Bay
lots, has been advanced more slowly. Area have been spearheaded by local
The contrast between VTA and BART jurisdictions or community organizations.
policies and practices concerning joint Historically, BART planners have had
development on agency-owned land their hands tied in trying to pursue joint
demonstrates different agency development, not only because of one-to-
philosophies and approaches. Without one replacement parking requirements but
the burden of a one-to-one replacement also because of a skeptical board that saw
parking policy, VTA has been able to real-estate development as a distraction
take an entrepreneurial stance, working from the agency’s central mission of
with private interests to build mixed-use running a rail-transit business. The
projects on former surface parking lots. board’s position gradually changed as
BART’s more restrictive in-house regional concerns over sprawl, traffic
policies on parking have historically congestion, and affordable housing
tied its hands in pursuing TOD on escalated. When BART staff was given
agency-owned land. Only when an the green light to work directly with
abundance of resources can be mustered private developers to build a joint
to replace surface parking with fairly development project that would
pricey structures, as occurred at the potentially generate high revenues,
Fruitvale BART station, will an intimate the threat of increased densities often
connection between a suburban station ignited community opposition. BART’s
and its surrounding community be original plans to increase ridership at
achieved in BART’s service jurisdiction. the Fruitvale Station by building
Furthermore, only when land prices additional commuter parking conflicted
are very high and shared parking with the community vision of a more
possibilities are exploited, as is the case pedestrian-oriented village that wrapped
with the “second generation” TOD taking around the rail station. To its credit,
form around BART’s Pleasant Hill BART has learned from past mistakes;
Station, can a project that directly abuts a in recent times, it has gone the extra
suburban station, like VTA’s Ohlone distance to seek out community input
Chynoweth, be expected. Despite this in visioning the future and citizen
obstacle, real-estate markets remain hot involvement in the implementation
enough, and smart-growth agendas have process.
become so pervasive, that TOD on
former BART-owned land is beginning The challenges of building a metropolis,
to gain a foothold. The jury is still out on not just a handful of stations, which is
whether joint development efforts supportive of transit remains an uphill
underway at East Dublin/Pleasanton, struggle. Portland-style regional
Walnut Creek, and Richmond will pay governance has been discussed on
408

numerous occasions in the Bay Area, but make the zoning and land-use changes
it has never been able to garner popular that we’re looking for.”32
support because the political constituency
for consolidating powers remains narrow. Notes
Most observers concede that regional
governance is a pipedream and thus are 1
Association of Bay Area Governments, Smart
resigned to something more modest in Growth Preamble and Policies. See
scope. Many applaud the efforts of the www.abag.org/planning/smartgrowth/
SG%20Policies/SG_Preamble_Policies.PDF.
MTC and ABAG to encourage local
2
interests to “think regionally and act Association of Bay Area Governments, Policy
Based Projections. See www.abag.org/
locally,” whether through broad-based
planning/smartgrowth/projections.html.
and inclusive regional visioning
3
undertakings or tying purse strings to MTC website: www.mtc.ca.gov/projects/
livable_communities/lcindex.htm.
local smart-growth initiatives. The Bay
4
Area Alliance, which works across the City/County Association of Governments of
110 jurisdictions of the region to promote San Mateo. 2002 EPA National Award for
Smart Growth Achievement Entry Package
economic and environmental (2002).
sustainability, also holds promise in 5
VTA, Transit-Oriented Development Design
the minds of many. Whether such efforts
Concepts (1993).
will be enough to coordinate local TOD
6
initiatives in a more holistic, integrated BART, BART Transit-Oriented Development
Guidelines (June 2003).
fashion is anyone’s guess. Regardless,
7
steps are being made in the right direction Ibid.
to create a political culture that accepts 8
BART, Developing the Future with Transit
and indeed embraces regional thinking. (Oakland: California: Department of Real
This can only help in the cause of Estate Services, 2001).
promoting the institutional as well 9
D. Costello, R. Mendelsohn, A. Canby, and
as physical coordination of TODs J. Bender, The Returning City: Historic
across the region’s nine counties. Presentation and Transit in the Age of Civic
Revival (Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit
Administration, National Trust for Historic
Despite the region’s institutional Preservation, 2003), 44.
fragmentation and the obstacle this 10
J. Tumlin and A. Millard-Ball, “How to
creates for TOD, other pressures could Make Transit-Oriented Development Work,”
bring about a more transit-supportive Planning, Vol. 69, No. 5 (2003): 17.
regional built form in years to come. 11
C. Kreyling, “Hug that Transit Station,”
Traffic congestion has gotten so bad that Planning, Vol. 67, No. 1 (2003): 5.
increasing numbers of communities see 12
Ibid.
little recourse other than to concentrate
13
growth around transit stops. In an Ibid.
interview with Planning magazine, Tom 14
Kreyling, 2003, op. cit., p.6.
Margo, BART’s General Manager, 15
BART, BART Strategic Plan. http://www.
remarked “We’re being courted by cities bart.gov/docs/strategicPlan.pdf.
that want BART extensions,” noting 16
H. Lund, R. Cervero, and R. Willson,
that the agency’s policy of encouraging Travel Characteristics of Transit-Focused
high-density growth around stations Development in California (Oakland,
“helps us reward those communities that California: Bay Area Rapid Transit District
409

and California Department of Transportation, Allocation Committee Programs (2001).

2004). See http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/
17 programreg/062003.pdf.
E. Seifel, “Bay Area Models of Urban Infill
Housing,” Urban Land, Vol. 62, No. 9 27
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
(2003): 105–109, 141–147. Development, Chapter 3, Handbook 4571.2:
18
Lund et al., 2004, op. cit. Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons
with Disabilities (June 199). See http://www.
19
Tumlin and Millard-Ball, 2003, op. cit., p. 16. hudclips.org/sub_nonhud/cgi/hbks_run.
20
“Lend Lease Real Estate Investments and cgi?hbks_run.
PricewaterhouseCoopers,” Emerging Trends 28
See http://www.svmg.org/Committees/
in Real Estate Markets 2002 (2002). See
Transportation/index.cfm.
http://www.lendlease.com/llweb/llc/main.nsf/
images/pdf_emergingtrends_2002.pdf/$file/ 29
See http://www.bayareacouncil.org/ppi/tpt/
pdf_emergingtrends_2002.pdf. 51v_mtc1.html.
21
T. Lomax and D. Schrank, 2003 Urban 30
Bay Area Alliance, Compact for a
Mobility Report (College Station, Texas: Sustainable Bay Area (San Francisco:
Texas Transportation Institute, 2003). October 2002), 10.
22
Caltrans, Statewide Transit Oriented 31
Costello et al., 2003, op. cit., p. 38.
Development Study: Factors for Success in
California: Technical Appendix (Sacramento: 32
Tumlin and Millard-Ball, 2003, op. cit., p. 15.
Business, Transportation, and Housing
Agency, 2002).
23
A. Lopez, “Obstacles in Getting to Plaza Photo Credits
Garage,” Contra Costa Times, Sept. 5, 2003.
See www.cctimes.com. 18.1 2002 EPA National Award for Smart
24
Caltrans, 2002, op. cit. Growth Achievement Announcement
25
18.2 N. Goguts
Lomax and Schrank, 2003, op. cit.
18.3 N. Goguts
26
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, 18.4 City of San Francisco, Planning Department
A Description of California Tax Credit 18.5 N. Goguts
410

Chapter 19
Southern California: From TODs to a Region of Villages
TOD experiences in Southern California speaking and Asian immigrant

have been well documented.1 Perhaps it is populations—have also drawn attention.
because of the challenges of building a These cohorts are thought to be more
transit-friendly landscape in a region of receptive to transit-oriented living
crisscrossing freeways, where the because many immigrants come from
automobile culture is firmly entrenched, cities with intensive transit services.
that so much research has focused on
Southern California. On the other hand, Southern California’s Market for TOD
perhaps it is because Los Angeles’s
genesis owes much to the Red Car system Interest in TOD has been propelled by
and interurban rail lines of a century ago ongoing rapid population growth,
that interest in modern-day TODs runs worsening congestion, air pollution, and
high. Regardless, the political, economic, an affordable-housing crunch in Los
and cultural dimensions of TOD in the Angeles, San Diego, and other parts of
nation’s second-largest region continue to Southern California. More senior
fascinate. citizens will also reside in Southern
California in coming years. By 2030, the
This case study summarizes past percentage of people age 65 or older will
research on the impacts of TOD be higher than in Florida today. The
on transit ridership, land values, Latino population is expected to grow
affordable-housing supplies, and overall from 27% to 39%.
neighborhood quality. Through field
work and interviews, the effectiveness A recent study suggests that the demand
of various planning, policy, and financial for “dense, walkable neighborhoods”
tools in promoting and implementing in Southern California will grow
TOD projects in Southern California substantially, in part due to an aging
is also revealed. Monetary benefits population and a more culturally diverse
derived by public agencies from joint population base.2 Changing tastes and
development projects on agency land are exasperation with an automobile-
also documented. Under the assumption dependent lifestyle are also increasing
that high-quality bus services can foster the demand for more urban and urbane
TOD, this case also investigates places (e.g., “café culture”).
development activities along Southern
California BRT lines. Due to a variety of factors—including
exclusionary zoning, stringent
It is not just bad traffic and foul air that condominium liability laws, and NIMBY
have sparked interest in TOD. Southern activity—there is an undersupply of
California’s demographic shifts—in dense, multifamily housing in Southern
particular, large increases in Spanish- California. As a consequence, the region
411

is rated as the “nation’s best multifamily County currently has two light-rail lines
market due to development constraints plus a commuter-rail service (the
(Proposition 13 tax/spend limits) Coaster) (see Map 19.1), and several
and investors’ flight to quality.”3 light-rail extensions are underway.
Increasingly, transit stops are being Today, Los Angeles County boasts one
viewed as natural habitats for targeting heavy-rail line, three light-rail lines, and
affordable-housing production. an extensive network of commuter-rail
services (Metrolink) (see Map 19.2).
Other Factors Stimulating TOD
In both San Diego and Los Angeles,
Market needs are not the only factors growth is gravitating to transit stations in
that have boosted the prospects for part because traffic congestion, in the
transit-supportive growth in Southern minds of many, is becoming unbearable.
California. Rail transit—in particular, In 2000, metropolitan Los Angeles and
light and heavy rail—is being built and San Diego were ranked the first and fifth
expanded at a feverish pace, providing most congested regions nationwide,
fertile soil in which to plant TOD and respectively.4 The opening of the Mission
joint development projects. San Diego Valley extension of San Diego’s Blue
Map 19.1. Regional Rail Transit Network and Planned

Extensions in San Diego County, 2000. Source: Metropolitan Transit
Development Board.
412

Map 19.2. Metro Rail Services, Los Angeles County.

Source: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority.
Line in 1997 sparked the development of The Hollywood/Highland project located

several TODs: Hazard Center, Rio Vista on Los Angeles’s Red Line, where the
West, and Fenton Market. Similarly, Grauman’s Chinese Theatre (home to the
along the Los Angeles Red Line, several Academy Awards ceremony) is located,
notable projects (Hollywood/Highland, was sited near the subway so that many
Hollywood/Vine) are taking form. New of the 9 million annual visitors could
TOD projects have also been proposed patronize transit, allowing parking to be
or are under construction along Los substantially downsized.
Angeles’s recently opened Gold Line to
Pasadena (e.g., Avenue 57 and Del Mar). Policy Context
Besides offering tenants and customers San Diego County

a chance to avoid traffic congestion,
the ability to reduce parking outlays In San Diego County, a host of
($30,000 per space) has further progressive policies and programs,
attracted developer interest in TOD. introduced by municipalities and the
413

regional planning organization, has higher residential densities, mixed land

helped foster TOD over the past decade use, and a combination of the above
or so. Regional planners are increasingly initiatives embedded within a new Urban
looking to TOD to transform greater Village Overlay Zone.7
San Diego from a spread-out, automobile-
oriented setting to a more compact, In June 2002, the city of San Diego
mixed-use, transit-supportive built approved its Strategic Framework
form. To pave the way toward a more Element, which updated its already
sustainable future, the region’s transit-friendly General Plan.8 This
18 municipalities and the county nicely illustrated document proposed a
government have endorsed the recent “City of Villages” as the future form.
smart-growth plan developed by the San The City of Villages concept is
Diego Association of Governments composed of five hierarchical village
(SANDAG).5 Regarded as a first step categories (see Figure 19.1). TOD
towards the implementation of regional guidelines are recommended by its
smart growth, the plan aims to shift accompanying Action Plan to apply to
development to “transit focus areas.” two categories—urban village centers
(e.g., University Towne Center) and
To better integrate land use and transit corridors.
transportation, SANDAG, MTDB,
the North San Diego County Transit The level of cooperation between San
Development Board (NCTD), and Diego’s regional entities and local
local jurisdictions jointly prepared a municipalities in promoting TOD is
Regional Transit Vision (RTV) report exemplary. All site plans requiring a
in November 2001. The RTV identifies discretionary permit from the city of
transit improvements that are needed San Diego are forwarded to MTDB for
to bring about increased TOD use. review and comment. Also, a senior
SANDAG recently introduced a 5-year, planner from the city of San Diego
$25-million incentive program to works at MTDB as an agency liaison.9
leverage smart-growth pilot projects. Moreover, as part of the RTV, SANDAG
These measures are expected to and local jurisdictions work together to
increase the share of jobs within 1⁄4 mile identify areas where future transit
of transit stops from 39% in 2000 to stations can be located and to prepare
45% in 2030. As a result, transit’s share design guidelines that ensure high levels
of commute trips is expected to jump of interaction between transit facilities
from 5% to 10% over the same period.6 and neighborhood centers.
At the municipal level, the city of Other policies have likewise worked in
San Diego is one of the most TOD- favor of TOD. SANDAG has developed
supportive jurisdictions in the United its own trip-generation rates for
States. In 1992, the city adopted TOD evaluating the impacts of mixed-use,
Design Guidelines and Council Policy high-density projects; rates are lower
600-39 to promote TOD projects. Some than Institute of Transportation
of its pioneering initiatives included the Engineers standards for comparable
enactment of reduced parking standards, single-use developments.10 Also, the city
a transit area overlay zone to encourage of San Diego has amended its street-
414

Figure 19.1. The City of San Diego’s Future City of

Villages. Source: City of San Diego.
design manual to allow narrower street by getting more people onto

widths in transit-served neighborhoods. neighborhood streets, to build social
In Chula Vista, new development capital.11 The guidelines are intended not
proposals are reviewed against a Design only for transit station areas but also infill
Element Checklist that, among other and redevelopment projects.
things, promotes orientation to transit,
bicycles, and pedestrians over In recent years, the Los Angeles County
orientation to automobiles. Department of Regional Planning has
devoted considerable resources to TOD
The Los Angeles Region planning along unincorporated portions
of the Metro Blue Line. In 1996, it
The degree of interagency coordination formed transit-oriented districts around
to promote TOD in metropolitan Los four Blue Line stations: Slauson,
Angeles has been equally impressive. Florence, Firestone, and Imperial.
The Southern California Association of Zoning ordinances were enacted to
Governments, the region’s MPO, worked prevent land uses that are incompatible
closely with the Los Angeles County with TOD and to provide density
Department of Regional Planning to bonuses.
prepare guidelines for development of
livable communities. The core idea of TOD is also actively promoted by Los
livable communities, like TOD, is to Angeles’s regional transit agency for
promote mixed land uses in pedestrian- Los Angeles, the MTA. The MTA has
friendly environments so as to reduce assigned responsibility for TOD activities
reliance on the private automobile and, to its Department of Joint Development.
415

The department strives to exploit Good Planning—the Necessary but

development opportunities around rail Insufficient Ingredient
stations both to generate operating
revenues and build a ridership base. The Blue Line, which runs from
downtown Los Angeles to downtown
The city of Los Angeles promotes TOD Long Beach, cuts across numerous city
mainly by preparing specific plans for boundaries. Much of the line traverses
station areas. To date, it has formed two large swatches of unincorporated land
transit-oriented districts: Avenue 57 and administered by the county government.
Vermont/Western Avenue. Zoning As the nation’s most heavily patronized
reforms, like mixed-use overlays and light-rail corridor, the Blue Line serves
density bonuses, have been introduced immigrant and transit-dependent
in each district to leverage TOD. populations. These populations are
located mostly in economically depressed
Joint Development neighborhoods, which provide less-than-
ideal conditions for attracting developer
The MTA’s Department of Joint investments.
Development is in charge of the system’s
“property asset development and To overcome these obstacles, the
management program to promote County’s Regional Planning Department
the best use [of] MTA-owned properties (RPD) has gone the extra distance to
at and adjacent to transit station corridors create a welcoming environment for
with private and/or public sector developers. Soren Alexenian, the planner
cooperation.”12 Each joint development in charge of the RPD’s TOD efforts, said
project aims to promote transit ridership in an April 2003 interview that the state
while generating financial “returns on of California’s passage of the Transit
investment” to the MTA, based on a Village Act in 1991 prodded the county
fair market return for their properties. and its board of supervisors to think
The MTA, with the assistance of local seriously about TOD around rail
jurisdictions, prepares development stations. While the Transit Village Act
guidelines specific to each joint offered little in terms of direct financial
development site that designate types benefits to the county to further their
and intensities of land uses as well as efforts, it put TOD “on the radar screen”
transit-oriented design features. MTA’s and made it worthwhile to consider.
joint development implementation Provisions like the exemption of TODs
procedures are shown in Text Box 19.1. from level-of-service standards under
California’s Congestion Management
Challenges to TOD in Act were also appealing.
Southern California
Throughout the conceptualization and
Southern California experiences development of the station-area plans,
underscore the challenges of county planners meet with local
implementing TOD, providing a citizens’ advisory groups every week.
cautionary tale of the promises and The close working relationship between
pitfalls of coordinating projects among planners and citizens is a hallmark of
multiple partners and stakeholders. this planning effort. According to
416

MTA’s Joint Development Implementation Procedures

A. Project Proposals Initiation / Solicitation: MTA periodically conducts
market feasibility studies of agency-owned properties at and near transit
stations. These market analyses provide the basis for establishing project
priorities and implementation strategies. Then MTA also prepares development
guidelines for each joint development project and solicits proposals through a
competitive selection process. Alternatively, projects may be initiated by a
private entity, MTA, or other agencies.
B. Proposal Evaluation:
1. Unsolicited Proposals: Anyone wishing to propose a joint development
project can submit it directly to MTA’s chief executive officer (CEO). The
CEO and staff, in consultation with local jurisdictions, then analyze the
proposal using MTA Joint Development Implementation Procedures.
(See: http://www.mta.net/trans_planning/ CPD/joint_development/images/
attachment_b.pdf.)
2. Solicited Proposals: In evaluating proposals solicited through an

RFP process, the MTA utilizes an evaluation panel generally consisting of
MTA personnel, consultants, academic professionals, and local jurisdiction
technical staff, where appropriate.
C. Exclusive Negotiations Agreement: Upon approval of a recommended

developer and authorization by the MTA Board, the CEO enters into an Exclusive
Negotiations Agreement (ENA) with the developer for a period of 180 days.
D. Development Agreement: Upon satisfactory fulfillment of all the

development requirements in the ENA, the MTA may enter into a Joint
Development Agreement for the implementation of a project. The Development
Agreement shall describe the rights and responsibilities of both parties.
E. Adjacent Construction Guidelines: These policies and procedures shall be

implemented, as appropriate, in conjunction with the “Adjacent Construction
Design Manual, Volume III, MTA Design Criteria and Standards, 1994.” This
Manual establishes the criteria and review process for all construction.
F. Statutory Basis: The MTA’s joint development function aquired a statutory

basis. Under California Public Utilities Code, Section 30600: “The district may
by grant, purchase, gift, devise, or lease, or by condemnation, or otherwise
acquire, and hold and enjoy, real and personal property of every kind within or
without the district necessary or incidental to the full or convenient exercise of
its powers.”
Text Box 19.1
417

Alexenian, previous planning initiatives mixed-use proposal would take 6 months

suffered because local communities for approval. Developers pleaded for a
were not involved in the planning more predictable and manageable
process from the beginning. Citizens entitlement review process. In response,
often felt excluded from the decision- the county has expedited entitlement
making process and feared the planners reviews, reducing development fees and
were trying to impose changes upon providing density bonuses for Blue Line
their community. While planners may station areas.
be tempted to complete planning
studies first and then approach the Cutting red tape does not mean that
public with a well-prepared set of developers are given a free rein. In the
recommendations, Alexenian stressed case of the Blue Line station areas, the
the critical importance of involving RPD placed a number of conditions on
local citizens early on. In the case of the developers in return for streamlined
Blue Line, the RPD was able to avoid a reviews. In particular, while automobile-
confrontation with local residents when oriented uses (such as single-use
the station-area plan went before the commercial strip development and
Board of Supervisors for approval. car-wash businesses) were previously
Developers like public engagement, permitted almost by right, revised station-
since reducing the likelihood of a area zoning codes ban automobile-
community backlash against a TOD oriented uses that are considered to be out
development reduces the risks inherent of synch with TOD. Another condition of
in a project. development approval is that projects
include a 33% affordable- or senior-
Developer risks have also been reduced housing component.
in other ways. The RPD, for example,
has created a transparent, finite, and The county’s RPD has also managed to
quick process for developers to use in get TOD on the “radar screens” of other
proposing projects and securing county agencies. For example, the RPD
approvals from the county. According to successfully worked with the county
Alexenian, the most effective tools “get public works department to install street
government out of the way” and reduce trees, crosswalks, and other amenities
the “red tape” involved with project next to the Florin Blue Line station (see
approvals. Expedited entitlement Photo 19.1). Standards for pedestrian-
review is a critical component of the friendly street designs have also been
county’s campaign to leverage TOD. developed cooperatively among RPD,
RPD consulted with local developers the public works department, and
and found they wanted density bonuses emergency response agencies (including
as-of-right rather than via special county fire services).
variance. Efforts are presently underway
to codify, de jure, higher permissible Now that the RPD has completed station
densities around transit stops. area plans and the county board of
supervisors has approved them, the
Getting permits for mixed-use agency’s focus has shifted to “marketing”
development has historically been TOD. However, getting the word out
difficult and drawn out. Typically, a requires staff time and resources, two
418

uses that favor the automobile while

struggling to revive sometimes moribund
real-estate markets. In effect, TOD is
forced into the position of fostering
economic revitalization while
simultaneously transforming the
local urban fabric.
Planting the Seeds of TOD in a Sea of

Photo 19.1. Florin Blue Line Station. Automobile-Oriented Development
Metropolitan Los Angeles is in many

things in short supply given recent ways a setting where islands of TOD
budget troubles. While the MTA has have formed in a sea of automobile-
been a helpful partner in the past, staff oriented development. There, automobile-
and budget cuts in its own Department of oriented uses are routinely approved by
Joint Development have limited its role the county, almost by right.
in outreach. To date, while some infill
and nonprofit housing developers have The challenges of making TODs work
expressed interest, no TOD projects have in a land of automobile-oriented
broken ground, nor are any development developments run deep in Los Angeles,
proposals in the pipeline for any Blue particularly for nonprofit developers,
Line station areas. Clearly, efforts to who are often short on investment
engage the community, streamline the capital. According to Livable Places—
entitlement process, and introduce zoning a Los Angeles-based nonprofit housing
incentives are a necessary but not developer—financing mixed-use
sufficient condition for TOD. projects for private and nonprofit
developers in Los Angeles is difficult,
Impediments—Automobile-Oriented if not impossible, unless a project
Development and Economic Stagnation includes structured parking. This is not
so much a requirement imposed by local
The locations where TODs are planned governments as it is a financial reality.
and built are, by definition, driven by the Even in the city of Los Angeles, where
locations of transit stations. Often, new the zoning codes provide a 1,500-foot
transit stations are sited with little regard buffer around transit stations that
for an area’s potential to spawn TOD reduces parking requirements, mixed-
and more regard for where land can be use projects are tough sells. The need
acquired most cheaply, with the least for parking is driven by the perceived
amount of disruption. Since transit requirements of the investment
agencies may try to reduce their community. Investors and banks
construction costs by siting stations are so used to financing single-use,
in economically troubled areas automobile-oriented development with
where right-of-way is cheap, TOD standard code parking that they do not
undertakings in these areas are often feel comfortable with mixed-use
doubly challenged—they must overcome development unless it provides ample
local zoning codes and surrounding parking to attract motorist patrons. This
419

is even the case with vertically mixed redevelopment agency even though the
projects (e.g., ground-floor retail and project had received the whole-hearted
upper-level lofts and apartments) support and financial backing of the city
within easy walk of a rail station. This government. While the city’s general
stance puts a huge financial strain on plan designated the project’s parcel and
nonprofit developers, in particular, surrounding area for housing, the
who struggle to obtain financing for redevelopment agency had its sights on
single-use projects. The added strain automobile-oriented commercial
of financing an expensive parking development. Livable Places was not
structure puts mixed-use projects out helped by the development pressures in
of their financial reach. the neighborhood, which are active,
but decidedly automobile-oriented. A
Redevelopment Agencies: Powerful but number of projects currently under
Sometimes Problematic TOD Partners construction adjacent to and surrounding
Long Beach’s Blue Line stations include
In metropolitan Los Angeles, some a car wash and a gas station. Through
staff from municipal agencies and drawn-out negotiations with the city,
transit operators expressed a lack of Livable Places has been able to get
self-assurance in their TOD “deal- approval for its project despite the initial
making” abilities. They also are resistance from the redevelopment
somewhat skeptical of each other. agency.
Local governments question the
commitment of transit agencies to Since Los Angeles’s new rail lines often
land-use issues, and transit agencies run through neighborhoods that were
question the TOD implementation developed decades ago in an automobile-
expertise of local governments. oriented fashion, there is often a lack of
Moreover, local governments and vacant land near stations. Where land is
transit agencies alike feel that their available, it is often in small parcels that
biggest TOD challenges stem directly are difficult and expensive to assemble.
from preexisting land-use patterns and Here, the resources and tools available to
their own preexisting limitations as redevelopment agencies can help. After
public agencies. overcoming the initial obstacle of the
redevelopment agency’s plans conflicting
Redevelopment agencies are a different with the city’s general plan, Livable
story. In California, redevelopment Places was able to garner financial
entities are in a particularly good assistance from the city to purchase the
position to leverage TOD because of the parcels it sought to package together into
considerable fiscal powers granted to a good-size housing project. Still,
them. However, when the organizational obstacles to this project remain. Yielding
focus of a redevelopment agency is not to pressures from local citizens’ groups
on TOD, these powerful entities can and merchants, the city has yet to relax
easily become impediments instead of its parking standards for the site, insisting
helpful partners. Livable Places’s efforts on 2.25 parking spaces per dwelling unit.
to develop TOD housing on a parcel Such standards make affordable housing
near a Long Beach Blue Line station difficult, especially when land constraints
met with resistance from the city’s and high land prices require costly
420

podium, tuck-under, or below-grade agencies: eminent domain property

parking. acquisitions.
In unincorporated parts of Los Angeles First, the CRA played the role of land
County along the Blue Line, the county’s assembler, buying the office building
RPD has encountered similar obstacles. and its parcel through an open-market
There, as in Long Beach, lot sizes are purchase and negotiating a lease for
small, and large vacant parcels are hard the MTA-owned property for the
to come by. The RPD suspects that this is developer. After buying the office
part of why developers have shied away building, the CRA needed to help
from TOD projects there so far, but the relocate the building’s tenants. One of
RPD does not have the powers of the tenants filed a lawsuit challenging its
eminent domain or the resources to involuntary removal from the property.
acquire and assemble parcels to attract The CRA took on the role of the
developers. The future of TOD in principal defendant in this case, which
unincorporated areas rests in RPD’s they subsequently won. Kipp Rudd,
ability to convince the County Board of the CRA’s project manager for the
Supervisors to nominate and back the Hollywood/Highland project, feels
formation of Blue Line station areas as that by playing the role of property
redevelopment districts. assembler, tenant relocator, and principal
legal defender for TOD projects,
When a redevelopment agency is redevelopment agencies can bring
whole-heartedly “on board” with a TOD an important set of tools to the TOD
project, its organizational experience in partnership table—tools that circumvent
dealing with the development some of the political and regulatory
community and its powerful toolkit can obstacles other entities face in using the
catapult it into a limelight role. Such was powers of eminent domain.
the case in Los Angeles, where the city’s
Community Redevelopment Agency With the Hollywood/Highland project,
(CRA) was a driving force behind the the CRA also functioned as “middleman”
successful completion of the Hollywood/ between the developers and the city,
Highland mixed-use project along the negotiating the terms of entitlements
Red Line. At this site, a retail complex and approvals from the city for the
was to be built partially through a joint developers. The CRA furthered its role as
development deal with the MTA on land negotiator, brokering a deal with the city
they owned next to the subway station, for the city to give $100 million to the
as well as through acquisition of an project (the price tag for the entire project
occupied office building, which was to was $600 million), which included
be vacated and torn down. Coordinating $60 million in bonds to build a parking
and negotiating these deals became the garage and $30 million in lease revenue
CRA’s job, and they used a wide range bonds to build the Kodak Theatre.
of skills and financial incentives to
accomplish the task. Interestingly, Financing Tools and Obstacles
many of these skills were substituted
for a tool traditionally employed by In the Los Angeles area, a number of
and expected of redevelopment innovative financing tools are being
421

employed to leverage TOD. One is a lenders by increasing the population of

partnership between private lenders and potential buyers.
MetroLink/Southern California Regional
Rail Authority that offers incentives for Unique sources of funding are also being
homebuyers to purchase transit-oriented used in the Los Angeles area to facilitate
housing. Another is a state bill to create parcel assembly. In the case of Livable
a state infrastructure bond that favors Places’s Long Beach project, the
areas designated for TOD. LEMs and Enterprise Foundation provides funds
various redevelopment funding tools are for land acquisition; the foundation is a
also being used to leverage TOD. partnership of nonprofit organizations
that provides funding and technical
As in the Bay Area, an LEM is assistance to communities for local
currently being pilot-tested in Los economic revitalization. Additional funds
Angeles. To further increase housing have been secured from the mainstream
affordability and promote public transit banking community. Since California
use for buyers in the high-cost housing requires banks to lend a fixed percentage
market of Los Angeles, the developers of their portfolio to affordable-housing
Montage Development and American projects, and since there are so few
City Vista and Fannie Mae and affordable-housing projects in Southern
MetroLink have developed an California, banks are sometimes eager to
innovative housing-transportation find projects to lend to. This access to
partnership. American City Vista and ready and eager funding sources makes
Fannie Mae created the “LA Transit nonprofit and affordable-housing
Mortgage,” with flexible credit developers potentially powerful TOD
guidelines and a down payment project partners.
requirement as low as 1% or $500 for
buying a home at Montage at Village Redevelopment agencies also represent
Green.13 In addition, MetroLink a potential source of funding for
provides each new homebuyer with up housing. Increasingly, they are being
to two free MetroLink monthly passes. required by the state of California to
contribute a portion of their special
The city of Long Beach has also assessment revenues (such as TIF funds)
spearheaded its own affordable-housing to affordable-housing projects. In the
lending program, which Livable Places is case of the city of Los Angeles’s CRA,
using to develop transit-based housing. state law requires the agency to
Known as a “silent second” mortgage, contribute 20% of its TIF funds to a
this program provides a loan to low- or citywide affordable-housing trust fund
moderate-income homebuyers that account. The city then uses these funds
covers the down payment of their home to issue grants to nonprofit housing
purchase. The loan is “silent” because it developers to build below-market-rate
does not require repayment until the housing. Until recently, these funds
home is sold, allowing the homebuyer could be used anywhere in the city. To
to qualify for a larger principal loan encourage TOD in the Hollywood/
amount. This loan program helps Highland project area, the CRA
organizations like Livable Places justify increased its contribution to 25% and
the financial viability of their projects to specified that TIF funds collected from
422

the Hollywood/Highland project be Without some form of substantial public

spent in close proximity to the rail stop. financial assistance, these TOD
The city is currently in the process of opportunities will be stalled.
expanding this requirement to all future
CRA projects. A serious barrier to implementing TOD in
Southern California, in particular in San
This affordable housing contribution Diego County, has been the lack of
requirement has both positive and infrastructure capable of supporting
negative implications for TOD projects. compact development in many urban
On the positive side, placing residences and older suburban neighborhoods.
in redevelopment areas that would have, Undersized water mainlines, outdated
under normal conditions, been built out storm water runoff facilities, and an
with high-revenue, high-profit uses such overall aging physical plan can limit how
as office and retail space ensures that much infill and mixed-use development
TODs are more balanced in character. gets built. Proposition 13, passed in 1978,
The better jobs-housing balance a placed a ceiling on property-tax increases,
development provides, the less residents limiting the amount of funding available
will travel outside their neighborhood to for public infrastructure in California.
shop and commute. Furthermore, TODs The city of San Diego faces an estimated
with permanent residents instill a sense $2.5-billion public facilities shortfall by
of security by supplying an area with 2020. Since TODs offer the potential for
24-hour “eyes on the street.” Finally, more efficient use of transportation and
on-site residents provide commercial other public infrastructure, San Diego’s
entities with potential customers City of Villages Plan calls upon stepped-
throughout the week, whereas up TOD to help reduce the public
employment centers provide potential facilities shortfall.
customers just 5 days per week for
only 9 hours in a day. A California Assembly bill—AB 531—
aims to ease this infrastructure shortfall
Nevertheless, the MTA’s joint pressure (see Text Box 19.2). The
development staff contends that the ambitious bill, sponsored by several
affordable-housing requirements placed members of the Southern California
on the CRA have limited their ability to Assembly, calls for a $10-billion
facilitate deals—in particular, at two “Community Infrastructure and
potential TOD sites: Hollywood/Vine Economic Development Bond,” in part
and Vermont/Western. Developers to serve the needs of communities near
initially approached the CRA because transit stations and to accommodate
the land consolidation costs were too high-density development.14
high. But due to the affordable-housing
requirements of CRA projects, the TOD Cases
projects did not financially pencil out.
The MTA’s hands were tied as well. San Diego Region
Since the public looks askance at the
MTA using its funds to subsidize Over the past two decades, TOD has
development, the agency is reluctant to prospered in the San Diego region. The
write-down land costs for developers. first wave of TOD occurred in the late
423

Place, Barrio Logan, and an adult

CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY BILL 531
education center in National City.
This bill would enact the Community Since 2000 and because of the region’s
Infrastructure and Economic Development economic downturn, only two
Bond Act of 2004, which, if adopted, would reasonably large-scale TOD projects
authorize the issuance, for the purposes of have been completed so far—Paseo
financing local infrastructure and Condominiums and City Heights Urban
economic development projects, of bonds in Village. Of the 15 TOD cases listed in
the amount of $10,000,000,000 pursuant to the Table 19.1, most are located in the cities
State General Obligation Bond Law. Most of San Diego (8 cases) and La Mesa
relevant to TOD is the following:
(5 cases). Two-thirds are located in
➢ Establishing a sufficient source of state suburban settings, and two are situated
financing that will be made available to local in downtown San Diego. Seven TODs
governments through grants and low-interest were built on former industrial sites and
loans through the California Infrastructure and four on vacant land. Joint development
Economic Development Bank over a 10-year of some kind (i.e., development on
period will create both public and private
MTDB-owned land) occurred in 60%
incentives to invest in local infrastructure.
State funds will leverage local financing of the TOD cases. Most (13 of 15)
sources and assist communities to repair and of the TODs have occurred around
upgrade key locally identified infrastructure light-rail stations; only two are served
and community development projects, which solely by buses.
will enhance local quality of life and expand
the local economy. Most of the region’s early TODs were
➢ The bank shall give a significant priority to
concentrated in the city of La Mesa, a
infrastructure projects incorporating one or city that has looked on TOD as a tool to
more of the following: an infrastructure project help develop vacant and under-developed
that will expand a community’s ability to downtown parcels and, in so doing,
accommodate increased residential densities; expand its tax base. With the extension
and an infrastructure project that will increase of the Blue Line through Mission Valley,
residential and commercial uses within the
TOD projects began to sprout in many of
vicinity of a rail station or a permanent transit
stop served by local public ground the new station areas over the past 5 to
transportation. 10 years.
Text Box 19.2 Previous studies have documented many

of these earlier projects in considerable
1980s and early 1990s. Nine projects detail.16 Two of the region’s more recent
were completed during this period (see TODs, which offer useful policy
Table 19.1 and Map 19.3). A second insights, are reviewed below.
wave of TOD activities occurred over
the period of economic boom from 1995 Hazard Center
to 2000 and in the wake of the opening
of the Mission Valley line. Between Some 40 years ago, the Hazard family
1995 and 2000, TOD activities were still amassed a considerable amount of land
going strong. Five notable projects were in the city of San Diego’s Mission
completed during this period: Hazard Valley and successfully lobbied to have
Center, Rio Vista West, Fenton Market highways along the riverbed. When the
424

Table 19.1. Transit-Oriented-Development Projects in San Diego County15
Year Transit Services / Prior Joint
Project Project Description Location Funding
Completed Ridership Land Use Development
1. MTS / James 2.5 Ac; 180,000 sq. ft. office (10-story 1988 2 LRTs (Blue & Orange); 7 Downtown MTDB & San Diego County Industrial Public project
R. Miller joint development) buses; 20,000 daily on / off (San Diego) jointly funded through tax-
Building exempt lease revenue bonds
2. Villages of La 20 Ac; 2- or 3-story, 384 apartments 1989 1 LRT (Orange) Suburban Mostly private; transit agency; Vacant land Station
Mesa (La Mesa) exchanged land for better incorporated
location; redevelopment agency;
city; TIF
3. Navy Housing 38.5 Ac; 244 low & moderate-income 1989 1 LRT (Orange); 4 buses Suburban Private Vacant land No
Gilmore Terrace dwelling units (DUs). (La Mesa)

4. Creekside 4 Ac; 141 apartments; daycare center 1989 1 LRT (Orange); 1 bus Suburban Private Vacant land MTDB land
Villas (San Diego)
5. Uptown 14 Ac; 320 DUs; 140,000 sq. ft. 1990 6 buses Urban Private; city: $9 million "Big-box" City-owned
District retail/commercial; 3,000 sq. ft. (San Diego) retail center site
community center
6. America Plaza 34-story, 555,000 sq. ft. office; 17,000 sq. 1991 2 LRTs (Blue & Orange); Downtown Private: $3.78 million; MTDB: Retail Station
ft. retail; 272-room hotel; 10,000 sq. ft Coaster & Amtrak; 20 buses; (San Diego) $1.2 million; city; redevelopment incorporated
museum 9,650 daily on / off agency (CCDC)
7. La Mesa 5.6 Ac; 95 condos; 29,000 sq. ft. retail; 1991 1 LRT (Orange); 3 buses Suburban Private; city; redevelopment Non-industrial Station
Village Plaza 65,000 sq. ft. commercial (La Mesa) agency; transit agency; TIF incorporated
8. Grossmont 8.8 Ac; 113,278 sq. ft. retail 1991 (JD); TOD 1 LRT (Orange); 7 buses Suburban Private; MTDB (transit center) Vacant land 600-car shared
Trolley Center (planning) (La Mesa) parking
9. Barrio Logan / 4 Ac; 144 apartments; 100,000 sq. ft. 1992;1996-97 1 LRT (Orange) Urban $12.3 million from public and Industrial No
Mercado commercial / retail private sources, 6 equality
partners involved
10. Hazard 41 Ac; 120 condos; 136,000 sq. ft. retail; 1995 1 LRT (Blue) Suburban Private Industrial No
Center 300,000 sq. ft. office; 300-room hotel (San Diego)
11. Rio Vista 94 Ac; 300+ apartments; 240 condos; 970 1996-97; 1999; 1 LRT (Blue) Suburban Private Industrial No
West DUs; 37,000 sq. ft. retail; K-Mart 2003 (San Diego) (Sand/gravel
operation)
12. National 2,000 sq. ft. commercial; 24,000 sq. ft. 1997 1 LRT (Blue); 2 buses Suburban MTDB as landowner; Industrial Equity
City Adult with 20 classrooms and administrative (National City) redevelopment agency; school partnership,
Education offices district 55-year,
Center $1/year ground
lease
13. Fenton 725 DUs; 525,000 sq. ft. commercial / 1999-2000; 1 LRT (Blue) Suburban Private Industrial No
Market Place retail; Branch library portions (San Diego)
permitted
14. Paseo 0.5 Ac; 18 condominiums (2-story 2003 1 LRT (Orange); 3 buses Suburban Private Industrial / No
Condominiums townhouses over live/work space); 1 (La Mesa) warehouse
office/retail
15. City Heights 37.6 Ac; 9 city blocks; 116 townhomes; Completed / 3 buses Urban City; redevelopment agency; Mixed No
Urban Village 6-story, 127,000 sq. ft. office; 111,000 sq. under (San Diego) private residential
ft retail; city facilities; construction retail
Ac=acre; JD=joint development (on transit-agency land); MTDB=Metropolitan Transit Development Board; CCDC=Central City Development Corporation; TIF=Tax Increment Financing
13. Fenton Market Place
11. Rio Vista West

8. Grossmont Trolley Ctr.
10. Hazard Ctr.

7. La Mesa Village Plaza
14. Paseo Condominiums
2. Village of La Mesa
15. City Heights
3. Navy Housing Gilmore
12. National City Adult Edu. Ctr.
9. Barrio Logan / Mercado 4. Greekside Villas
6. America Plaza
5. Uptown
1. MTS / James R. Miller
Map 19.3. Transit-Oriented Development Projects in San Diego County, 2003.
426

Blue Line extension to Mission Valley station. Lying immediately to the south
was announced, the family seized the are 120 condominiums (see Photo 19.4).
opportunity and began proposing several Wide sidewalks, street trees, street
large-scale, mixed-use, master-planned furniture, and zebra-crosswalks help
projects for parcels strategically sited make Hazard Center a very pedestrian-
near planned rail stops. Most recently, friendly environment. The high-density,
the Hazard family built a 136,000- mixed land uses and pedestrian-friendly
square-foot shopping center across from environment make Hazard Center a
the Blue Line’s Hazard Center Station prototype of TOD. The community is
(see Photos 19.2 and 19.3).17 The retail self-contained to a certain degree—
facility features a supermarket, clothing people can live, work, and shop locally.
stores, popular restaurants like Prego’s Workers can also commute via the Blue
and Trophy’s,18 and a seven-screen Line from and to this site, improving the
cinema. Recently, a 300-room hotel and efficiency of the Blue Line by bringing
a 300,000-square-foot office building bi-directional transit riders. (See Text
were added to Hazard Center. All of the Box 19.3 for a discussion of Hazard
non-residential land uses are north of the Center and three other Blue Line TODs
that make up the “Mission Valley TOD
Corridor.”)
Hazard Center is a largely market-driven

TOD. Relatively little government
assistance was needed to build the
project. While the city of San Diego’s
TOD-friendly zoning and parking codes
were used to the developer’s advantage,
no major financial commitments were
needed from the city. The combination
Photo 19.2. Hazard Center’s of worsening traffic congestion, shifting
Shopping Center and 300-Room Hotel. demographics, and a receptive policy
(Northwest of the Hazard Center Station) environment made choice parcels, like
Photo 19.3. Hazard Center’s

Shopping Center and 300,000-Square- Photo 19.4. Hazard Center’s
Foot Office Building. (Northeast of the 120 Condominiums. (South side of the
Hazard Center Station) Hazard Center Station)
427

Mission Valley Center
10. Hazard Center
13. Fenton Market Place
11. Rio Vista West
“Mission Valley TOD Corridor”—San Diego Blue Line

Two TODs (Hazard Center and Fenton Market Place) plus a “para-TOD” together with the Mission
Valley Center’s shopping mall along the Mission Valley segment of San Diego’s Blue Line constitute
a “TOD corridor.” The clustering of these four master-planned projects at four consecutive stations
provides great inter-station access via the convenient Trolley service. In the long run, the good inter-
station access of TOD projects may increase ridership (including the all-important bi-directional flows),
bring more business to stores, instill greater security through “eyes on the street,” and stimulate more
development around transit stations.
Mission Valley Center is a combination of automobile-oriented development and TOD. Although it

has large parking lots in front of stores, the Blue Line station is located right behind the stores (see
photo above), which allows shoppers to easily access the shops via the Trolley service. The
supermarket in Hazard Center not only serves residents living in the surrounding station area, but also
customers from other stations. The photo above shows that customers can bring their groceries with
shopping carts into the Trolley station after shopping and leave them right at the station.
Similarly, Rio Vista West is a para-TOD. While the original project, designed by Peter Calthorpe, had
the densities and limited parking of a more traditional TOD, market realities prompted the developer
to revise the original plan to accommodate several large floorplate retail projects. Rio Vista is today
seen as a setting where transit users, pedestrians, and motorists coexist in reasonable harmony, and
where the project’s cost pro forma pencil out.
Text Box 19.3

the Hazard Center site, a “natural” for The City Heights Urban Village contains
spawning San Diego’s newest generation 116 townhomes, several schools, a
of TODs. six-story, 127,000-square-foot office
building, 111,000 square feet of retail,
City Heights Urban Village a theater, civic facilities (such as a park
and soccer fields), and a recreation
Before it was ripe for urban center. Recently, more townhomes
redevelopment, City Heights (see Map and office space were added (see
19.3) suffered from years of decline and Photo 19.5).21
high crime, blemishing San Diego’s
reputation as a vacation and convention In contrast to Hazard Center, proactive
destination.19 While no rail lines serve measures were needed from the public
the neighborhood, good-quality bus sector to make the City Heights project
services are being considered to help happen. The planning and policy tools
jump-start an in-city TOD. used to leverage this project include site
assembly, fee reductions, permitting
To revitalize City Heights, a assistance, off-site infrastructure
redevelopment project containing three improvements, and low-cost financing
subprojects was built, one of which is the incentives. For example, the nonprofit
City Heights Urban Village. The Urban organization, Price Charities, provides
Village was made possible through the $25,000 second mortgages to those who
cooperation of several public agencies purchase homes in City Heights. It also
(e.g., the City Manager’s Office, San reduces a portion of their mortgage or
Diego’s Redevelopment Agency, the rent payment by providing community
Metropolitan Transit District, and two services.22
school districts), a private enterprise
(CityLink Investment Corporation, Los Angeles Region
the master developer of City Heights
Urban Village), and Price Charities, a Joint development on transit-agency land
nonprofit organization. The project is the most common form of TOD in
aims to bring mixed land uses, affordable greater Los Angeles primarily because of
housing, and high-quality transportation the limited amount of land available
to the area. around transit stations. However, classical
The City Heights project occupies

nine blocks (37.6 acres) bounded
by University Avenue, 45th Street,
Landis Street, and 43rd Street. The
project differs from most TOD projects,
which are mostly located by light-rail
stations, in being served only by
three bus lines.20 Together, the three
lines serve significant portions of the
city, providing good accessibility to
downtown San Diego and burgeoning Photo 19.5. City Heights Office and
job centers to the north. Townhomes, San Diego, California.
429

TOD components—such as mixed land troubled neighborhoods, the Gold Line

uses and pedestrian-friendly designs— runs through neighborhoods where the
have been embedded in most joint market is ripe for development, and
development projects. Los Angeles’s developer interest remains strong.
experiences underscore the importance of Several joint development/TOD projects
targeting joint development projects in have been proposed or are under
areas with strong local real-estate construction along the Gold Line
fundamentals. (e.g., Del Mar and Avenue 57).
Map 19.4 shows the TOD and joint Hollywood/Western

development activities along the rail
lines in Los Angeles County, where joint The Hollywood/Western project lies
development denotes building activities along the Metro Red Line. It is a two-
occurring on Los Angeles County phase project with affordable housing and
MTA’s property or air rights. Most retail space. The first phase—composed
projects are located along the Metro Red of 60 two-story affordable units that
Line, where the market pressures are enjoy a direct connection to the Metro rail
strong. Joint development or TOD station on the site—was opened in late
projects have been completed or are in 2000 (see Photo 19.6). The second phase
active negotiations at 10 of 16 stations.23 is composed of 70 affordable-housing
Twelve projects are in various planning units, in three- to four-story wood frame
phases (e.g., Hollywood/Vine, construction; 10,000 square feet of
Wilshire/Vermont). (See Table 19.2.) neighborhood-serving retail space; and a
child-care center. It also has a direct link
Along the Blue Line, joint development/ to the Metro Red station. Redevelopment
TOD activities have slowed ever since funds, including TIF, were relied on
the completion of the Pacific Court TOD heavily to make this project a financial
at Transit Mall Station. Fairly poor reality.
market performance of the
redevelopment-assessed projects, Joint Development and BRT—
combined with the region’s economic Los Angeles
downturn, have tempered developer
interest in mixed-use projects along the Los Angeles’s Metro Rapid, one of the
Blue Line corridor. The ground-floor United States’ first BRT services, might
retail components of these projects in have been expected to attract TOD
particular have suffered, evidenced by because of the enhancement of surface
the many vacant storefronts. bus services. To date, however, little
development has been drawn to the
While joint development/TOD projects BRT corridor, although this could
near Los Angeles light-rail transit may change over time as the system matures
be waning near the Blue and Green and expands.
Lines, this may not be the case for the
recently opened Gold Line to Pasadena BRT represents a hybrid of rail transit
(see Text Box 19.4). In contrast to the service and bus service, sometimes called
Blue and Green Lines, which run rubber-tired rail transit. The general BRT
through large swaths of economically components include frequent service,
430

Map 19.4. Joint Development and Transit-Oriented Development Projects in

Los Angeles County.
431

Table 19.2. Joint Development Projects in Los Angeles County

Year
Project Project Description Station Location Location
Completed
1. Union Station • 12.3-Ac. Transit Ctr.; MTA 1995 Metro Red & Downtown
Gateway headquarters; 2 million sq. ft. of upcoming Metro (City of Los Angeles)
future office and retail Gold
• Cost sharing, land lease, concession
2. 7th and • 3 incorporated entrance portals into 1993 Metro Red & Blue Urban
Flower office tower (City of Los Angeles)
• Land lease
3. Hollywood / • 1st phase: 60 affordable-housing 2000; under Metro Red Suburban
Western units; 2nd phase: 70 affordable- construction (City of Los Angeles)
housing units; 10,000 sq. ft. of retail;
child-care ctr.
• Land lease
4. Hollywood / • 640,000 sq. ft.; 75 shops and 2001 Metro Red Urban
Highland restaurants, Kodak Theater, Chinese (City of Los Angeles)
Theater, and a hotel are integrated
with the MTA-owned properties
• Land lease
5. Willow Street • 528,000 sq. ft. mixed use with 2002 Metro Blue Suburban
132,000 sq. ft. of retail, 700-car (City of Long Beach)
transit parking structure
• Land lease; developer funded the
MTA parking facility; which is
amortized annually by the rent credit
bus signal priority, simple route layouts, The absence of TOD so far is likely due
less frequent stops than typical bus to several factors. One, while BRT is
service, and level boarding and alighting. generally more effective at attracting
BRT components generally improve riders than local bus services, BRT
services in terms of travel time, wait ridership is still relatively low compared
time, reliability, and comfort. In the with rail transit (i.e., 15,000 versus
case of Los Angeles’s Metro Rapid, 110,000 passengers per day, on average).
ridership jumped by 27% along the Thus, BRT stops are not as attractive to
BRT-served corridor within 1 year developers since they do not provide the
of its 2000 opening. Given such same passenger throughput as rail transit
performance, it seems reasonable to stations. Second, BRT lines, almost by
assume that BRT carries the potential definition, do not require the same high
to stimulate TOD. levels of capital investment as rail transit
facilities do. Most Los Angeles BRT
Currently there are four BRT routes in lines are little more than local bus lines
the Los Angeles Basin (see Map 19.5). with fewer stops, aided by signal
The east-west Metro Rapid routes, prioritization. The lack of major capital
Whittier/Wilshire and Ventura, opened investments for these “barebones” BRT
in 2000; the north-south Vermont and projects makes them less attractive to
South Broadway routes began service in developers.24 Lacking passenger loading
late 2002. Nevertheless, except for platforms and dedicated busways or bus
intermodal stations with the Metro Red lanes, these lines have few amenities
Line, no TOD projects have broken that provide long-term insurance of
ground or are in the planning stages. permanent investment to investors or
432

Pasadena’s Transit-Oriented Redevelopment
Pasadena’s Del Mar Station with Joint Development Project Under Construction
While other cities struggle over how to get the TOD ball rolling, Pasadena is one of
those rare and intriguing examples of a place where TOD and joint development
projects just seem to happen on their own. And Pasadena has only just recently
begun to receive rail service from the just completed Gold LRT Line. Pasadena’s
successes over the past 10 years have come about in large part through a
combination of excellent planning and a favorable local real-estate market.
Excellence in planning has taken the form of an inclusive and participatory public
planning process that has developed a general plan and a series of specific plans
that have laid the foundation for TOD. While the local real-estate market might
seem to be out of the control of local policymakers, it has, nonetheless, been
nurtured and enhanced by a commitment to preserving historic structures that help
to create a sense of place in the city. With the introduction of Gold Line service,
Pasadena has capitalized on the development potential around the system’s new
stations to encourage mixed-use development that fits the character and needs of
the city.
Pasadena’s market has not always been favorably disposed to TOD. During the
1960s and 1970s, the city was in decline, and its downtown was particularly hard
hit. Like many cities, Pasadena formed a redevelopment agency and gave it wide
latitude to “remake” the downtown along the lines of suburban shopping malls—
large subsidized commercial projects with ample parking. Eminent Domain and
TIF were used by the redevelopment agency for several projects, including a large
downtown mall called the Plaza Pasadena. According to Mayor Bogaard,the
current mayor, the public reaction to this project was one of revulsion. This project,
in particular, galvanized citizen opposition to the redevelopment agency and led to
its dissolution in 1981. What took its place was a new agency that is directly
controlled by the city and its commissions; one that does not use eminent domain
or TIF tools. Instead, the city focuses on protecting the historic buildings and
Text Box 19.4

Pasadena’s Transit-Oriented Redevelopment

engaging the public in a planning process that sets the stage for responsible infill
development. Opposition to the old redevelopment agency also gave impetus to
the development of a new city general plan that was in many ways a model of
citizen participation. This general plan set the stage for the infill and TOD
development that followed in the 1990s and continues apace today. From this
process, three community goals were codified in the 1994 general plan: (1)
protect existing single-family neighborhoods, (2) make Pasadena pedestrian
friendly, and (3) get more residential development in commercial areas of the city.
With this mandate for building pedestrian- and transit-friendly infill projects
downtown, Pasadena was able to add roughly 1,000 new dwelling units in the
1990s in a city that many would consider to be already built out. Mayor Bogaard
expects that around 4,000 will be added by 2010, 95% of which should be multiple
dwelling units in commercial settings. According to the mayor, the Gold Line will
serve as a spine for targeting future housing and mixed-use development in the
city.
developers. Finally, there is a lack of joint development staff is currently

vacant, developable land around most pursuing possibilities for a retail joint
of the bus stops of the Ventura and development project next to the planned
Whittier/Wilshire Metro Rapid BRT Sepulveda Boulevard Metro Rapid
routes. In fact, these routes were Station, where the MTA owns 15 acres.
originally selected to connect already A nearby retail mall is scheduled to be
existing high-density areas so as to upgraded, and a number of retail
support transit ridership. establishments are under construction.
The MTA has been approached by
Things could be much different. The
shortcomings cited in the previous
paragraph are particularly prevalent
along the San Fernando Valley line. This
line is an exclusive busway that will run
for 14 miles, served by 13 stops between
the North Hollywood Red Line station
and the Warner Center (a massive
employment and retail center in
Woodland Hills). The BRT line is
projected to cost $300 million when
it is complete in 2005. These substantial
capital investments, coupled with the Photo 19.6. Affordable Housing with
significant travel time savings conferred Entrance to the Metro Red Line
by this project, may help spark TOD Incorporated into the Site, Hollywood/
activities in coming years. The MTA Western Station.
434

Map 19.5. Four Metro Rapid Lines in Los Angeles.
several nearby property owners who used in the San Diego region. In contrast
have expressed interest in building retail to the national survey findings, the most
facilities on MTA properties. effective tool, expedited entitlement
review, was also the most frequently
San Diego’s TOD Tools used tool in San Diego (63% of TOD
projects). The second most frequently
Because of the healthy level of TOD used tool—applied at half of the
activities in the San Diego region over surveyed TOD projects—was relaxed
the past few decades, there is an parking standards; however, according
established track record regarding to the national survey of local planners
which tools have been most effective in involved with TOD, this tool was not
leveraging development around transit. perceived as very effective. Zoning
Public agency liaisons and managers for incentives/density bonuses were
each of San Diego’s TOD projects were used at about one-third of San Diego’s
asked to list the tools used for each TODs. Other frequently used tools that
project. Responses were compiled and were also highly rated include capital
compared to the effectiveness ranking funding, assistance with land assembly,
of TOD tools from the nationwide survey and TIF.
reported in Chapter 4 (based on responses
from local government officials). Impacts of TOD
Figure 19.2 shows the nationwide ratings To date, little concerted effort has been
of TOD tools (black boxes) and how made to measure the impacts of TOD in
frequently (white bars) each tool was Southern California. This section reports
435

Percentage of TODs Using Tools in San Diego County Mean Effectiveness Rating (Nationwide LPO)
Percentage of TOD Projects
100% 6.0 7
Mean Effectiveness Rating

90% 5.4 5.4 5.4
5.1 6
80% 4.6 4.6 4.8 4.8
4.5
(1:Low; 7: High)
70% 5
3.7 3.8 3.8
60% 4
50%
40% 3
30% 2
20%
1
10%
0% 0
ts
ng
ng
ng
g
n
w
g
s
s
nd
ds
in
rd
ai
se
in
os
ie
bl
ci
si
di
ar
La
nd
om
nc
da
ev
nu
m
C
an
ou
un
nd
u
na
se
an
tR
of
nd
tD
Bo
in
H
lF
a
As
tF
St
n
F
St
La
g
en
e
en
ita
ty
tio
in
em Rat
nd
en
g
m
S
nd
si
in
ap
nn
of
si
in
en
Bo
le
em
m
t-
ui
La
rk
C
la
g
L
tit
e
fE
cq
/D
in
Pa
P
k
pt
or
cr
En
ith
rit
ar
tA
o
In
es
y
w
ed
-M
w
se
d
nc
ke
er
x
te
iv
Ex
ce
ax
Ta
U
rre
nd
ar
nt
di
lo
an
x-
el
pe
ce
M
U
Be
cu
Ta
R
st
In
Ex
n
or
on
si
pe
ng
As
n
C
io
ni
m
at
Zo
fro
on
D
n
io
us
cl
Ex
TOD Tools
Figure 19.2. Mean Rating of Tool’s Effectiveness for Promoting TOD (Nationwide
Local Planning Organizations [LPOs]) Versus Frequency of Tools Adopted in
San Diego.
on San Diego planners’ perceptions of the improving housing choices and

impacts of San Diego’s TOD projects. neighborhood quality. However, they
City staff from San Diego and La Mesa, are not viewed as effective at relieving
with firsthand experience with TOD traffic congestion. While TODs might
projects in their respective communities, reduce regional traffic congestion over
were asked to rate the impacts of TOD on the long run, based on San Diego’s
various outcomes using a 1-to-7 Likert experience, this is countered by
scale. While these results are based on the increased “spot congestion” on roads
responses of just six individuals and on feeding into TODs in the near term.
the experiences drawn from 10 projects,
they are thought to be reflective of TOD’s Monetary Benefits of Joint
general impacts to date in fairly built-up Development in Los Angeles
portions of San Diego County.
The land and concessions leases of the
Figure 19.3 shows the perceived impacts Los Angeles County MTA properties in
of TODs in the San Diego region. joint development deals have brought
TODs in the San Diego region are significant monetary benefits to the
perceived as quite successful “overall,” agency. At Union Station, developers
with a mean rating of 5.6 out of 7. TODs pay $850,000 annually to MTA for
are perceived as most successful at leases of parking and concessions. At
436

San Diego Region City of San Diego City of La Mesa
5.6
Overall 5.1
6.7
Increasing Housing 6.7

Choices 6.7
TOD Outcomes
5.5
Improving 5.1
Neighborhood Quality 6.3
Increasing Political 4.3

4.2
Support For Transit 4.5
Increasing Transit 4.0

4.7
Ridership 2.0
1.3
Relieving Traffic
2.0
Congestion 1.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mean Ratings
(1 = miminal; 4 = moderate; 7 = significant)
Figure 19.3. Local Planners’ Perceptions of TOD Impacts.
Willow Street Station, joint development that draws on land-value increases

brings MTA $515,000 in rent credits produced, in part, by transit’s presence.
annually. Since the developer funded the
MTA parking facility to amortize the Conclusions and Suggestions
loan, the rent credit is discounted to
$51,000 until the loan is paid. Population and employment growth,
traffic congestion, and changing
Benefit assessment has long been used as demographics are expected to increase
a tool to help pay for rail investments in the demand for high-density, mixed-
the city of Los Angeles (see Text Box use projects in Southern California.
19.5). Nine percent of the capital bonds Transit stations are natural habitats to
for the first segment of the Red Line direct these projects to. To date, local
($130 million in total), generated to pay governments and transit agencies in
for capital improvements, were obtained Southern California have been fairly
from property owners near rail stations. proactive in making sure this is the
While technically benefit assessments case, and all signs indicate that this
are not “joint development” because pro-TOD stance will continue in
they involve no voluntary agreements years to come. The policies, plans,
between private developers and public and funding sources to promote TOD
entities, benefit assessments nonetheless in Southern California are particularly
have been a welcome form of financing important since the current supplies
437

MTA’s Benefit-Assessment Program
The ability to conceive, plan, and implement innovative TOD-supportive programs is a

key theme found in public agencies that have been successful at encouraging TOD in
their jurisdictions. Over the past decade, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA) has been a leader in this area with its benefit-
assessment program. In 1985, the MTA’s predecessor—the Southern California Rapid
Transit District—implemented a benefit-assessment program to help fund its rail
construction program. Benefit-assessment funds were used to pay off bonds for station
construction for the first section of the Red Line system in downtown Los Angeles.
While this funding mechanism was not implemented with the intention of encouraging
TOD projects, the program was instrumental in the region’s efforts to win federal rail
construction funds for the first section of the Red Line and has thereby played a
significant role in creating a supportive environment for TOD in the region. However,
according to the current project manager for the MTA, David Sikes, the utility of
benefit-assessment programs is limited. Since 1985, benefit-assessment revenues have
totaled $130 million for the MTA, paying around 9% of total construction costs for the
first segment of the rail line. Mr. Sikes says that the program was much more valuable
as a catalyst to rally support from the local business community for the rail
construction program. During the early and middle 1980s, transit spending by the
federal government was severely restricted. Los Angeles was able to secure funding
from the federal government for the Red Line by showing a high degree of public and
business-community support for the project. The Los Angeles Central City
Association, a business advocacy group, led the fight to build the Red Line and
institute the benefit-assessment plan, and roughly 90% of downtown property owners
favored the benefit-assessment district when it was instituted in 1985. The willingness
of the local business community to tax themselves with the benefit-assessment district
was a critical political asset in the Red Line funding efforts—one that proved to the
federal government and local congressional representatives that investments in the Red
Line would pay off for them politically. In the words of Mr. Sikes, the benefit-
assessment deal “put the project at the front of the funding line.”
Text Box 19.5

MTA’s Benefit Assessment Program

However, when federal funds began to flow again for rail construction projects, the
political imperative for benefit assessment programs disappeared. Based strictly on a
financial analysis, MTA feels that benefit assessment districts do not generate enough
revenues to justify expansion of the program—particularly in less dense areas outside
of downtown Los Angeles, where fewer businesses mean lower revenues. This is
particularly true now that rail systems have been built in downtown and other dense
areas of the city. In these areas, without a well-organized partner like the Central City
Association, MTA found winning the support of local businesses more difficult. In
planning the Blue Line, which runs from downtown Los Angeles to downtown Long
Beach, MTA analyzed the potential revenues from implementing a benefit assessment
system along the proposed route and found that such a district would only be justified
in the dense areas of downtown Long Beach. The city of Long Beach balked at the
idea of having its station areas taxed at a higher rate than other station areas along the
line. With the Green Line, which runs to the Los Angeles International Airport,
analysts found that the airport area was the only financially viable area in which to
institute a benefit assessment district. Unfortunately, at the time, the aircraft industry
was the only major employer in the area, and it did not support the plan. When
planning work began on the recently completed Pasadena Gold Line, MTA analyzed
whether a benefit assessment program would make sense to help fund construction.
MTA found that to generate enough funds to make it worthwhile, the tax burden would
be so onerous for local businesses that it would risk turning the business community
into a political obstacle to the project.
While benefit assessment districts have been useful tools for rallying political and
funding support for the Red Line project, MTA’s experience suggests that their utility
is limited to areas with dense employment or for use as a political rallying point to
encourage transit construction champions.
Metrorail Red Line Stations. MTA officials placed a strong emphasis on art, architecture,
and interior design when conceptualizing the underground Red Line stations. Creating bright
and airy spaces that are comfortable for waiting passengers adds considerable cost to subway
construction, thus benefit assessment funds provide much-valued supplemental income to the
transit agency. Photo credit: E. Haas.

of developable land within city Transportation, Policy, Planning, and Major

boundaries are running out. Projects, Station Area Planning—Transit-
Oriented Development Case Studies, see
http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/
To date, Southern California has been a ppmp_sap_todstudies.htm; M. Boarnet and
leader on the TOD front in many respects. R. Crane, Travel by Design: The Influence of
The city of San Diego helped pioneer Urban Form on Travel (New York: Oxford
TOD zoning. Redevelopment law has University Press, 2001); California
been aggressively used to underwrite land Department of Transportation, Statewide
Transit-Oriented Development Study: Factors
developments in depressed inner-city for Success in California (Sacramento,
station areas. Innovative housing- September, 2002), see http://www.dot.ca.gov/
transportation programs are today hq/MassTrans/doc_pdf/TOD/Divided/
allowing families to purchase homes at TOD%20Study%20Final%20Report%20-
favorable rates, with minimal down %20cover%20and%20TOC.%2002.pdf).
payments, near MetroLink stations. 2 D. Myers and E. Gearin, “Current
Benefit-assessment financing has been Preferences and Future Demand for Denser
introduced in Los Angeles, constituting Residential Environments,” Housing Policy
Debate, Vol. 12, No. 4 (2001) 633–659. See
one of the United States’s few examples http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/
of transit-related value capture. Creative programs/hpd/pdf/HPD_1204_myers.pdf.
financing among multiple parties has 3 Lend Lease Real Estate Investments and
given rise to successful bus-based TODs PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Emerging
like the City Heights Urban Village in Trends in Real Estate 2003 (2002), 38. See
central San Diego. http://www.lendlease.com.au/llweb/llc/
main.nsf/images/pdf_2003emergingtrends.pdf/
Many observers hope that this culture of $file/pdf_2003emergingtrends.pdf.
creative policy making will continue as 4
T. Lomax and D. Schrank, Urban Mobility
the region moves forward with new light- Report (College Station, Texas: Texas
rail extensions like the Gold Line and Transportation Institute, 2000). See
http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/appendix_a/
BRT initiatives. Still, automobile-oriented exhibit_a-19.pdf.
development is firmly entrenched and 5 In September 2002, Governor Gray Davis
will not easily be altered. Nonetheless, a
signed into law a bill that transformed the
confluence of market forces, shifting regional planning body (SANDAG) into a
demographics, and proactive public regional transportation agency, incorporating
policies offers encouraging prospects for the functions of the region’s two major transit
a future wherein more and more Southern entities: MTDB and NCTD.
Californians will have a choice to live, 6
See http://www.sandag.org/programs/
work, and shop in more transit-supportive transportation/comprehensive_transportation
environments. _projects/2030rtp/2030_final_rtp.pdf.
7
Ibid.
8 City of San Diego, Final Draft Strategic
Notes Framework Element—City of San Diego
General Plan (June 2002). See http://
1 M. Bernick and R. Cervero, Transit Villages in www.sandag.org/uploads/publicationid/
the 21st Century (San Francisco: McGraw- publicationid_834_1725.pdf.
Hill, 1997); N. Bragado, “Transit Joint 9 Ibid.
Development in San Diego: Policies and
10
Practices,” Transportation Research Record J. Faucett, “Appendix B,” Livable
1669 (1999), 22–29; Seattle Department of Communities Handbook: Land Use
440

and Design Strategies for the South Bay 18 See http://www.tripadvisor.com/

Cities (July 2000). See http://www. Attraction_Review-g60750-d156306-
southbaycities.org/Committees/Livable/ Reviews-Hazard_Center-San_Diego_
appb.pdf. California.html.
19
11 The identified livable communities See http://www.sdccd.net/public/events/
principles are local-serving activity centers, we/Online/Spring2001/sp01WE-5.html.
complementary mix of uses, reduced 20 Martinez + Cutri Corporation, “Urban Design
automobile dependency, multiple Project—City Heights Urban Village”
transportation modes, pedestrian friendly, (San Diego: 2001). See http://www.
adaptive reuse and infill development, public mc-architects.com/port_detail.asp?
places, and human-scaled places. See ProjCategory=urban.
http://www.scag.ca.gov/livable/lctoolbox.htm.
21 See http://www.sannet.gov/redevelopment-
12 Los Angeles County MTA, “Joint agency/majorproj.shtml.
Development Policies and Procedures”
22
(May 2002). See http://www.mta.net/ See http://www.pricecharities.com/
trans_planning/CPD/joint_development/ CHI_overview.shtml.
images/policies_procedures.pdf. 23 See http://www.mta.net/trans_planning/
13 CPD/joint_development/images/
See http://www.americancityvista.com/
program_update.pdf.
articles/News_and_Press_Releases/
Press_Releases/PR070901.htm 24 Los Angeles County MTA is scheduled
14
to open a 14.4-mile BRT line in 2005:
See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/
the San Fernando Valley Metro Rapid
ab_0501-0550/ab_531_bill_20030218_
Transitway. This BRT service will operate
introduced.pdf.
on a dedicated lane between Chandler and
15 Sources include the following: interviews with Burbank, using the former Southern
Miriam Kirshner of MTDB, N. Bragado of the Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
city of San Diego, and R. Hurst and R. Keightley
of the city of La Mesa; Metropolitan Transit Photo Credits
Development Board, “Transit-Oriented
Development in San Diego” (May 2001); 19.1 Y. Tsai
Seattle Department of Transportation, op. cit.; 19.2 Y. Tsai
M. Bernick and R. Cervero, 1997, op. cit.; 19.3 Y. Tsai
California Department of Transportation, op. 19.4 Y. Tsai
cit; Bragado, 1999, op. cit.; and Boarnet and 19.5 See http://www.mc-
Crane, 2001, op. cit. architects.com/ConstructionPhotos.asp?ID=12
16 Ibid. 19.6 Los Angeles County MTA
Metrorail Red Line
17 See http://www.sandiego-online.com/issues/
september95/mv.shtml.
441

PART 5
LESSONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Combining insights and findings from the previous chapters, Chapter 20 summarizes the
key policy lessons from the research. A matrix is also provided that identifies case studies
that underscore each of the lessons. The concluding chapter reflects on the broader policy
implications of the research and offers suggestions for future research on TODs.

Chapter 20
Research Findings and Policy Lessons
Current TOD Practices Ballston. Several large-scale joint

development projects slated for
TOD has gained and continues to gain construction, notably at the White Flint
a steady foothold in much of urban and New Carrollton Metrorail stations, are
America. Surveys conducted for this expected to become the nation’s largest
research revealed that well over and, from the transit agency’s perspective,
100 TODs of various shapes and sizes most financially remunerative joint
currently exist across the United States. development undertakings.
Most are in large rail-served cities. For
bus-only places with a population under Among large rail-served cities, one
a half million, TOD is more of a concept noteworthy trend is the conversion of
than a reality. While TODs are generally park-and-ride lots to mixed-use, infill
nodal in nature, some settings, like development. Almost 20% of the
Los Angeles, Arlington County, and surveyed transit properties indicated that
Minneapolis, are pursuing TOD on a parking lots are in the process of being
corridor or district scale or even as part transformed into TODs, in many cases
of a regional strategy as in Portland. consisting of moderately dense housing.
Parking-lot conversions have been
In the United States, transit joint encouraged by the Federal Transit
development, viewed in this study as Administration’s new and more
project-scale TOD on a transit agency’s permissive joint development rulings, as
(or other public entity’s) property, is well as the rising value of agency-owned
almost totally limited to rail transit land. One-to-one replacement parking
systems. More than 110 joint policies, however, continue to limit
development projects, ranging from air- parking-lot infill initiatives to urban
rights developments to station connection settings where rents and land prices are
fees, currently exist. The most common sufficiently high to cover the cost of
form of transit joint development is multi-level garages, which can run as
ground leases of agency land for high as $30,000 per space.
commercial office development, followed
by air-rights leases, operations and From a public-sector perspective, finding
construction cost sharing, and station funds to pay for TOD planning and
connection fees. The Washington (D.C.) implementation is often an uphill battle.
Metropolitan Area is, by far, the nation’s Rarely, if ever, are general funds from
leader in transit joint development. The cash-strapped local governments or
region presently has some 30 joint transit agencies available for such
development projects, including such purposes. Federal transportation pass-
notable air-rights developments (and through monies, administered by MPOs,
revenue generators) as Bethesda and are finding their way to TOD planning
445

and support in some areas, such as with densities in the vicinity of stations. In
the Livable Communities Initiatives and some areas of the country, such as
Housing Incentive Program in the San Montgomery County, Maryland, density
Francisco Bay Area. Communities such bonuses are provided in return for
as Sacramento, Seattle, and Portland are developers providing below-market-rate
using federal funding from their New housing. Such inclusionary zoning
Starts grants to pay for strategic TOD enables localities to promote the twin and
planning. Besides intergovernmental often reinforcing objectives of increased
transfers, individual investor funds and ridership and affordable-housing
grants from private foundations have production. Through its Blueprint Denver
been used most frequently for TOD plan, the city of Denver has created a
planning and implementation. new transit mixed-use zoning category
(TMU-30) that allows FARs of 5 to 1.
America’s best TOD examples start with Since density-induced ridership gains
a vision and proceed to plan execution reduce the need for parking, the city also
through aggressive and inclusive station- slashed parking mandates for properties
area planning, backed by supportive near light-rail stops by 25%. Studies, as
zoning, infrastructure enhancements, and well as market performance, show that
fiscal policies that reward smart-growth urban design treatments like mixing up
investments. Often, zoning overlays are building façades and providing generous
introduced to allow mixed-use projects landscaping and streetscape
to be built, and those projects complying enhancements can soften people’s
with specific station-area plans are perceptions of density, making the
promptly issued necessary permits and mid- to high-rise building profiles that
allowed to build as-of-right. The are often necessary to support intensive
principles at play are fairly simple: transit services more tolerable.
reward “good development” through
measures like streamlining review and TOD’s Multitude of Stakeholders
providing density bonuses and give
developers who comply with the TOD A wide range of views, attitudes, and
visions and plans as much certainty, opinions were expressed by the
clarity, and built-in assurance as stakeholder groups surveyed and
possible. Among the transit agencies interviewed for this study, underscoring
surveyed for this study, nearly half the diverse and at times complex
indicated some kind of regional vision, landscape that shapes the practice of
policy, or plan was in place that TOD and joint development in the United
embraced TOD principles, and 42% States. Each stakeholder group has its
indicated that specific TOD plans and/or own motivations, “agendas,” and
zoning existed within their regions. outlooks, not all of which are consistent
or compatible. Still, the many
Among all of the built-environment commonalities expressed by multiple
factors that influence transit ridership, interests outnumber the differences that
density in and around transit stations is exist. The researchers were struck by the
the most important. More and more large areas of agreement among many
U.S. cities understand this and have stakeholders involved with TOD. These
proceeded to ramp up permissible areas included a belief that transit and
446

land use can and should be better Without question, different political
integrated; a general dissatisfaction with agendas form barriers, big and small, to
automobile-dependent patterns of growth successful TOD and joint development
and the problems they create; a view that implementation. There is a general
public-private partnerships in the transit consensus that, among the antidotes,
arena is inherently a win-win proposition; institutional building and strengthening
and a wide acceptance of the idea that, if within and (more importantly) between
done well, TOD and joint development organizations is essential in overcoming
yield numerous benefits, with ridership barriers. Many stakeholder groups
gains and profits (to both the private and contacted for this research emphasized
public sectors) topping the list. the importance of memorandums of
understanding, intergovernmental
The differences among stakeholder agreements, task-oriented working
groups and institutions that are most groups, and informal as well as formal
evident have to do with contrasting goals partnerships in building institutional
and motivations. Among public entities, bridges. Most stakeholders believe that
transit operators’ goals and the goals of before working with others, governments
all others are different. Transit properties must first get their houses in order,
are primarily drawn to TOD and joint dealing with issues like conflicting
development for financial reasons— goals, “turf” and boundary problems,
mainly to obtain much-needed income competition for shrinking budgets, and
from farebox revenue gains and direct even petty institutional jealousies. The
lease payments. Other public entities see inability of transit agencies and local
the benefits of TOD in broader terms governments to reach an agreement on
(e.g., curbing sprawl, spurring appropriate land uses around rail stops
redevelopment, expanding housing or proper parking standards is one
choices, and creating jobs). Private example of how conflicts can derail
entities are most interested in TOD projects. The insistence of local
profit-taking. It is important to keep in governments on following lengthy
mind that not all interests were entitlement and permitting procedures
represented in this report. Citizen groups and ignoring developers’ and their
and politicians often have their own lenders’ need to get a product into the
agendas, as highlighted by some of the marketplace as quickly as possible, is
case studies in Part 4. The plurality of another. Once more “harmonious”
interests surrounding TOD is not interagency relationships are built,
necessarily a liability and can be public partners can shift their focus to
turned into an asset. On the one hand, reaching out to the larger public:
conflicting interests and an unwillingness neighborhood groups, developer
to resolve differences, if not promptly associations, or environmental groups.
dealt with, can bring TOD projects to a A large number of survey respondents
grinding halt. On the other hand, stressed the importance of outreach,
diversity means stakeholders bring education, and inclusive dialogue in
unique talents, insights, and capabilities getting views and opinions on the table,
to the table, which can make the heading off confrontations, mediating
difference in whether or not a complex disputes, building some degree of
project moves forward. consensus, and moving forward.
447

Besides having differing objectives, initiatives that expedite the review

stakeholder groups sometimes differed process, clarify the “rules of the game,”
in their views on what could best be and minimize uncertainties are of
done to promote TOD. For the public paramount importance in building
entity, the obvious answer is more TODs.
money for planning and construction.
Where this money will come from, Reaching a consensus on how to share
however, was rarely mentioned either in the risks and rewards of TOD remains
open-ended responses or via other the supreme challenge of building
correspondence. For the most part, there effective and enduring public-private
was a general sentiment that providing partnerships. Getting the “math” right is
funding is the responsibility of higher especially challenging in marginal and
levels of government, starting in transitional inner-city neighborhoods.
Washington, D.C. Yet most local entities As long as developers can make good
acknowledge that the benefits of TOD money, with lower risk, building on
accrue mainly to cities and regions. This greenfields in the automobile-friendly
contradiction—the common view that suburbs, and as importantly, as long as
funding should come from higher commercial banks believe this is the
government levels despite the fact that case, a considerable share of the risks
TOD is quintessentially a local affair, for TOD will invariably rest with the
with local beneficiaries—has undoubtedly public sector. Of course, this is less the
impeded the ability of some stakeholders case in buoyant and healthy real-estate
to forge a political consensus on TOD markets and more the case in
funding and support. Nevertheless, languishing urban districts. As long as
flexible funds administered by states and the public sector can equally and fairly
MPOs have become an important source participate in the downstream rewards of
of TOD funding in some parts of the TOD partnerships, government
country, most notably Maryland, Illinois, underwriting of near-term risks can
New Jersey, Oregon, and California. make a lot of sense. In the world of
TOD, this mainly takes place through
Perhaps the most striking difference in redevelopment law, although not all
views on what governments can do to states allow localities to set up
best promote TOD is found between “privileged” districts and employ TIF.
developers and public-sector interests.
Survey respondents from transit Points of Agreement and Disagreement
agencies, local governments, MPOs, and
state DOTs were generally of the mind This section summarizes similarities and
that fiscal strategies mattered most and differences in views and opinions among
that procedural initiatives are fairly stakeholders across topics reviewed in
inconsequential to the development this report, elaborating on some of the
community. As an example, most of points raised above. Emphasis is given
these stakeholders judged the to identifying differences that potentially
streamlining of entitlements and the stand in the way of implementing TOD
permitting process to be of marginal in the United States and might therefore
importance. Yet, for many of the become the focus in conflict resolution
developers that were interviewed, and mediation.
448

TOD as Mixed-Use Development positioned among public actors to bring

TOD to fruition. Transit agencies, many
Stakeholder groups have adopted fairly agree, can most effectively encourage
similar definitions as to what constitutes TOD by mounting and delivering first-rate
a TOD. Most definitions are wrapped rail and bus services. Moreover, transit
around smart-growth principles, which agencies can be effective advocates of
call for mixed-use developments with TOD. Of course, also vital to the bottom-
high-quality walking environments that up planning/implementation process is the
support transit riding. Mixed use, private sector, specifically developers and
however, is a bone of contention. Private lenders. Views on the desirability of
interests plead with TOD planners to public-private partnerships for creating
frame mixed-use development in terms TODs were not always the same. Local
of market realities. Developers and governments generally prefer a joint
lenders alike view vertical mixing as a sharing of risks and rewards through
risky endeavor and prefer that land-use equity partnership arrangements. Most
mixing occur horizontally (i.e., mixing developers would prefer that the public
uses across properties within a transit- sector attend to matters of preparing a
served neighborhood). However, local specific plan for station areas backed by
planners often deal with projects on a supportive zoning and infrastructure.
case-by-case basis through the issuance Some developers stated that public-sector
of building permits, zoning amendments, staff members, however well intentioned,
or environmental impact assessments. lack the business acumen and
There is a tendency to push the mixed- entrepreneurial drive to create successful
use template on each and every project, TODs. Lenders generally concurred with
regardless of market realities or whether this view. Several lenders stated that TOD
a developer has mixed-use experience. partnerships add complexity and blur lines
What might be more effective is a of responsibilities.
monitoring program that tracks
cumulative trends in land-use changes, All sides agree that higher levels of
thereby allowing projects to be staged government, like MPOs, state DOTs, and
and prioritized on the basis of how they federal agencies, should focus on
contribute to mixed-use targets. A providing a supportive financial,
master developer approach to station- legislative, and institutional environment
area development might also allow more that promotes TOD. Local governments,
horizontal mixing while also ensuring redevelopment agencies, and transit
that components are phased in line operators, predictably, call for more
with market trends. planning grants and capital from higher
levels of government to fund TODs.
Perceived Roles Perhaps as predictably, higher levels of
government view their roles in much
There was general agreement among more modest terms, mainly seeing
those interviewed and surveyed that TOD themselves as helping with coordination
is chiefly a “bottom-up” undertaking. and providing outreach and technical
Local governments and, given their often support. Many MPOs view themselves as
stronger purse-string and regulatory clearinghouses and information brokers;
powers, redevelopment agencies, are best although there are a few exceptions
449

(e.g., Portland Metro, SANDAG, and the development have received little national
Met Council in Minneapolis-St. Paul have legislative attention.
proactively supported TOD, including
through the use of purse strings). Some Goals
MPOs have little choice but to take a
fairly passive stance on TOD because of Given the differences in how they
statutory limits. While MPOs often have perceive their roles, it is not surprising
embraced smart-growth principles, few that the goals of stakeholder groups
have sought to prepare regional land-use regarding TOD tend to vary. Transit
plans that orchestrate the evolution of agencies view TOD and joint
TOD across municipal boundaries. For development mainly from a fiscal
most state DOTs, TOD is even further perspective (i.e., how much income it
down the priority list. Four states— can produce, both in terms of lease
California, New Jersey, Oregon, and revenues and higher farebox returns).
Maryland—had passed legislation or Among local entities, views differed
provided funding through state agencies somewhat between municipalities and
explicitly to promote TOD as of 2004. redevelopment agencies. Municipal
The lack of a significant funding planners hold fairly high hopes that
commitment to these programs has TODs can redress many citywide and
reduced their effectiveness in California regional problems like sprawl, traffic
and New Jersey. Maryland’s DOT stands congestion, and affordable-housing
out for its commitment to promoting and shortages. Staff members from
funding TOD planning and construction. redevelopment agencies generally
believe that TOD is most effective at
The federal government is in the best dealing with neighborhood-scale issues
position of all to prod local interests to like enhancing pedestrian environments,
carefully coordinate TOD activities using revitalizing decaying districts, and
incentives and penalties. This might be increasing transit ridership. These
done, for example, by elevating the contrasting views stem, no doubt,
importance of corridor-level, cross- from differences in institutional
jurisdictional planning in assessing responsibilities and geographic points
proposals under FTA’s New Starts of reference between the two groups.
Program. Surveys of transit agencies
suggested, however, that New Starts Private-sector interests tend to align with
criteria have not changed land-use those of transit agencies regarding the
planning practice very much, at most goals of TOD. Many see TOD as a
raising the profile of TOD among potential boon to ridership and
politicians and community groups. Some contributor to congestion relief. Some,
observers feel the federal government however, see TOD as an opportunity to
should explicitly embrace TOD in expand the palette of housing and
national legislation. While past legislation lifestyle choices available to consumers.
like the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act and the Transportation Outreach and Education
Equity Act for the 21st Century spoke to
the need for consistent transportation and Public-sector representatives universally
land-use planning, so far TOD and joint agree that outreach and education—such
450

as marketing, neighborhood meetings, government respondents felt that the

design charrettes, and interactive web kitbag of tools available to redevelopment
sites—are vitally important in advancing agencies was more potent than their own
the cause of TOD. Most large transit policy levers at enticing private capital to
properties and cities that were surveyed station areas.
engage in some level of TOD outreach.
Developers generally like non-
Private-sector interests sometimes had a interventionist, market-based approaches
more cynical view on outreach. Some to promoting TOD such as LEMs,
equated it with red tape. A number of flexible parking standards, and enhanced
developers felt scarce public resources public transit services. Many look
would best go to improving transit favorably upon efforts to expedite the
services, providing supportive public entitlement and building-review process.
infrastructure, and financing station-area On this, local planners and developers
land-use and zoning plans. Enough TOD agree; however, as noted, relatively few
developers have been blindsided by of the surveyed localities fast-track
NIMBY resistance, however, that many building permits for projects near transit
now support a more open and proactive stations. Several other incongruities
approach to public engagement. exist. Density bonuses and overlays are
popular tools in and around transit
Implementation Tools stations, but they generally receive low
marks for their effectiveness. Outside of
To date, the chief tools employed by local a few robust real-estate markets like
governments to promote TOD have been Manhattan, Northern Virginia, and the
station-area planning, the initiation of San Francisco Bay Area, densities under
zoning incentives (e.g., density bonuses), existing zoning codes are widely viewed
and the relaxation of parking standards. as sufficient to support market demand.
Surprisingly, however, these tools were Also, a tool used by the redevelopment
rated as weak to moderate by respondents agencies that were surveyed for this
from transit agencies, local governments, study—relaxed parking standards—
and redevelopment authorities in terms of received the lowest effectiveness rating
their effectiveness in promoting TOD. by most stakeholder groups. Some
Rated most effective by local government observers feel more energy should be
respondents, but used sparingly, are devoted to upgrading the quality of the
streamlining of the development process pedestrian environment and transit
and assistance with land assembly. services than to inhibiting automobile
Transit agencies generally felt that tools access and restricting parking.
that provide direct financial benefits, like
capital funding and tax-exempt bonds, Impediments
were best suited for leveraging TOD.
Among respondents from redevelopment All of those surveyed were asked to
agencies, tools that are commonly used identify factors that stood as
by their organizations such as TIF, impediments to TOD. Transit agencies
assistance with land assembly, and tax- rated automobile-dependent sprawl at
exempt bond financing received the the top of the list, followed by three
highest effectiveness ratings. Even local “lacks”: lack of local expertise, lack of
451

market demand, and (related to both) fiscal pressures and the political
lack of developer interest. Local philosophies of transit board members
government respondents felt similarly, have sometimes created a culture within
but they disagreed about the lack of local transit agencies and regional planning
expertise. In addition to questionable entities that approaches land
market demand, local planners felt that development in general and TOD,
community opposition stood in the way more specifically, with caution
of TOD. Despite the controversy and even skepticism.
surrounding park-and-ride facilities,
relatively few transit agencies or local Private-Sector Views and Opinions
planners felt that they had much impact
on the ability to form successful TODs. It deserves to be mentioned once more
that the views and opinions of the
Local governments wrestle with the private sector did not always align with
traffic problems associated with any new those of the public sector. Given that
development that substantially increases TODs are principally the outcomes of
densities, including TODs. If traffic many parcel-level private investment
conditions deteriorate quickly, the TOD decisions, finding ways to bridge
concept can quickly become tainted. differences is vital to future TOD
Local elected officials, accountable to implementation in the United States.
their constituents, do not always have
the patience to wait until the longer-term Many developers view transit positively,
benefits of TOD reveal themselves. but rarely, if ever, consider it a decisive
Some local planners distinguish between factor in the decision to move ahead
“good” and “bad” traffic congestion with projects. The ability to attract
(as with “good” and “bad” cholesterol). equity finance (e.g., pension funds and
Added traffic, they reason, is a by- REIT investments) is governed by
product of an active, rejuvenated fundamentals, not a project’s status as a
community. This logic does not always TOD. Also, lenders do not fund concepts
resonate with those who must devote like TOD. They might fund developers
more time each day to driving in and out with proven track records, but they never
of their neighborhood because of mid- fund a planning principle. One lender
rise development around rail stops. suggested dropping the TOD label
altogether and casting this genre as
In many parts of the country, authorizing mixed-use projects that have the added
legislation restricts how far transit bonus of being near a transit stop. What
agencies can go in pursuing TOD. In matters is the combination of mixed use
some instances, statutory law outright and accessible transit, not the notion of
prohibits transit agencies from engaging government-planned TOD.
in any form of real-estate transaction that
is not directly related to the acquisition Among the actions that local
of properties for facility construction. governments could take to spur private
Similarly, regional planning organizations investment around transit stops, the
typically have little or no control over presence of supportive land-use
local land-use and zoning decisions. designations was rated the highest
Such regulatory constraints coupled with among developers. Once zoning is set,
452

developers want the ability to build as- Lenders also hold the views and
of-right, providing a buffer against opinions of real-estate appraisers in high
changing political whims. Many regard when making lending decisions.
developers also feel that public For the most part, appraisers weigh the
infrastructure, such as under-grounding standard features of comparables like
of utilities and expansion of sewerage building square footage and on-site
capacity, is also crucial in leveraging amenities in arriving at an estimated
TOD. Some developers go a step further property value. Few think about or
and suggest public financing of seriously consider benefits that might be
structured parking as an essential piece associated with proximity to transit.
of TOD infrastructure. Another common Getting appraisers to consider transit’s
plea was to reduce regulations and added value could elevate the standing
bureaucratic hurdles. Most developers of TOD in the minds of some lenders.
said they can make money in the TOD
marketplace as long as they can avoid Benefits of TOD
excessive red tape and minimize
uncertainties. What often bothers them Relatively little empirical research has
most is when governments “change the been conducted documenting the
rules of the game” at the last moment. economic benefits of TOD beyond
Some developers would also like public studies showing that development near
authorities, notably transit agencies and rail stations boosts ridership and
redevelopment agencies, to help with increases land values. These outcomes
land assemblage. A lack of developable reflect the accessibility benefits conferred
parcels was cited as one of the major by tying land development to transit
obstacles to TOD, particularly parcels investments. A host of other benefits that
of sufficient size to attract large derive from increased ridership and land
development firms with “deep pockets.” values, such as congestion relief and
more sales- and property-tax income,
Private lenders were generally favorably have been assigned to TOD. However,
disposed to the idea of joint development, there is little data available other than
at least as much as they were to TOD. anecdotes by which to gauge these
Transit joint development, however, impacts, and some impacts (such as
can be problematic where there are higher tax income and, in general,
unsubordinated ground leases, and economic development) are actually
multiple parties carry financial risks and redistributive in nature—economic
responsibilities. To the degree that joint resources that go from the pocketbooks
development produces social benefits of one party to those of another.
like increased ridership and improved air
quality, lenders generally believe that One unavoidable outcome of limited
subordinated loans that protect the empirical research on TOD’s benefits
financial interests of private groups over has been to shift the debate to the realm
the interests of the public sector are of ideology. Different groups have
appropriate. Joint ventures, some lenders turned to different studies to reach
believe, complicate projects, blur credit totally opposite conclusions about the
risks, and require too much time to benefits, or lack thereof, of TOD. This
coordinate activities. has happened even in the case of one
453

transit station, perhaps most notably the and Jefferson Davis corridors led to
Portland area’s Orenco Station. As significant gains in Metrorail boardings
discussed in Chapter 7, pro-transit and alightings. Models revealed that
observers note that 22% of Orenco’s every 100,000 square feet of additional
commuters regularly take transit while office and retail floor space over the
critics contend that 75% of Orenco’s 1985-to-2002 period added around
residents always drive and just one in 50 station daily boardings and alightings.
six commuters take transit more than Moreover, housing construction
twice a week. Different spins cast interacted with transit service levels
TOD in totally different lights. to give ridership a further boost.
Past research shows that people living Some skeptics contend that U.S. cities
near transit in large rail-served are already so built-out and existing
metropolitan areas tend to ride transit land-use patterns are so entrenched that
five to six times as often as their TOD can only exert a modest impact on
counterparts who live further away from urban landscapes and travel behavior in
transit. Mixed land uses and pedestrian the larger scheme of things. Evidence on
improvements can bump up these market residential self-selection in TOD
shares even more. Recent research neighborhoods being matched by
suggests that self-selection (i.e., people exceptionally higher transit-usage rates
choosing to live near transit for lifestyle suggests that impacts could be more
reasons like avoiding having to drive to substantial if and when TOD reaches a
work and acting upon these preferences critical mass along any given corridor.
by taking transit) accounts for as much Impacts of TOD no doubt vary by time
as 40% of the ridership bonus associated and circumstances. The biggest ridership
with transit-oriented housing. and land-value benefits accrue in areas
enjoying a boom economy matched by
Original research conducted for this study jam-packed highways. The market for
points to the potential ridership payoff of infill housing near major transit stops
TOD under favorable conditions such as drives up rents and land prices when
those in the San Francisco Bay Area and traffic woes worsen.
Arlington County, Virginia, two areas
that have been among the nation’s highest In small cities and towns with minimal
economic performers and that have traffic congestion, it is probably the case
experienced significant traffic congestion that TOD can bring about the most
problems. Census data for the Bay Area dramatic changes when created on
revealed that transit-commute modal greenfields or the exurban fringes.
shares increase with density, land-use Therefore, some observers contend that
diversity, and walking-friendly designs exurban communities should not attempt
around rail stations. For example, every to create TODs but rather to be “transit
10 additional dwelling units per gross ready,” that is, able to support good-
acre was associated with a 3.7% increase quality transit if and when the market
in transit’s commute modal share. In allows it. The idea is not to preclude
Arlington County, increases in the square TOD from happening, similar to interim
footage of office-retail development along zoning. Transit-supportive design
seven stations of the Rosslyn-Ballston guidelines are one way to ensure that
454

new suburbs and far-flung exurbs are (suburban Denver) owe a lot to the
poised to accommodate TOD if and dedication and savvy of one or more
when the market brings it their way. leaders willing to put their careers
and political futures on the line for
Recurring Themes and Lessons TOD. Sometimes leadership comes
from the state level, as was the case
This section draws lessons on with Boston’s Liberty Tree Building
contemporary TOD practice in the and New Jersey’s Transit Village
United States on the basis of the body Initiative. Leadership, however, need
of materials presented in this report, not always lie within the public
including insights gained from the case domain. In the case of Dallas’s
studies. While lessons cannot always be Mockingbird Station, the developer,
easily transferred from one location to Kenneth Hughes, provided much of
another and certainly are not intended to the inspiration and motivation that
be carbon-copied, different “bits and made the project a success, and he
pieces” will likely have relevance in has since ignited efforts to emulate
most places. The lessons are organized the Mockingbird experience in other
by the following five categories: political parts of the region, such as Plano and
and institutional factors, planning and Richardson.
land-use strategies, benefits and impacts,
fiscal considerations and partnerships, • Inclusiveness and ongoing public
and design challenges. input in TOD planning, design, and
implementation is essential to
Political and Institutional Factors success. Outreach not only helps to
fend off a possible NIMBY backlash,
• Political leadership is vital to TOD but it also gives those who live and
implementation. Having someone work in a TOD neighborhood a
step up as the political champion of a vested stake in ensuring that what is
TOD proposal is critical to built is consonant with neighborhood
marshalling resources, building a goals, has a human-scale “feel,” and
coalition, and resolving disputes that is of the highest caliber possible. Of
invariably crop up along the way. course, market pressures might
While it is not necessary that there be prompt developers to increase the
a single point person for shepherding density envelope beyond what local
a project along, someone in a residents prefer. Neighborhood
position of power must be prepared meetings, workshops, charrettes, and
to embrace TOD as part of his or her other venues offer the best hope of
political platform, investing time and working out differences and finding
energy and sometimes “cashing in an acceptable compromise.
political chips” to usher projects
forward. Of course, happenstance • Institutional coordination and
and serendipity have a lot to do with streamlining are especially crucial
whether political leadership arises or to TOD implementation where
not. Regardless, mixed-use TODs multiple agencies govern different
like the Fruitvale Transit Village in elements of land development and
Oakland and the project in Arvada transit-service delivery. Red tape,
455

institutional bickering, and multiple have proactively pursued TOD and

levels of review are sometimes joint development. Political
enough to frighten away the hardiest leadership in advancing TOD must
of developers from station locations. often begin at the state capitol.
Places like metropolitan Baltimore,
Philadelphia, San Francisco- Planning and Land-Use Strategies
Oakland, and Denver have formed
interagency working groups and • Successful TODs start with shared
committees to streamline TOD visions that guide planning and
review and coordinate decision implementation for years to come.
making. In metropolitan Miami, the To say that visions are important
consolidation of decision making might be stating the obvious and no
within the county facilitated TOD doubt sounds cliché. However, the
implementation by allowing enterprise of creating a TOD over an
developers to bypass multiple layers extended period of time is subject to
of bureaucracy and public process. so many distractions and interruptions
that the ability to “keep the eyes on
• More permissive regulatory the ball” is pivotal to success. Of
environments and enabling course, defining “the ball” is the first
legislation are often needed if transit step in the process. Some areas, like
agencies, local governments, and Arlington County, Virginia, have
regional planning organizations are adopted the Scandinavian practice of
to proactively implement TOD. The employing a metaphor to articulate
absence of authorizing legislation or the TOD vision. In Arlington
simple avoidance of the issue of how County’s case, the metaphor was a
far transit agencies can go in “bull’s eye.” Many local observers
pursuing land development has often attribute Arlington County’s success
muddied the issue of whether TOD is at adding over 15 million square feet
a legitimate public-sector of office space, 18,000 housing units,
undertaking. Without clearly and several thousand hotel rooms to
articulated legislation that enables the bull’s eyes of the Rosslyn-
transit agencies and other local actors Ballston corridor since 1970 to this
to assemble and bank land and enter early vision and the subsequent
into joint development arrangements, General Plan and specific station-area
TOD either gets ignored or ends up plans that embellished how the vision
on the back-burner, lost in the could be effected.
pressing day-to-day needs of running
a transit organization. Where state • Start TOD planning early. TODs are
governments have taken a leadership often the cumulative products of
role, passing permissive authorizing many individual development
legislation (such as in California in decisions, some of which unfold
the case of the Los Angeles County slowly and in fits and starts. Areas
MTA and through trilateral with successful TOD track records
agreements that formed the like Portland, Arlington County, and
Washington Metropolitan Area Montgomery County (Maryland)
Transit Authority), transit agencies have been at it a long time. There
456

must be enough lead time to allow channeled into delivering good-

plans to be prepared, partnerships to quality transit services; ensuring the
be built, funding to be secured, and presence of safe and attractive
improvements to be programmed. pedestrian connections to stations;
Experiences show that developers are and expanding local infrastructure
often willing to build projects before (including road, sewage, and water
transit stations even open, as long as trunk-line capacities) to
they are confident that a strong accommodate new development.
planning commitment exists to not
only deliver first-rate transit services • Successful TODs emphasize “place-
but also improve a neighborhood, making”: creating attractive,
strengthen institutional relationships, memorable, human-scale environs
and supply supportive infrastructure. with an accent on quality-of-life and
civic spaces. Increasingly, projects
• TOD success can hinge on built around up-and-coming transit
rewarding developers with measures nodes, like Dallas’s Mockingbird
that grant more latitude in designing Station, Portland’s Pearl District, and
projects; allow mixing of uses; metropolitan Chicago’s Arlington
increase density envelopes; and Heights, are targeted at individuals,
offer certainty, clarity, and built-in households, and businesses seeking
assurances that the public sector locations that are vibrant and
will follow through on planning interesting, usually with an
commitments. Because of the risks assortment of restaurants,
sometimes encountered in building entertainment venues, art shops,
near transit stations, especially infill cultural offerings, public plazas, and
and redevelopment projects, and civic spaces. What all of these places
because of the public good conferred have in common is high-quality
by TOD, “business as usual” should walking environments with a
not apply to TOD developers. Zoning minimal on-site automobile presence.
must often be revised to allow It is often the case that settings that
higher-than-average densities and a can accommodate a dense
land-use program and mix that satisfy concentration of shops, eateries, and
market demands. In cities like pedestrians without automobile
Seattle, Portland, San Diego, and dominance are near transit stations.
Atlanta, zoning overlays have been Yet, creating walking-friendly
successfully used to increase environs at transit stations can pose
permissible densities, prevent special challenges because of the
automobile-oriented uses from difficulties of accommodating not
preempting TOD possibilities, and only walk-on traffic but also feeder
diversify uses. Developers make it buses, drop-off passengers, park-and-
abundantly clear that they want and ride, and other interface functions—
expect specific station-area plans that what has been called the “conflict of
define the parameters under which place and node.” TODs that have
they must operate. In addition to designed good, safe circulation
advanced strategic planning, systems and minimized conflict
developers also want public resources points, such as the Bethesda Station
457

in Maryland, and the Orenco Station housing projects than is the norm,
in Hillsboro, Oregon, have managed trip generation estimates that inform
to largely resolve the conflicting impact assessments (that in turn
goals of stations as both “places and inform impact-fee levies) need to be
nodes.” Traffic-calmed, walking- adjusted accordingly. Santa Clara
friendly environs near popular transit County and Los Angeles (California),
stops have a cachet in the Gresham, Oregon, and Washington
development community. The ability D.C. have introduced sliding-scale
to moderate the presence of impact fees to promote TODs. These
automobiles while attending to the are places that understand that smart
complex access, circulation, and growth requires smart calculus.
parking needs of multiple nodes can
make the difference between a • Station-area plans and planning
successful and unsuccessful TOD. matter. Given the risks and
uncertainties associated with TOD,
• TODs invite bold new policies that developers, residents, and merchants
push conventional boundaries and expect, and indeed deserve, carefully
acknowledge the unique market crafted, forward-looking plans that
niches that are being served. orchestrate how, when, and where a
Initiatives like LEMs, unbundled TOD will evolve. Good TODs begin
parking costs, flexed parking with good textbook planning
standards, and sliding-scale impact practice. Arlington County’s success
fees are good examples of “out of at creating two viable transit-oriented
the box” thinking. Standard designs, corridors owes much to a General
cost pro forma, and building-code Plan backed by station-area plans that
templates need to be challenged for mapped future land uses, specified
each and every TOD project in large overlay zones, attended to circulation
part because the TOD market is not needs, identified networks of open
“standard.” Experiences show that space and pedestrian ways, and
new housing built near rail stops defined needed changes to building
often appeals to singles, professionals, and parking codes. Similarly, TOD
childless couples, and empty-nesters successes in Portland are largely a
who value amenities as much as the product of the region having worked
amount of living space and who hard for the past several decades at
often own fewer automobiles and tying station-area development to rail
log fewer miles on their odometers transit investments, applying the nuts
than the typical urban household. and bolts of good planning practice.
Standards for mortgage qualifications, In the San Francisco Bay Area, sub-
building designs, and parking regional and regional planning
supplies need to reflect these market organizations have seeded station-
realities. Unbundling the provision area planning through grants
of parking from a dwelling unit can (Transportation for Livable
save residents living near transit tens Communities and Housing Incentive
of thousands of dollars. Given that Programs) that channel federal and
fewer automobiles come in and out state transportation funds to local
of the driveways of transit-based governments. Some cities, like
458

San Diego, have been particularly compact, mixed-use development

forward-looking in their planning and around transit nodes is to attract
siting of rail extensions, opting to significant enough numbers of
avoid railroad corridors where motorists to transit so as to reduce
development opportunities are traffic congestion and impart
restricted in favor of settings with environmental benefits, areas need to
stronger market conditions, despite be experiencing rapid growth, and
the higher costs incurred. TODs traffic conditions need to be bad and
stand the best chance for success getting worse. Since TODs increase
when land-use planning precedes, or accessibility among those living,
at least parallels, transit development working, and shopping near transit,
rather than being an afterthought. an extensive transit network is also
Experiences in Arlington County, often necessary for the benefits of
Portland, and San Diego make TOD to materialize. The absence of
this clear. measurable societal benefits,
however, in no way suggests that
Benefits and Impacts TOD projects should not move
forward. As long as market demands
• TOD’s ridership bonuses are are being satisfied, there is private
substantially a product of residential benefit (between producers and
self-selection, suggesting policy consumers) in building transit-
reforms should focus on allowing oriented housing, offices, and retail
residents to sort themselves into shops. Diversifying America’s
transit-served neighborhoods suburban landscapes and providing
unimpeded. Research continues to greater housing and lifestyle choices
demonstrate that self-selection is a can be important benefits of TOD
major factor behind higher transit even if there is little evidence of
ridership among those living near congestion relief or local job
rail stations. It follows that public creation.
policy should focus on breaking
down barriers to residential mobility • Transit’s benefits, as reflected by
and on introducing market- land-value premiums, also generally
responsive zoning in and around increase with proactive planning,
transit stations. Policies like flexible network development, and system
parking standards, decoupled maturation. External factors like
housing and parking pricing, and regional economic and traffic
location-adjusted mortgages could conditions do not solely govern the
help in this regard. potential benefits of TOD. Case
experiences from Dallas, Santa Clara
• TOD benefits are not automatic and County, and San Diego show that
generally accrue during upswings land-value premiums tend to increase
in local economies when traffic as a system’s network expands and
congestion worsens. Favorable are generally higher in areas with
conditions must exist for TOD to stronger real-estate markets, as well
produce significant economic as in areas where far-sighted,
benefits. Experiences show that if proactive planning has taken place.
459

Fiscal Considerations and Partnerships and of value to the table. A private

developer might offer years of
• TODs benefit from recapturing some experience and business savvy.
of the value conferred by transit Private interests also offer a wide
investments to generate revenues array of potential funding sources
needed for ancillary improvements. such as equity capital, conventional
Recapturing some of the land-value debt, REIT funds, and venture-capital
premium conferred by transit loans. Redevelopment agencies also
investments provides much-needed offer something unique. Most are
revenues that can go to seed various empowered to condemn, acquire, and
station-area improvements like assemble parcels and to fund such
landscaping, pedestrian-way ancillary improvements as sidewalk
upgrades, and public spaces. While upgrades and utility relocations.
recapturing value is difficult in Local governments are often in a
practice, Los Angeles managed to position to offer revenue bonds at
cover nearly a tenth of the cost of the favorable rates, use tax-exempt fiscal
first phase of the Red Line subway instruments, and secure loan
through special assessments levied on guarantees backed by the federal
benefiting parcels. Entrepreneurial government. A transit agency might
transit agencies, like Washington be in a position to contribute critical
D.C.’s WMATA, have over the years parcels through land swaps or the
recaptured value through aggressive provision of easements. In built-up
joint development activities, settings with small lots under
including land leases and station multiple owners, no one party can
interface programs. WMATA pegs create TOD on its own. Only through
lease revenues to the values of a partnership that offers each party
surrounding properties, thus ensuring some return on investment can a
that it benefits from land appreciation TOD project hope to gain firm
after a lease with a developer has financial footing. Experiences with
been invoked. risky mixed-use investments in
marginal urban districts like Barrio
• Creative financing is essential to Logan in San Diego, Overtown in
spreading the risks, expanding the Miami, and El Cerrito del Norte in
base of knowledge and experience, the San Francisco Bay Area
and tapping into the fiscal underscore the importance of
advantages of certain partners, such creative multilateral financing.
as local governments’ superior bond
ratings and guarantees, to make • Market fundamentals, not a TOD
projects pencil out. Partnerships are label, govern whether private capital
pivotal to successful TODs. In gets invested around transit stations.
redevelopment districts that suffer The availability of equity and loans
from a poor marketing and to fund projects near transit is
performance image, multiple partners primarily driven by capital market
are often necessary to raise sufficient conditions and perceived market
capital to spread financial risks. Each demand, not a project’s status as a
partner can bring something unique TOD. Lenders involved with TOD
460

projects (not all of whom even realize take the form of siting parking more
they are funding a “TOD”) rarely peripherally to a station or away
adjust lending standards to reflect from a community and toward an
proximity to transit. Sometimes this active highway corridor. Chicago’s
translates into an unwillingness to Metra minimized the impact of
fund projects that propose parking parking by using a number of small
supplies that are below the norm. lots sited away from the station as
While market fundamentals rule the opposed to a single large lot. Where
roost, developers believe that certain land prices are high enough,
attributes of TOD can help, at the structured parking can replace
margin, with securing loans and surface lots, thereby freeing up land
making projects pencil out, including for infill development, pedestrian
good-quality transit services, ways, and civic spaces. Where
streetscape and ancillary public affordable housing is being built near
improvements, and local political stops, reduced parking quotas or at
support. least flexible standards should be
considered to reflect the tendency of
Design Challenges many TOD households to own fewer
automobiles. Unbundling the cost of
• In urban settings, rationalizing parking from the cost of a dwelling
parking policies in relation to TOD can make transit-based residency all
is essential to influencing how a the more affordable. Furthermore, to
TOD station will be accessed and to the degree that there is interest in
avoiding conflicts over whether land paring back parking supplies, transit
goes to parking or development. If agencies can respond by expanding
not properly dealt with, parking can feeder bus services, and localities
form a huge obstacle to TOD: can pitch in by upgrading pathways
separating a station from the and bike routes that connect to a
neighboring community, diminishing station. Parking need not always be
the quality of the walking viewed as a liability; for mixed-use
environment, and precluding station- TODs, shared-parking possibilities
site air rights or joint development. can economize on costs and land
The issue of parking can provoke consumption. If not addressed early
visceral reactions, often pitting in the process, parking can be a TOD
constituencies against each other. deal-breaker, but, if it is handled
Conventionally, the interests of smartly, such as through shared-
professional-class suburbanites parking schemes, it can be a deal-
who park-and-ride conflict with maker. There is no easy formula for
neighborhood residents who abhor coping with the conflicts of parking
the idea of outsiders descending and TOD. What is important is for
upon their neighborhood to park local authorities to get out in front of
their automobiles during daylight the problem, find an appropriate and
hours. Transit boards need to workable strategy, and build enough
rationalize parking policies beyond flexibility into the process to change
a carte blanche one-to-one course if and when circumstances
replacement mandate. This might warrant it. Parking policies cannot be
461

an afterthought; they must be • Walking access and quality of

carefully considered and weighed in circulation and the overall
keeping with the overall goals set for pedestrian environment are critical
TOD and tempered by the financial to successful TODs; however, the
realities that transit agencies face. conflict between stations as “nodes”
and “places” often makes this
• Even though mixed land uses are a difficult. Research shows the
trademark of TOD, arriving at a majority of residents living within
1
workable program poses planning ⁄4 mile of a transit station arrive by
and design challenges that need to foot or bicycle; however, this share
be overcome for a successful TOD. plummets markedly if there are
Quite often, finding the right formula significant physical barriers as well as
for mixed land uses is every bit as symbolic and psychological barriers
difficult as rationalizing parking like wide, busy roads and incomplete
policies. Planners sometimes impose sidewalk networks. Where the
a design template of ground-floor majority of a station’s catchment is
retail and upper-level housing or beyond an easy walk or bus trip,
offices (i.e., vertical mixing) on any “functional” priorities are apt to give
and all development proposals within greater design preference to the needs
a TOD. Mixed-use projects are of park-and-riders than walk-and-
trickier to design, finance, and riders or bus-and-riders. San Diego’s
sometimes lease than single-use Mission Valley; San Mateo County,
ones. Ground-floor retail is doomed California; and suburban Denver are
to fail unless it opens onto a street good examples of places where (with
with busy foot traffic and convenient the help of smart-growth planning
automobile access. Ground-floor monies and pedestrian-sensitive
restaurants might be unappealing to zoning ordinances) design attention
upper-level residences seeking quiet was given and resources directed to
and privacy in the evening. There are improving the quality of circulation,
few developers who specialize in aesthetics, and basic provisions
mixed-use projects and even fewer (e.g., crosswalks and benches) of
financiers who understand them. areas surrounding rail stations.
Local governments need to be
sensitive to such challenges and • Transit service improvements and
focus on achieving a desired land- system upgrades can trigger TOD
use mix within a transit station area activities, especially in settings with
as opposed to doing so in individual expensive housing markets and a
parcels (i.e., horizontal mixing). pent-up demand for transit-oriented
Sensitivity to retail design can also living. “Choice” transit users are
enable big-box retail to coexist with highly sensitive to service quality;
more pedestrian-oriented uses in a thus, running frequent and reliable
TOD, as shown with the CityCenter trains and minimizing the need to
project in Englewood, Colorado, and transfer can be critical to the future
the Rio Vista West “semi-TOD” of TOD. In northeast New Jersey, the
along San Diego’s Mission Valley extension of NJ TRANSIT’s
Trolley line. Northeast Corridor to New York
462

Penn Station unleashed a flurry of estate is red hot. Outside the city proper,
building activities around century- however, TOD has failed to materialize,
old commuter-rail stations. The partly a consequence of inadequate
elimination of a transfer offered attention to NIMBY opposition. Three
those living near stations areas where TODs have sprouted in
considerable travel-time savings, suburban settings are northeast New
prompting many with jobs in Jersey, metropolitan Chicago, and the
Manhattan to seek out rail-served Dallas metroplex. Northeast New
residences. Station enhancements Jersey’s TOD market is sizzling thanks
also matter. In the suburbs of to major rail improvements that have
Chicago, new or refurbished Metra dramatically shaved the amount of time
stations jump-started private real- it takes to rail commute into Manhattan.
estate investments. And it is not Its experiences remind us that the quality
always rail services that catapult of transit services is often of paramount
TOD forward. In Boulder, Colorado, importance. Swift and direct rail
the integrated CTN—known for its connections to major urban centers that
colorful “Hop, Skip, Jump, Leap, provide travel-time savings over the
and Bound” buses—triggered bus- automobile are a sure-fire way of
based TOD (typically second- and triggering TODs. Metropolitan
third-floor offices and lofts above Chicago’s suburban TOD successes owe
street-level retail) along several much to local political leadership and
routes. careful station-area planning. In greater
Dallas, TOD leadership has come mainly
Lessons Through Case Studies from the private sector, spawning
compact, mixed-use development near
The 10 case studies presented in this light-rail stops in places like Plano and
report amplify many of the lessons Richardson, development that only a
discussed in this chapter. As a whole, decade or so ago would have been
their lessons are instructive. unimaginable. Metropolitan Denver has
similarly witnessed suburban TOD
Metropolitan Washington D.C. is a true because of community activism and an
success story in part because shaping land urban renaissance in and around major
use was a goal of the original transit transit corridors.
investment. Signature TODs abound in
the District of Columbia, surrounding Portland is the most extreme case of
cities, and increasingly in outlying pushing the TOD envelope in the United
suburbs, a result of rebounding markets States, courtesy of regional visioning
for in-town housing and commercial and planning, extensive interagency
space, unfettered market forces, and agreements, regulatory controls, and
interventionist public actions. Metrorail’s incentives that encourage densities that
ambitious joint development program exceed those that would be achieved
adds riders to trains and revenues to public through normal market forces. Portland
coffers, serving as a model for the nation. is the best example of TOD planning and
implementation at a regional scale in the
Boston is a recent urban TOD success in United States, and like Boston and
large part because its central-city real Denver, it has entered a new phase that
463

focuses on constructing central-city infill light-rail stations. TOD has failed to take
projects close to rail corridors. hold to the same degree in Los Angeles
County, although mixed-use joint
The San Francisco Bay Area has over development projects, such as the project
the years sought to adopt Portland’s at the Hollywood-Highland subway
regional approach. The Bay Area is station, and a continuing commitment to
widely recognized as a leader in build and expand BRT services are
promoting good planning and encouraging trends.
transportation concepts; however,
implementing TOD among a diverse In an effort to summarize and
group of local governments and special consolidate the lessons reviewed in this
interests has been an uphill struggle. chapter, Table 20.1 was prepared. The
New partnerships that have given rise to matrix identifies case-study settings that
projects like the Fruitvale Transit illustrate each of the key lessons. Some
Village could signal a breakthrough. lessons, like “TOD as place-making,”
are found in all 10 case studies. Most
Despite a consolidated government lessons, however, are best highlighted by
structure that has centralized planning a few case studies.
and transit functions, Miami-Dade
County has struggled in its pursuit of To learn more about a particular lesson,
TOD. As a rail-served Sunbelt region the interested reader might want to
collared by water and the Everglades, and review the relevant case-study chapters
given its standing as the gateway to Latin in more detail. Of course, not all case
America, Miami-Dade County would experiences with TOD in the United
seem to be ideal for TOD. In the absence States were covered in this report; thus,
of proactive public policies, however, the lessons no doubt can be found, to varying
market has failed to spawn TOD, not degrees, elsewhere as well. Still, the case
only in prime real-estate locations but experiences reviewed in this volume are
also in communities that are most in need thought to provide some of the best, the
of development. With several mixed-use most current, and the most poignant
projects finally underway near the insights into both the successful and
Overtown Station and Miami-Dade unsuccessful practice of TOD in the
Transit seeking joint development contemporary urban United States.
partners for strategic parcels near several
prominent stations, prospects for future As the United States’s experiences with
TOD are today looking better than ever. TOD accumulate and new insights are
gained, new lessons and extensions to
Despite its international reputation as an existing ones will no doubt appear.
automobile-friendly megalopolis, Seeing to it that policymakers and those
Southern California has made impressive in positions of influence are aware of
headway on the TOD front in recent these lessons and that outcomes are
times. The city of San Diego has been a carefully and critically weighed is
pioneer in crafting innovative zoning essential to constructively advancing the
codes, targeting supportive infrastructure practice of TOD in the United States.
investments, and creating attractive The concluding chapter discusses such
walking environments in and around challenges further.
464

Table 20.1. Matrix Summary of Case Studies that Highlight TOD Lesson
Political and
Institutional Factors
Institutional Permissive
Inclusiveness Coordination & and Enabling
Leadership & Public Input Streamlining Legislation
Case Study
Boston
New Jersey
Washington D.C.
Miami
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Portland
San Francisco
Southern California
= lesson revealed through case experience

Planning and
Land-Use Strategies
Shared Progressive, Start TOD as Bold Policies Station-Area

Visions Flexible Zoning Early Place-Making Sensitive to Markets Planning
Case Study
Boston
New Jersey
Washington D.C.
Miami
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Portland
San Francisco
Southern California

Benefits and Impacts

Self Selection & Favorable Proactive
Market-Responsive Economic Planning and

Zoning Conditions Network Expansion
Case Study
Boston
New Jersey
Washington D.C.
Miami
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Portland
San Francisco
Southern California

Fiscal Considerations Design Challenges

and Partnerships & Considerations
Transit
Value Creative Market-Driven Parking Lot Workable Pedestrian System
Recapture Financing Lending Conversions Mixed Uses Needs Design
Case Study
Boston
New Jersey
Washington D.C.
Miami
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Portland
San Francisco
Southern California

Chapter 21
Policy Reflections and Future Research Directions
Policy Reflections services, they felt, would act like a

magnet, attracting development by its
The U.S. state of practice with TOD is mere presence. The failure of transit by
generally a healthy one. There are many itself to spur growth around many station
exciting examples of TOD currently on areas has prompted a 180-degree turn,
the ground and at least as many on with more and more local and regional
drawing boards across the United organizations today subscribing to the
States. Mixed-use TODs like the one in view that governments must actively
downtown Plano, Texas, and the pursue, if not spearhead, TODs. Rather
CityCenter in Englewood, Colorado, than wait and react, today’s TOD
would have been unimaginable in the mindset is one of getting out in front and
1980s when these and other suburban shepherding land-use changes to achieve
communities were hosting a boom in a desired built-form outcome. What also
campus-style office development and distinguishes contemporary TOD
automobile-oriented shopping plazas. practice from past practice is its
The United States is in the midst of a inclusiveness, signaled by public
sea change when it comes to linking outreach, close citizen involvement in
transit and urbanism. In more and planning and design decisions
more settings once dominated by throughout the process, and engagement
automobiles, yesterday’s design through media like neighborhood
templates are being discarded in favor charrettes and workshops. While in the
of TOD. Atlanta’s BellSouth TOD past transit agencies were merely
is the result of taking scattered sideline participants, today they are often
automobile-oriented development and leaders in planning and implementing
transforming it into a concentrated TODs around rail stops, fully aware of
TOD. Attention has been given to every the potential ridership and lease-revenue
detail, like siting additional BellSouth payoff of these efforts. Transit agencies
employee parking around other like BART, WMATA, and Metra
MARTA stations to enable workers to received their fair share of criticism
rail commute for part of their trip. The for slighting local citizens in the past,
company’s aim is for at least 30% of its learned their lessons, and today are
workforce to arrive by transit, a huge often leading the charge in changing the
change from the current market share landscape around their train stations.
of less than 5%.
A fair amount is also occurring on
In the past, planners and policymakers the national front. The Center for
felt little need to encourage development Transit Oriented Development,
around transit facilities—the presence of part of Reconnecting America,
high-capacity, high-quality transit a nongovernmental organization,
469

recently opened. The Center proclaimed a proactive public-sector role as long as

as its mission the use of barriers to free-market choices exist,
negative externalities and mis-pricing in
transit investments to spur a new the urban transportation sector exist, and
wave of development that improves society’s ideals of social equity and
housing affordability and choice, justice are not yet fully achieved.
revitalizes downtowns and urban
and suburban neighborhoods, and Many of the lessons outlined in the
provides value capture and recapture previous chapter point to the kinds of
for individuals, communities and initiatives that the public sector might
transportation agencies.1 take to foster TOD. Some observers call
for an even bolder public-sector stance.
Rail∼volution, an increasingly popular One idea is to create a “TOD fund” to
annual conference devoted to “building financially support TOD projects that
livable communities with transit,” often cannot obtain conventional financing.
runs conference sessions on TOD, A TOD fund administered by an
offering a forum for transit professionals, intermediary could provide much-needed
developers, and other interested parties money for grants, loans, guarantees, and
to “trade notes,” learn what others are equity investments to seed TODs when
doing, and build networks.2 conventional lenders are unwilling.4
Others have suggested extending some
Also different from the past is that it is of the powers of redevelopment districts
not just public policies and interventions to TODs, such as TIF and the ability to
that are paving the way for TOD. acquire and assemble land, even if the
Unfettered market forces are also having TODs do not lie in “blighted areas.”5
a profound impact. The less desirable Forming statewide infrastructure banks
features of sprawl—automobile that give priority to transit projects linked
dependence, congestion, excessive to land development might help channel
amounts of time behind the wheel, and the dollar amounts necessary to leverage
a feeling of isolation from cultural TOD on a grand scale. State and local
offerings—are prompting more and governments are also in a position to
more Americans to leave the suburban provide regulatory relief for TOD projects
edge and head to transit-served subcity by exempting those that comply with
nodes and even the traditional inner city. General Plans and station-area plans from
The recent 2004 edition of Emerging environmental reviews and permitting
Trends in Real Estate by the Urban Land requirements. Funding authorities should
Institute put it like this: “Convenience also consider extending the definition of
counts: walkable communities near transit capital projects to include not only
mass-transit hubs ‘have caught on,’ and a transit facility, but also its armature—
smart-growth projects—which emulate the many elements that connect a station
traditional town centers—enjoy to its surroundings like bus staging areas;
increasing success.”3 public squares; pathways and skywalks;
lighting improvements; and important
Markets alone, however, cannot be complementary facilities, like child-care
relied upon to create the ideal TOD centers and police substations (perhaps
future. There always will be the need for better marketed as “protection services”).
470

Of course, this does not guarantee that coming projects. Disseminating and
capital funds will be used for such cross-pollinating knowledge offers the
purposes since local funding authorities best hope of achieving future generations
and transit agencies might have little of TOD and joint development projects
flexibility in the expenditure of that are robust, smartly designed, and
capital grants. financially viable.
Doing whatever is necessary to get the Future Research Directions

economics of TOD “right” is also largely
a public-sector responsibility. Unbundling Considerable progress has been made in
parking from housing costs, supporting understanding TOD: what works and
Location Efficient Mortgage concepts, what does not, what preconditions are
and adjusting impact fee programs to necessary to effectively leverage land
acknowledge the “trip de-generating” development around stations, and how
impacts of TOD are things that are easily private developers react to different
within the purview of public-sector regulations and incentives. Still,
influence. Financial assistance to TOD knowledge gaps remain. More research
projects might also be in the form of tax is needed and perhaps will always be
credits, abatements, and fee waivers, needed, not only to close knowledge
although these can be controversial to the gaps, but also to keep pace with the
degree subsidies are involved. changing times, account for shifts in
political priorities, and evaluate new
As long as TOD confers both public and programs and experiments that are
private benefits, there is no replacement introduced.
for public-private partnerships in
advancing TOD implementation. Each Weighing what we know and do not
party brings unique talents, insights, and know about TOD, the following are
resources to the table. Creating an in- promising avenues for future research:
house capability within transit agencies
to pursue partnerships, hammering out • The Benefits of TOD. Our
fair and mutually rewarding risk- and understanding of the net benefits of
revenue-sharing agreements, and TOD, at least in a monetary sense or
building in contingencies that allow from a benefit-cost calculus, remains
projects to change course as needed, fairly fuzzy. Fertile grounds for new
experiences show, can produce win-win research lie in monetizing the
outcomes. Successful TOD partnerships benefits on the basis of outcomes like
win recognition in the marketplace and net reductions in VMT that can be
deserve recognition in other forums, attributed to TOD. This has been
such as national awards, “best practice” done as part of scenario forecasting
web sites, and high-profile special (e.g., land-use scenarios forecast
sessions at annual conferences like those with TOD versus without TOD) for
sponsored by Rail∼volution and the greater Sacramento. More telling
Urban Land Institute. As the joint might be an enumeration for a region
development talent pool and knowledge like Portland, Oregon, which has a
base expands, lessons will be learned strong tradition of TOD, where
and put to good use on new and up-and- relationships between transit and
471

land use are apt to be more elastic. services needed to support TOD
Still, forecasts based on anticipated would be very useful. Ideally,
changes are inherently speculative. research could answer such questions
In venturing out to year 2030 and as whether a bus route with
beyond, no one has a better crystal 15-minute frequencies on a major
ball than anyone else. Forecasts arterial connecting the CBD with a
hinge on numerous assumptions suburban employment center can
about conditions that powerfully justify a medium-scale TOD with net
shape travel behavior, like the future residential densities of 15 units per
cost of gasoline and presumed acre. To fill such knowledge gaps
technological futures, which are will require a very rich database that
exogenous in nature, outside the ties together information on transit
sphere of local policy influence. service levels and costs, ridership
elasticities, and TOD designs. While
Gaining insight into the impacts of it will probably be many years before
TOD on regional VMT reduction on there are enough wide-ranging
the basis of grounded realities rather examples of TOD to allow such a
than future simulations would be database to be constructed, now is
helpful. One way to do this would be the time to start the process.
to look at a region that has been at the
forefront of TOD and for which good • TOD Typologies. Another promising
longitudinal data are available, such line of study would involve
as Portland, Oregon, or Montgomery developing typologies of TODs as
County, Maryland. An ex post they unfold and take shape. For
evaluation could be conducted by example, TODs might be classified
comparing current recorded VMT according to size of metropolitan
levels in the region with what would area, location within a region (e.g.,
have been expected had TOD CBD, urban, mature suburb, new
projects like Orenco Station and the suburb, and exurban), and type of
Pearl District not been implemented transit service (e.g., heavy rail, light
(i.e., the “actual” versus “counter- rail, commuter rail, and BRT). With
factual”). Assuming a full social cost such a typology in place, the ability to
per vehicle mile of travel (ideally examine differences in institutional
partitioned by time of day) would arrangements, ridership impacts,
allow the VMT-related benefits of economic benefits, and approaches to
TOD to be imputed. External social community participation across the
costs of automobile use in the United groupings would be strengthened.
States have been pegged at between There have not been enough TODs on
18 and 37 cents per mile (in 1998 the ground for a sufficient length of
currency); thus, VMT reductions time to begin to build such a typology
attributable to TODs could be today (i.e., most “cells of the matrix”
applied to such figures to impute would probably be empty). However,
an economic benefit.6 given the rapid growth in TOD in
some parts of the country, in 10 years’
Over time, research that sheds light time, or there about, there will
on minimum thresholds of transit probably be enough examples in a
472

variety of settings to allow such a TOD, especially as it increases in

typology to be constructed. numbers and scope; however,
research must be sensitive to the fact
Developing typologies should not be that land-use changes and urban-
confused with restricting and design features are relative in nature,
narrowing the definition of TOD. As both within and between metropolitan
of late, a number of commentators areas of the country.
have issued calls for greater clarity
and a more tightly bound definition of • TOD Evaluations. Evaluation also
what constitutes a bona fide TOD has a role in the future TOD research
(e.g., the TOD versus TAD debate). agenda. As innovative initiatives like
While such an undertaking might LEMs, below-code parking policies,
have value, it is doubtful that it could and BRT investments are introduced,
be successfully pulled off, and if it there is a need to carefully evaluate
could, it is not apparent that a impacts. Evaluation cannot be a
watertight TOD definition would rushed or at-the-last-minute
matter that much. TOD clearly covers undertaking. Rather it must be
a very broad spectrum. Everything preplanned so that “before” and
from the revamped multimodal transit “after” data can be compiled, clinical-
center in the heart of Corpus Christi like controls can be introduced, and a
to the high-rise, mixed-use corridor wealth of indicators and metrics can
along the Rosslyn-Ballston Metrorail be measured to draw a full assessment
axis has been labeled TOD. TOD, of of impacts. Given the growing interest
course, is relative. In a small Midwest in TOD and smart-growth strategies
town, having a developer build a two- in general, consideration should be
story apartment building with a few given to resurrecting evaluation-based
ground-floor retail shops near a major programs of the past, such as the
bus stop might be considered TOD, Service and Methods Demonstration
regardless of what TOD looks like (SMD) program run by FTA’s
elsewhere. In a large rail-served city, predecessor organization, the Urban
however, such a project might be Mass Transportation Administration,
categorized as TAD if parking codes in the 1970s. This program
remain unchanged, site designs place encouraged transit agencies to
parking in the front, and few introduce service and pricing
pedestrian amenities are provided. A strategies, some far bolder than they
danger of circumscribing the TOD would be expected to introduce on
concept is that projects that represent their own (like fare-free off-peak
progressive change and a genuine transit services), to “test the waters”
departure from “business as usual” in and identify the most promising
some circumstances might not pass and productive policy reforms.
the “TOD acid test.” This might Importantly, evaluation was a key
mean that a community pursuing component of the SMD program, with
what it believes to be TOD ends up sufficient resources provided to allow
not qualifying for a smart-growth carefully designed longitudinal studies
grant or special bonding rates. We to be conducted. The time seems ripe
clearly need continuing research on for an SMD-like program that
473

focuses specifically on TOD, joint • Research Dissemination. Lastly,

development, and other multi-lateral attention needs to be given to
initiatives aimed at strengthening the “getting the word out” about TOD
transit/land-use nexus. research results. Technical reports,
professional journal publications,
• Other Research Possibilities. A and conference presentations are
number of other research areas could obvious channels. As important is
yield useful policy insights in conveying research findings over
coming years. Research on consumer the Internet. A national TOD web
attitudes about living and working in site that showcases “best practices”
TODs might be useful supplements and highlights the latest research
to studies on land-market impacts. findings would be welcomed by
Surveys might also track changes in many professionals and
the attitudes of local officials and practitioners.
citizens to TOD over time. Economic
and institutional studies might be
conducted that examine the costs of Notes
TOD versus the costs of sprawl
(integrating and extending findings 1
See http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/
from both this study and TCRP html/TOD.
Report 74: Costs of Sprawl—2000). 2
See http://www.railvolution.com/.
Parking remains a controversial issue 3
J. Miller, Emerging Trends in Real Estate
in many TOD settings; thus, studies 2004 (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Land
that evaluate the impacts of parking Institute, October 2003).
reforms (like flexible parking 4
D. Belzer and G. Autler, Transit Oriented
standards and below-norm parking Development: Moving from Rhetoric to
codes) could also be of great value. Reality (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings
Similarly, empirical evidence on the Institution Center for Urban and Metropolitan
trip generation rates of TOD could Policy, 2002).
help advance policies that promote 5 R. Cervero, Transit Villages in California:
compact, mixed-use projects near Progress, Prospects, and Policy Reforms,
transit stops, such as sliding-scale Working Paper 98-08 (Berkeley: Institute
impact fees and streamlining project of Urban and Regional Development,
University of California, 1998).
reviews. Areas like Montgomery
6
County in Maryland and Los See J. Murphy and M. Delucchi, “A Review
Angeles County and Santa Clara of the Literature on the Social Costs of Motor-
Vehicle Use,” Journal of Transportation and
County in California recommend the Statistics, Vol. 1, No. 1 (1998): 15–42;
lowering of trip generation estimates J. MacKenzie, R. Dower, and D. Chen, The
of TOD; however, empirical Going Rate: What It Really Costs to Drive
evidence that might be drawn upon (Washington, D.C.: World Resource Institute,
in estimating trip rates remains scant. 1992); D. Lee, Full Cost of Pricing Highways
Developers who face the prospect of (Cambridge, Massachusetts: John A. Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center,
paying hefty impact fees would 1995); and T. Litman, Transportation Cost
particularly welcome numbers that Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and
reflect the ability of TODs to Implications (Victoria, British Columbia:
“de-generate” vehicular traffic. Transportation Policy Institute, 1995).
474

Bibliography
Arrington, G. At Work in the Field of Cambridge Systematics, Inc., R. Cervero,

Dream: Light Rail and Smart and D. Aschuer. TCRP Report 35:
Growth in Portland. Portland, Economic Impact Analysis of Transit
Oregon: TriMet, 1998. Investments: Guidebook for
Practitioners. Washington, D.C.:
Belzer, D. and G. Autler. Transit Transportation Research Board,
Oriented Development: Moving from National Research Council, 1998.
Rhetoric to Reality. Washington,
D.C.: The Brookings Institution Cervero, R. “Light Rail Transit and
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Urban Development.” Journal of the
Policy, 2002. American Planning Association,
Vol. 50, No. 2 (1984): 133–47.
Bernick, M. and R. Cervero. Transit
Villages for the 21st Century. New Cervero, R. Ridership Impacts of
York: McGraw-Hill, 1997. Transit-Focused Development in
California. Monograph 45. Berkeley:
Boarnet, M. and R. Crane. Travel by Institute of Urban and Regional
Design: The Influence of Urban Development, University of
Form on Travel. New York: Oxford California, 1993.
University Press, 2001.
Cervero, R. Transit-Supportive
Burchell, R., G. Lowenstein, W. Development in the United States:
Dolphin, C. Galley, A. Downs, S. Experiences and Prospects.
Seskin, K. Still, and T. Moore. TCRP Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit
Report 74: Costs of Sprawl—2000. Administration, 1993.
Washington, D.C.: Transportation
Research Board, National Research Cervero, R. “Transit-Based Housing in
Council, 2002. California: Evidence on Ridership
Impacts.” Transport Policy, Vol. 3
Calthorpe, P. The Next American (1994): 174–183.
Metropolis: Ecology, Community
and the American Dream. Cervero, R. BART @ 20: Land Use and
Princeton: Princeton Architectural Development Impacts. Monograph
Press, 1994. 49. Berkeley: Institute of Urban and
Regional Development, University
Calthorpe, P. and W. Fulton. Regional of California, 1995.
City: Planning for the End of
Sprawl. Washington, D.C.: Island Cervero, R. “California’s Transit Village
Press, 2001. Movement.” Journal of Public
475

Transportation. Vol. 1, No. 1 American Dream. New York: North

(1996):103–130. Point Press, 2001.
Cervero, R. The Transit Metropolis: A Dunphy, R., D. Myerson, and M.

Global Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Pawlukiewicz. Ten Principles for
Island Press, 1998. Successful Development Around
Transit. Washington, D.C.: The
Cervero, R., P. Hall, and J. Landis. Urban Land Institute, 2003.
Transit Joint Development in the
United States. Monograph 42. Ewing, R. Best Development Practices.
Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Chicago: Planners Press, 1996.
Regional Development, University
of California, 1992. Harmon, R. and S. Khasnabis. TRB
Special Report 183: Value Capture
Cervero, R., M. Bernick, and G. Gilbert. and Joint Development: Fad or
Market Opportunities and Barriers Future? Washington, D.C.:
to Transit-Based Development in Transportation Research Board,
California. Working Paper 621. National Research Council, 1978.
Berkeley: Institute of Urban and
Regional Development, University Huang, H. “The Land-Use Impacts of
of California, 1994. Urban Rail Transit Systems.”
Journal of Planning Literature,
Cervero, R. and S. Seskin. Research Vol. 11, No. 1 (1996):17–30.
Results Digest 7: An Evaluation of
the Relationships Between Transit Knight, R. and L. Trygg. Land Use
and Urban Form. Washington, D.C.: Impacts of Rapid Transit:
Transportation Research Board, Implications of Recent Experiences.
National Research Council, 1995. DOT-TPI-10-77-29. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of
Community Design + Architecture. Transportation, 1977.
Model Transit-Oriented District
Overlay Zoning Ordinance. Report Landis, J., R. Cervero, and P. Hall.
prepared for Valley Connections. “Transit Joint Development in the
Oakland, California: 2001. USA: An Inventory and Policy
Assessment.” Environment and
Costello, D., R. Mendelsohn, A. Canby, Planning C, Vol. 9, No. 4 (1991):
and J. Bender. The Returning City: 431–452.
Historic Presentation and Transit in
the Age of Civic Revival. Landis, J., S. Guathakurta, and M.
Washington, D.C.: Federal Transit Zhang. Capitalization of
Administration, National Trust for Transportation Investments into
Historic Preservation, 2003. Single-Family Home Prices.
Working Paper 619. Berkeley:
Duaney, A., E. Plater-Zyberk, and J. Institute of Urban and Regional
Speck. Suburban Nation: The Rise of Development, University of
Sprawl and the Decline of the California, 1994.
476

Loukaitous-Sideris, A. Retrofit of Urban Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &

Corridors: Land Use Policies and Douglass, Inc., R. Cervero,
Design Guidelines for Transit- Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates,
Friendly Environments. Working and J. Zupan. “Regional Transit
Paper 180. Berkeley: University of Corridors: The Land Use
California Transportation Center, Connection.” TCRP Project H-1.
1993. Washington, D.C.: Transportation
Research Board, National Research
Loukaitous-Sideris, A. Transit-Oriented Council, 1995.
Development in the Inner City: A
Delphi Survey. Journal of Public Project for Public Spaces, Inc. TCRP
Transportation, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2000): Report 22: The Role of Transit in
75–98. Creating Livable Metropolitan
Communities. Washington, D.C.:
Loukaitous-Sideris, A. and R. Bannerjee. Transportation Research Board,
“Blue Line Blues: Why the Vision of National Research Council, 1997.
Transit Village May Not Materialize
Despite Impressive Growth in Pushkarev, B. and J. Zupan. Public
Transit Ridership.” Journal of Urban Transit and Land-Use Policy.
Design, Vol. 5, No. 2 (2000): Bloomington: Indiana University
101–125. Press, 1977.
Lund, H., R. Cervero, and R. Willson. Rabinowitz, H., E. Beimborn, C.

Travel Characteristics of Transit- Mrotek, S. Yan, and P. Gugliotta.
Focused Development in California. Guidelines for Transit Sensitive
Oakland, California: Bay Area Rapid Suburban Land Use Design.
Transit District and California Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
Department of Transportation, 2004. of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration, 1991.
McNeal, A. and R. Doggett. “Metro
Makes Its Mark.” Urban Land Ryan, S. “Property Values and
(September 1999): 78–81, 118. Transportation Facilities: Finding the
Transportation-Land Use
Ohland, G. Transit-Oriented Connection.” Journal of Planning
Development in Four Cities. Santa Literature, Vol. 13, No. 4 (1999):
Fe, New Mexico: The Great 412–427.
American Station Foundation, 2001.
Untermann, R. Accommodating the
Parker, T., G. Arrington, M. McKeever, Pedestrian: Adapting Towns and
and J. Smith-Heimer. Statewide Neighborhoods for Walking and
Transit-Oriented Development Bicycling. New York: Van Nostrand
Study: Factors for Success in Reinhold, 1984.
California. Sacramento: California
Department of Transportation, 2002.
477

Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AC Transit Alameda Contra Costa Transit District
ADT average daily traffic
AURA Arvada Urban Renewal Authority
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BCEC Boston Convention & Exhibition Center
BG business/government
BRT bus rapid transit
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CATS Chicago Area Transportation Study
CBD central business district
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
CCDC Central City Development Corporation
CDC community development corporation
CDMP Comprehensive Development Master Plan
CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation
CEO chief executive officer
CITT Citizens’ Independent Transportation Trust
CMA congestion management agency
CMAQ Congestion Management/Air Quality
CMP Congestion management plan
CRA Community Redevelopment Agency
CRNA Center for Regional and Neighborhood Action
CSG Campaign for Sensible Growth
CTA Chicago Transit Authority
CTN Community Transit Network
DART Dallas Area Regional Transit
DMU diesel multiple unit
DOT department of transportation
DRCOG Denver Regional Council of Governments
DRI development of regional impact
du/ac dwelling units per acre
DURA Denver Urban Renewal Authority
EIR environmental impact report
ENA Exclusive Negotiations Agreement
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAR floor-area ratio
FOD ferry-oriented development
FTB Franchise Tax Board
FTE full-time equivalent
GFA gross floor area
GIS geographic information system
GLUP general land use plan
479

GRTA Georgia Regional Transportation Authority

HIP Housing Incentive Program
HSP Hoyt Street Properties
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation
JPA joint powers authority
LAC Lennar Affordable Communities
LEM Location Efficient Mortgage
LoDo Lower Downtown
LOS level of service
LPO local planning organization
LRT light-rail transit
MARTA Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
MAX Metropolitan Area Express
MBTA Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
MDT Miami-Dade Transit
MetroLINK Rock Island County Metropolitan Mass Transit District
MFI median family income
MOA memorandum of agreement
MPDU moderately priced dwelling unit
MPO metropolitan planning organization
MSA metropolitan statistical area
MTA Metropolitan Transportation Authority
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTDB Metropolitan Transit Development Board
MTS Metropolitan Transit System
MUNI Municipal Railway
NCTCOG North Central Texas Council of Governments
NCTD North San Diego County Transit Development Board
NGO nongovernmental organization
NIMBY not in my backyard
NIPC Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
NJDOT New Jersey Department of Transportation
NJ TRANSIT New Jersey Transit Corporation
ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation
OPTM Office of Public Transportation Management
PATH Port Authority Trans Hudson
PDC Portland Development Commission
PTP People’s Transportation Plan
PUD planned use development
REIT Real Estate Investment Trust
RFP request for proposals
RFQ request for qualifications
RFRHA Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority
RFTA Roaring Fork Transportation Agency
RMV Registry of Motor Vehicles
480

RPD Regional Planning Department

RTA Regional Transportation Authority
RTAP Regional Technical Assistance Program
RTD Regional Transportation District
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTV Regional Transit Vision
RTZ rapid transit zone
SAHPD Special Affordable Housing Protection District
SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District
SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments
SEPTA Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
SMD Service and Methods Demonstration
STPP Surface Transportation Policy Program
TAD transit-adjacent development
TALC Transportation and Land Use Coalition
TCSP Transportation and Community and Systems Preservation
Pilot Program
TDM transportation demand management
TIF tax increment financing
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TLC Transportation for Livable Communities
TOD transit-oriented development
T-REX Transportation Expansion Project
TriMet Tri-County Metropolitan District of Oregon
TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation
UGB urban growth boundary
URA urban renewal authority
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority
WMATA Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
481

APPENDIX A
TRANSIT AGENCY SURVEY

NATIONAL STUDY OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT

AND JOINT DEVELOPMENT
Survey of Transit Agencies
Agency / Jurisdiction: ___________________________________________________________________

Person Completing Survey: Name: ________________________________________________________
Title: _________________________________________________________
Phone: __________________ Email: _______________________________
This survey is divided into two sections:

I. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in your agency’s service area
II. Transit Joint Development (TJD) in your agency’s service area
For any question that asks information that is not readily available to you, please feel free instead to
provide information on individuals we can contact.
I. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD)

A general definition of TOD is development concentrated around and oriented to transit stations in a
manner that promotes transit-riding. Rather than a single real-estate project, it represents a collection
(usually mix-use) of projects at a neighborhood scale that is oriented to a transit node.
1. Definition:
Has your agency adopted its own definition of TOD? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, what is it?____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
If NO, what is your own definition? ______________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
A-3

2. Does your agency have a formal program designed to encourage TOD? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, please elaborate and provide any materials or a web address (URL): _____________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
How many staff are assigned to this activity? _______ Full-time _______ Part-time
If NO, does your agency encourage TOD planning and implementation in other ways?
1 YES 0 NO
If YES, please elaborate: ____________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
If applicable, who is the contact person for either your TOD program or the other TOD assistance that
your agency provides?
Name and Title: ___________________________________________________________________
Phone: ___________________________________________________________________________
Email Address: ____________________________________________________________________
3. If you have a formal program to encourage TOD, please list the major features of the program and
indicate the approximate percentage of the program budget dedicated to each activity. (If not, please
skip to Question 7.)
Activity % of Budget
A. __________________________________________________________________ ____________
B. __________________________________________________________________ ____________
C. __________________________________________________________________ ____________
D. __________________________________________________________________ ____________
E. __________________________________________________________________ ____________
A-4

4. Indicate the annual budget of this program over the last three fiscal years, divided into the following
categories. If you know only the total budget, please provide this information. (If exact numbers are
not easily available, please provide estimates and denote them with an asterisk (*) to distinguish from
actual figures.)
Administration & Construction &
Planning Budget Implementation Budget Total Budget
2002 _____________________ _________________________ _________________________
2001 _____________________ _________________________ _________________________
2000 _____________________ _________________________ _________________________
5. List the major sources of funding for this program, divided into the following categories. Please
specify whether these sources of funding are dedicated.
Sources Administration & Planning Construction & Implementation Dedicated? (check one)
A. ______________________ ___________________________ 1 YES 0 NO

______________________ ___________________________
______________________ ___________________________
B. ______________________ ___________________________ 1 YES 0 NO

______________________ ___________________________
______________________ ___________________________
C. ______________________ ___________________________ 1 YES 0 NO

______________________ ___________________________
______________________ ___________________________
D. ______________________ ___________________________ 1 YES 0 NO

______________________ ___________________________
______________________ ___________________________
E. ______________________ ___________________________ 1 YES 0 NO

______________________ ___________________________
______________________ ___________________________
A-5

6. Does this program involve outreach and education? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, please answer the following questions.
Who is the primary intended audience for the program? (check one)
1 The public
2 Local government staff
3 Local government elected officials
4 Developers
5 Lenders
0 Other: ______________________________________________________________________
What is the primary program strategy? (check one)
1 To provide outreach and education in response to proposed TOD projects
2 To provide outreach and education on an ongoing basis
0 _______ Other: _______________________________________________________________
What is the program focus? (check one)
1 To provide technical assistance with finance
2 To provide technical assistance with planning
3 To provide technical assistance with legal issues
4 To encourage political support for TOD
0 Other:_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
How effective has this public outreach been to date in terms of:
EFFECTIVENESS
Minimal Moderate Significant
Increasing public awareness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Increasing private sector awareness 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Engaging public dialogue on TOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Resolving conflicts / tempering 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

neighborhood opposition
Helping to initiate station-area projects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A-6

7. How does your transit agency address land use? Please check the statement that comes closest to
describing your agency’s position.
1 Land use is not something we are concerned with
2 Our agency takes the lead
3 MPO takes the lead
4 Local governments take the lead
5 Shares responsibility with a number of players
6 Provides funds to leverage land use decisions by local jurisdictions
7 Has a formal relationship with other agencies in conducting studies
8. Does your agency have staff or consultants assigned to work on land use / TOD? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, please indicate the percent of time / FTE devoted to land use / TOD: _____________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
9. Does your agency have a fixed guideway project in planning, design or construction? What comes
closest to describing your situation?
Our project is in:
1 System planning
2 Alternatives analysis
3 Early stages of preliminary engineering
4 Advanced stages of preliminary engineering
5 Final design
6 In construction
A-7

10. Has the inclusion of land use as a factor in the federal new starts process changed your agency’s
interest in and its capability to undertake and implement TOD planning in your community? Please
check the statement that comes closest to describing your agency’s situation.
1 It had no impact on our ability to undertake and implement transit-supportive planning
2 It raised the profile of the transit / land-use connection in our agency, local governments and the
community
3 It provided the impetus to take transit-supportive land-use planning to the next level
4 It led directly to changes in locally adopted land-use policies and plans for the transit corridor
5 It had a significant impact on moving transit-supportive land-use planning and implementation

forward in our community
0 Other (please explain): _____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
11. Has the presence of land use as a FTA new starts rating criterion changed how your agency approaches
land use in the development of transit projects? Please check the statement that comes closest to
describing your agency’s situation.
1 No, we have always treated land use as a key factor; we would do it anyway
2 Yes, it helped to provide the impetus to more seriously address land-use issues
3 Yes, it has opened the door to get the discussion going
4 No, how we address land use is a local issue; having a federal criterion has had little to no impact
12. Does your state administer a grant program to promote local planning and / or implementation for TOD?
1 YES 0 NO
If YES, has your agency received any of these grant funds? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, for what purposes were the grants used?__________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
A-8

13. Is there a regional vision, policy, or plan in place in your community that calls for compact
development organized around transit? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, please elaborate and indicate who is promoting this: __________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
A-9

14. Are there any collaborative arrangements in your jurisdiction explicitly devoted to promoting TOD, in
terms of:
Public-sector inter-agency committees or working groups? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, please describe: _______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Private-sector committees or working groups? □1 YES 0 NO
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
Public-private organizations or committees? 1 YES 0 NO
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
(If it is easier, please mail or e-mail us this information)
A-10

15. Partnerships:
Does your agency have cooperative agreements with any of the following public agencies to promote
TOD? Check all that apply.
Redevelopment agency 1 YES 0 NO
City government 1 YES 0 NO
County government 1 YES 0 NO
Regional government 1 YES 0 NO
State government 1 YES 0 NO
Please describe the nature of these cooperative agreements. What duties and functions are shared
between the partner agencies? If you have materials or copies of the agreement that would be easier to
send or email us, please do so.
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
A-11

16. List major TODs in your agency’s service area (whether formally designated or not). If it is easier,
please mail or e-mail us this information.
Station / Neighborhood Description (and contact information)
A. _______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
B. _______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
C. _______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
D. _______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
E. _______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
(If more space is necessary, please use extra pages)
A-12

17. Indicate whether any of the following sources have been used to fund TODs in your area for pre-
development (e.g., planning) and development. Check all that apply.
Pre-development Development
Pension funds
Union funds
REIT funds
Individual investor funds
Nonprofit / foundation funds
Other:___________________________________________
18. Did your agency play a prominent role in developing any of these projects? If not, skip to Question 19.
If so, briefly list the goals your agency has set for the projects. Once listed, please rank them in order of
importance from your agency’s perspective, “1” being the most important.
Goals Rank
A. _______________________________________________________________ ________
_______________________________________________________________ ________
_______________________________________________________________ ________
B. _______________________________________________________________ ________
_______________________________________________________________ ________
_______________________________________________________________ ________
C. _______________________________________________________________ ________
_______________________________________________________________ ________
_______________________________________________________________ ________
D. _______________________________________________________________ ________
_______________________________________________________________ ________
_______________________________________________________________ ________
E. _______________________________________________________________ ________
_______________________________________________________________ ________
_______________________________________________________________ ________
A-13

19. Have any individual cities, counties, or other entities in your agency’s service area adopted a TOD plan
or introduced TOD zoning? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, please elaborate and / or provide contact information:
Jurisdiction Description (and / or contact information)
A. _______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
B. _______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
C. _______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
A-14

Jurisdiction Description (and / or contact information)
D. _______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
E. _______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
_______________________________________ _____________________________________
A-15

20. What are the statutory regulations governing your agency that have aided or inhibited its ability to
promote TOD?
STATUTES
Number / Code Name Perceived effects on TOD activities
_____________ __________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_____________ __________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_____________ __________________________ _________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
(If more space is necessary, please attach extra pages)
21. What are the internal regulations, policies, or mandates within your organization that affect the practice
of TOD?
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
A-16

22. Within your service area, have any of the following tools been applied by your agency or another
agency to promote TOD? If the tool has been applied in your service area, indicate its effectiveness
toward promoting TOD. If the tool has not been applied in your service area, indicate what you
believe would be its potential effectiveness toward promoting TOD in your service area.
EFFECTIVENESS
Tools Applied? By Your Agency? Low Moderate High
Zoning Incentives / 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Density Bonuses
Relaxed Parking 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Standards
Expedited Entitlement 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Review
Exclusion of TOD from 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Concurrency or Level of
Service Standards
Use of Eminent Domain 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(other than right-of-way
acquisitions)
Open Market Acquisitions 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
of Land
Donation or Underwriting 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
of Land Costs
Assistance with 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Land Assembly
Tax Increment 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Financing
Tax-Exempt Bond 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Financing
Tax Abatement 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Development of 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Below-Market-Rate
Housing
Capital Funding 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Planning Funding 1 YES 0 NO 1 YES 0 NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A-17

23. Based on your agency’s experience, how important is TOD toward:
IMPORTANCE
Increasing Transit Ridership 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Increasing Political Support for Transit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Relieving Traffic Congestion 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Reducing Sprawl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Increasing Housing Choices 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Improving Neighborhood Quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Other (_________________________) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
24. Do any of the transit stations where TOD is being promoted along your system contain park-and-ride
spaces? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, please answer the following questions:
(a). What is the approximate average number of spaces per station in your system? _________
(b). Does your agency have a requirement for replacement parking? 1 YES 0 NO
(c). To what degree has the presence of park-and-ride spaces been an obstacle to your agency’s ability
to successfully plan and build TOD projects? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 7.
Minimally Moderately Significantly
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(d). To what degree do these park-and-ride spaces detract from the pedestrian environment around the
stations where TOD projects are being proposed, built or planned? Please rate on a scale of 1 to 7.
Minimally Moderately Significantly
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(e). Are there any plans to convert park-and-ride lots to TODs? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, where? __________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
A-18

25. To what degree has each of the following been an impediment to TOD in your service area?
DEGREE
Minimal Moderate Major
Lack of Market Demand 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Community Opposition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Local Zoning Restrictions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lack of Lender / Investor Interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

and Support
Lack of Developer Interest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Skepticism Among Local Governments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lack of Political Support 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Inadequate Transit Service 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Location of Transit Stations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Predominance of Auto-Oriented 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Land Uses
Lack of Local Expertise in TOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Planning or Implementation
Transit Agency Requirements for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Replacement Parking
Lack of Collaboration Between 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Participating Governmental Agencies
Legal Issues (specify:_____________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

______________________________)
Other (________________________) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A-19

26. How important are these initiatives introduced by higher levels of government (regional, state or
federal) toward promoting TOD in your agency’s service area?
IMPORTANCE
Planning Grants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Development of Regional Impacts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(DRI) Requirements
Tying Transit Capital Grants to Local 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

TOD Commitments
Smart Growth Legislation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Targeted Infrastructure Funding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Adequate Public Facility Ordinances / 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Concurrency Req.
Required Siting of Government 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Buildings Near Transit
Other (_________________________) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
27. Have any of the following initiatives involving TOD taken place in your agency’s service area in the
past two years?
Conference or workshop open to the general public 1 YES 0 NO
Conference or workshop aimed at professionals 1 YES 0 NO
Public hearing on TOD project 1 YES 0 NO
Design charrette 1 YES 0 NO
Media coverage (e.g., special TV show) 1 YES 0 NO
Internet web site 1 YES 0 NO
Other (___________________________________) 1 YES 0 NO
Please elaborate on any of these (such as the sponsor): _______________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
A-20

28. Redevelopment:
(a). Are there any redevelopment districts in your agency’s service area? 1 YES 0 NO
(b). If YES, how many have been formed that include one or more transit stations? _______
29. List up to three things you feel transit agencies in the United States could do to best promote TOD.
A. _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
B. _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
C. _______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
30. Please share any other ideas you have on improving the practice of transit oriented development in the
United States.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
A-21

II. TRANSIT JOINT DEVELOPMENT (TJD)
Transit joint development is distinguished from TOD mainly by being tied to a specific real-estate
project, venture, or brokered deal and involving the direct participation of a public entity, often a
transit agency, in revenue streams and sometimes ownership. Joint development often occurs on a
transit agency’s property or in its air rights; however, it can also occur on nearby private land if an
improvement is physically or functionally integrated with a transit facility. Joint development at transit
stations includes air-rights development, ground-lease arrangements, station interface or connection-
fee programs, and other initiatives that promote real-estate development at or near transit stations to the
mutual benefit of public and private interests.
1. Definition:
Has your agency adopted its own definition of joint development? 1 YES 0 NO
If YES, what is it?____________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
If NO, what is your own definition? ______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
2. Transit joint development in your agency’s service area:
List major joint development projects in your agency’s service area.
Define TYPE of project using these codes:
A. Air-rights lease G. Sharing of operations (e.g., sharing of

B. Ground lease parking, sharing of ventilation systems)
C. Station connection fee (e.g., connecting H. Incentive agreements (e.g., bonuses in
retail store to station) exchange for rehabilitating stations)
D. Negotiated private contribution I. Equity Participation (e.g., sharing a
E. Benefit assessment district to finance percentage of project revenues)
transit-related improvements J. Other (specify):
F. Sharing of construction costs
A-22

Define LAND USE using these codes:

1. Office
2. Retail
3. Mixed Commercial (office, retail, others)
4. Hotel
5. Residential
6. Mixed Commercial-Residential
7. Other (specify): _________________________________
Station / Project Type Land Use
A. _________________________________________________________ ________ ________
B. _________________________________________________________ ________ ________
C. _________________________________________________________ ________ ________
D. _________________________________________________________ ________ ________
E. _________________________________________________________ ________ ________

(If more than five, please use extra pages)
3. Indicate whether any of the following sources have been used to finance transit joint development in
your area for pre-development (e.g., planning) and development. Check all that apply.
Pre-development Development
Pension funds
Union funds
REIT funds
Individual investor funds
Nonprofit / foundation funds
Other:_________________________
4. In a few short words or phrases, please list the goals of those joint development projects listed above
for which your agency has played a lead role. Once listed, please rank them in order of importance
from your agency’s perspective, “1” being the most important. (If your agency’s service area does not
have experience with transit joint development, please skip to Question 6.)
Goals Rank
A. _______________________________________________________________ ________
B. _______________________________________________________________ ________
C. _______________________________________________________________ ________
D. _______________________________________________________________ ________
E. _______________________________________________________________ ________
A-23

5. Rate the following joint development impacts on scale of 1 to 7. Circle “N/A” if the impact does not
apply to your agency’s service area.
IMPACTS
Increase revenues to public sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A0
Increase transit ridership 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A0
Promote “smart growth” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A0
Catalyst to redevelopment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A0
Enhance property values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A0
Improved urban design / architecture 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A0
6. To what degree has each of the following been an impediment to transit joint development in your
agency’s service area?
DEGREE
Minimal Moderate Major
Setting terms of private contributions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Securing zoning changes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Neighborhood opposition / resistance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Lack of lending support 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Park-and-ride parking spaces adjacent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

to station
Transit agency requirements for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

replacement parking
Other (_________________________) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7. What types of contractual arrangements were / are used for your agency’s transit joint development
projects?
Penalties for developer for finishing project phases late? 1 YES 0 NO
A share of profits from project go to public agency partner? 1 YES 0 NO
A share of profits from sale of property go to public agency partner? 1 YES 0 NO
Minimum guaranteed rent for public agency partner from property? 1 YES 0 NO
A-24

8. Please share any ideas you have on improving the practice of transit joint development in the
United States:
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ASSISTANCE
A-25

APPENDIX B
DEVELOPER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL


Telephone Survey of Developers
A. INTRODUCTION
Hello, my name is _____________, and I’m calling today for a study being sponsored by
the Transportation Research Board through the Transit Cooperative Research Program.
We’re surveying developers involved in transit-oriented and joint development. We’d
appreciate a few minutes of your time to help us answer some key questions. (If not,
when could I call back that you would have time?)
Thank you for agreeing to help. First, I’d like to confirm some basic information about
your firm.
1. Firm__________________________________________________________________
2. Person Providing Information:
Name _____________________________________________________________
Title ______________________________________________________________
Address ___________________________________________________________
Phone_____________________________________________________________
E-Mail ____________________________________________________________
Allow me to define what we mean by transit-oriented and joint development. A general

definition of TOD is development concentrated around and oriented to transit stations in a
manner that promotes transit riding. Rather than a single real-estate project, it represents
a collection (usually mix-use) of projects at a neighborhood scale that are oriented to a
transit node.
Transit joint development is distinguished from TOD mainly by being tied to a specific
real-estate project, venture, or brokered deal and involving the direct participation of a
public entity, often a transit agency, in revenue streams and sometimes ownership. Joint
development often occurs on a transit agency’s property or in its air rights; however, it
can also occur on nearby private land if an improvement is physically or functionally
integrated with a transit facility.
B-3

B. EXPERIENCE
Now I’d like to ask some questions about your firm’s experience with transit-oriented and
joint development.
3. What types of real estate development does your firm do? I’ll list a number of
types; please answer YES or NO to each. For each type, roughly what
percentage of total activity or your portfolio does it represent?
Percentage
Retail 1 YES 0 NO __________
Shopping centers 1 YES 0 NO __________
Office buildings 1 YES 0 NO __________
Industrial 1 YES 0 NO __________
Single family residential 1 YES 0 NO __________
Condos / townhouses 1 YES 0 NO __________
Multifamily residential (market-rate) 1 YES 0 NO __________
Multifamily residential (below market-rate) 1 YES 0 NO __________
(defined as combination of residential
and at least one commercial use) 1 YES 0 NO __________
Institutional uses 1 YES 0 NO __________
Other (please specify): 1 YES 0 NO __________
____________________________________________________________________
4. What percentage of your firm’s activity is in the Central Business District

(CBD)?
1 CBD 2 Outside CBD
5. Project Experience
A. Have you been involved with either of these types of projects (TOD or TJD)?
1 YES 0 NO
B. If NO, then have you been involved with infill or mixed-use developments?
1 YES 0 NO
If your answer was NO to both of the above, please answer the following questions in
terms of how you think you might approach future development of these types of projects.
B-4

6. What projects has your firm developed that are similar to what I’ve described
as transit-oriented or joint development? We’d like to know about project type
and size, setting, and when it occurred. If it is easier, please mail or e-mail this
information to us.
Type Size CBD / Outside CBD When?
____________________ __________ 1 CBD 2 Outside CBD __________
____________________ __________ 1 CBD 2 Outside CBD __________
____________________ __________ 1 CBD 2 Outside CBD __________
__________ 1 CBD 2 Outside CBD __________
C. FINANCIAL ISSUES
Next, I’d like to ask about how your firm finances transit-oriented and joint development.
7. How does your firm typically finance the debt for TOD and transit joint
development?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
8. Have any equity funds (e.g., pension funds, REIT funds, foundation support)
gone toward TOD or joint development that your firm has been involved with?
If so, please identify.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
9. What characteristics of TOD or joint development have positively affected your

ability to obtain equity funds?
A. __________________________________________________________________
B. __________________________________________________________________
C. __________________________________________________________________
D. __________________________________________________________________
B-5

10. What characteristics of TOD or joint development have negatively affected your
ability to obtain equity funds?
A. __________________________________________________________________
B. __________________________________________________________________
C. __________________________________________________________________
D. __________________________________________________________________
11. From your perspective, how do each of the following lending standards change
for transit-oriented and joint development projects versus more “standard”
(e.g., auto-oriented or traditional suburban) types of real estate development?
Please be as specific as possible.
Interest rate___________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Points (for securing loans) _______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Loan-to-value requirements ______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Debt coverage requirements _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
B-6

12. Please indicate whether or not each of the following factors significantly affects
your firm’s willingness to develop a given project, and if it does, its importance
to your final decision:
IMPORTANCE TO DECISION
Significant? Low Moderate High
Adjacent to Transit Station 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Mixed Use Development 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Unsubordinated Ground Lease 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
with Public Agency 0 NO
Below Local Parking Standards 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Availability of Tax Incentives 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Limited Developer Experience 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
with Proposed Project Type 0 NO
Majority of Local / 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Non-Credit Tenants 0 NO
Emerging Market 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Public Sector Participation 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Extent of Real Estate Investment 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Activity in Area or Near Site 0 NO
Brownfield Issues 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Potential Rent Premium for 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Superior Location / Access 0 NO
Supportive Land Use 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Designations 0NO
Other (specify): 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_________________________ 0 NO
B-7

13. Have there been any successful TOD or joint development projects that have
influenced your decision(s) to go forward with development projects?
1 YES 0 NO
Identify the successful project(s) that have influenced you:

A. __________________________________________________________________
B. __________________________________________________________________
C. __________________________________________________________________
D. __________________________________________________________________
14. Based on your experiences, how would you rate the financial track record of
TOD and joint development projects to date?
(Please rate on a scale of 1 to 7.)
Poor Medium Good

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. Based on your experience as a developer, how would you characterize the role
of the following public agencies and individuals in promoting TOD and joint
development—as either obstacle, indifference, supporter, or partner? Choose
one for each.
Obstacle Indifference Supporter Partner
Transit agency 1 2 3 4
Redevelopment agency 1 2 3 4
State DOT 1 2 3 4
Metropolitan planning organization 1 2 3 4
Local planning agency 1 2 3 4
Local elected officials 1 2 3 4
B-8

D. RECOMMENDATIONS
16. Finally, we’d appreciate any suggestions (including public policies) regarding
what factors would lead your firm to express greater interest in urban or
suburban infill, mixed use, or transit-oriented or joint development:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
B-9

APPENDIX C
LENDER INTERVIEW PROTOCOL


Telephone Survey of Lenders
A. INTRODUCTION
Hello, my name is _____________, and I’m calling today for a study being sponsored by
the Transportation Research Board through the Transit Cooperative Research Program.
We’re surveying firms involved in financing real estate projects to help us understand
issues and opportunities related to transit-oriented and joint development. We’d
appreciate a few minutes of your time to help us answer some key questions. (If not,
when could I call back that you would have time?)
Thank you for agreeing to help. First, I’d like to confirm some basic information about
your firm.
1. Firm__________________________________________________________________
2. Person Providing Information:
Name _____________________________________________________________
Title ______________________________________________________________
Address ___________________________________________________________
Phone_____________________________________________________________
E-Mail ____________________________________________________________
Allow me to define what we mean by transit-oriented and joint development. A general

definition of TOD is development concentrated around and oriented to transit stations in a
manner that promotes transit riding. Rather than a single real-estate project, it represents
a collection (usually mix-use) of projects at a neighborhood scale that are oriented to a
transit node.
Transit joint development is distinguished from TOD mainly by being tied to a specific
real-estate project, venture, or brokered deal and involving the direct participation of a
public entity, often a transit agency, in revenue streams and sometimes ownership. Joint
development often occurs on a transit agency’s property or in its air rights; however, it
can also occur on nearby private land if an improvement is physically or functionally
integrated with a transit facility.
C-3

B. EXPERIENCE
Now I’d like to ask some questions about your firm’s experience with transit-oriented and
joint development.
3. What types of projects does your firm provide loans for? I’ll list a number of
types; please answer YES or NO to each. Roughly what percentage of your
TOD loans go for each type?
Percentage
Retail 1 YES 0 NO __________
Shopping centers 1 YES 0 NO __________
Office buildings 1 YES 0 NO __________
Industrial 1 YES 0 NO __________
Single family residential 1 YES 0 NO __________
Condos / townhouses 1 YES 0 NO __________
Multifamily residential (market-rate) 1 YES 0 NO __________
Multifamily residential (below market-rate) 1 YES 0 NO __________
(defined as combination of residential
and at least one commercial use) 1 YES 0 NO __________
Institutional uses 1 YES 0 NO __________
Other (please specify): 1 YES 0 NO __________
____________________________________________________________________
4. What percentage of your firm’s activity is in the Central Business District

(CBD)?
1 CBD 2 Outside CBD
5. Project Loan Experience

A. Have you been involved in providing loans for TOD or joint development
projects?
1 YES 0 NO
B. If NO, then have you been involved in providing loans for infill or mixed-use
developments?
1 YES 0 NO
If your answer was NO to both of the above, please answer the following questions in
terms of how you think you might approach future lending to these types of projects.
C-4

6. What projects has your firm developed that are similar to what I’ve described
as transit-oriented or joint development? We’d like to know about project type
and size, setting, and when it occurred. If it is easier, please mail or e-mail this
information to us.
Type Size CBD / Outside CBD When?
____________________ __________ 1 CBD 2 Outside CBD __________
____________________ __________ 1 CBD 2 Outside CBD __________
____________________ __________ 1 CBD 2 Outside CBD __________
__________ 1 CBD 2 Outside CBD __________
7. Besides traditional debt sources, indicate whether any of the following sources
have been used to fund transit joint development in your area. Check all that
apply.
1 Pension funds
2 Union funds
3 REIT funds
4 Individual investor funds
5 Nonprofit / foundation funds
0 Other_____________________________________________________________
C. UNDERWRITING CRITERIA AND ISSUES

Next, I’d like to ask about how your firm’s approach to underwriting relates to transit-
oriented and joint development.
8. What characteristics of TOD or joint development contribute positively to a

project’s appraised value?
A. __________________________________________________________________
B. __________________________________________________________________
C. __________________________________________________________________
D. __________________________________________________________________
9. What characteristics of TOD or joint development contribute negatively to a

project’s appraised value?
A. __________________________________________________________________
B. __________________________________________________________________
C. __________________________________________________________________
D. __________________________________________________________________
C-5

10. How do each of the following underwriting standards change for transit-
oriented and joint development projects versus more “standard” (e.g., auto-
oriented or traditional suburban) types of real estate development? Please be as
specific as possible.
LENDERS:
Pre-leasing requirement _________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Interest rate___________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Points (for securing loans) _______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Loan-to-value requirements ______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Debt coverage requirements _____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
INVESTORS:
Capitalization rate _____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Leverage_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
C-6

11. Please indicate whether or not each of the following factors significantly affects
your firm’s willingness to lend or invest in a given project, and if it does, its
importance to your final decision:
IMPORTANCE TO DECISION
Significant? Low Moderate High
Adjacent to Transit Station 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Mixed Use Development 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Unsubordinated Ground Lease 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
with Public Agency 0 NO
Below Local Parking Standards 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Availability of Tax Incentives 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Limited Developer Experience 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
with Proposed Project Type 0 NO
Majority of Local / 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Non-Credit Tenants 0 NO
Emerging Market 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Public Sector Participation 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Extent of Real Estate Investment 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Activity in Area or Near Site 0 NO
Brownfield Issues 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 NO
Potential Rent Premium for 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Superior Location / Access 0 NO
Supportive Land Use 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Designations 0NO
Other (specify): 1 YES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
_________________________ 0 NO
C-7

12. (LENDERS ONLY) For projects located in areas eligible for CRA credit, how
does the location affect your firm’s consideration of the above factors?
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
13. Have there been any successful TOD or joint development projects that have
influenced your decision(s) to grant loans? 1 YES 0 NO
Identify the successful project(s) that have influenced you:

A. __________________________________________________________________
B. __________________________________________________________________
C. __________________________________________________________________
D. __________________________________________________________________
14. Based on your experiences, how would you rate the financial track record of
TOD and joint development projects to date?
(Please rate on a scale of 1 to 7.)
Poor Medium Good

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
C-8

D. RECOMMENDATIONS
15. Finally, we’d appreciate any suggestions (including public policies) regarding
what factors would increase your firm’s interest in lending for projects that
promote urban or suburban infill, mixed use, or transit-oriented or joint
development:
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
C-9

Abbreviations used without definitions in TRB publications:
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NCTRP National Cooperative Transit Research and Development Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TRB Transportation Research Board
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

The National Academies Press

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/23360 SHARE

Transit-Oriented Development in the United States:

524 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

GET THIS BOOK

FIND RELATED TITLES

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2004.

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

TCRP REPORT 102

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP REPORT 102

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR TCRP REPORT 102

PROJECT PANEL H-27

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experi-

Focusing development around transit facilities has become a significant way to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS S-1 SUMMARY

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TAD at Brickell, 271

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Conclusions and Suggestions, 437

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Transit-Oriented Development around heavy-, light-, and commuter-rail

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

technical guidance (e.g., transit- restrictive state statutes or self-imposed

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

guidelines should not overemphasize TOD’s secondary benefits include

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

stagnant growth, and, predictably, no Through effective partnerships with

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

work in a TOD neighborhood a Planning and Land-Use Strategies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

in local economies, when traffic revenues that can go to various

Fiscal Considerations and Partnerships Design Challenges

• TODs benefit from efforts to • In urban settings, rationalizing

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

separating a station from the conflict between the role of transit

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN THE

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Introduction formation of the Georgia Regional

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

canvassing the literature, surveying and political leadership in spearheading

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

For further discussions of the survey What Is TOD?