The National Academies Press: Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/23630 SHARE

   
Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies
DETAILS
142 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-37567-2 | DOI 10.17226/23630
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Christopher E. Ferrell, Bruce S. Appleyard, Matthew Taecker, Chris Allen,
Courtney Armusewicz, and Caleb Schroder; Transit Cooperative Research Program;
Transportation Research Board; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
FIND RELATED TITLES Medicine

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 COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 187

Livable Transit Corridors:
Methods, Metrics,
and Strategies
Christopher E. Ferrell
Bruce S. Appleyard
CFA Consultants
Berkeley and San Diego, CA
Matthew Taecker
Taecker Planning and Design
Berkeley, CA
Chris Allen
Courtney Armusewicz
Caleb Schroder
San Diego, CA
Subject Areas
Public Transportation • Planning and Forecasting
Research sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration in cooperation with the Transit Development Corporation
2016
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 187
The nation’s growth and the need to meet mobility, environmental, Project H-45
and energy objectives place demands on public transit systems. Cur- ISSN 1073-4872
rent systems, some of which are old and in need of upgrading, must ISBN 978-0-309-37567-2
expand service area, increase service frequency, and improve efficiency
© 2016 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
to serve these demands. Research is necessary to solve operating prob-
lems, adapt appropriate new technologies from other industries, and
introduce innovations into the transit industry. The Transit Coopera-
tive Research Program (TCRP) serves as one of the principal means by COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
which the transit industry can develop innovative near-term solutions Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
to meet demands placed on it. written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
The need for TCRP was originally identified in TRB Special Report published or copyrighted material used herein.
213—Research for Public Transit: New Directions, published in 1987 Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
and based on a study sponsored by the Urban Mass Transportation publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
Administration—now the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
report by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA),
or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those
Transportation 2000, also recognized the need for local, problem- reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give
solving research. TCRP, modeled after the successful National Coop- appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
erative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), undertakes research other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
and other technical activities in response to the needs of transit ser-
vice providers. The scope of TCRP includes various transit research
fields including planning, service configuration, equipment, facilities, NOTICE
operations, human resources, maintenance, policy, and administrative
The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
practices.
according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
TCRP was established under FTA sponsorship in July 1992. Proposed and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, TCRP was authorized as
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
(ISTEA). On May 13, 1992, a memorandum agreement outlining TCRP Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
operating procedures was executed by the three cooperating organi- program sponsors.
zations: FTA; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); Medicine; and the sponsors of the Transit Cooperative Research Program do not endorse
and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because
educational and research organization established by APTA. TDC is they are considered essential to the object of the report.
responsible for forming the independent governing board, designated
as the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) 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 identi-
fying the highest priority projects. As part of the evaluation, the TOPS
Committee defines funding levels and expected products.
Once selected, each project is assigned to an expert panel appointed
by TRB. The panels prepare project statements (requests for propos-
als), select contractors, and provide technical guidance and counsel
throughout the life of the project. The process for developing research
problem statements and selecting research agencies has been used by
TRB in managing cooperative research programs since 1962. As in
other TRB activities, TCRP project panels serve voluntarily without
compensation.
Because research cannot have the desired effect if products fail to
reach the intended audience, special emphasis is placed on disseminat-
ing TCRP results to the intended users of the research: transit agen-
cies, service providers, and suppliers. TRB provides a series of research
reports, syntheses of transit practice, and other supporting material Published research reports of the
developed by TCRP research. APTA will arrange for workshops, train- TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
ing aids, field visits, and other activities to ensure that results are imple-
are available from
mented by urban and rural transit industry practitioners.
TCRP provides a forum where transit agencies can cooperatively Transportation Research Board
Business Office
address common operational problems. TCRP results support and 500 Fifth Street, NW
complement other ongoing transit research and training programs. Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public
understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is
objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
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.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 187

Christopher Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs (Interim)
Dianne S. Schwager, Senior Program Officer
Daniel J. Magnolia, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Scott E. Hitchcock, Editor
TCRP PROJECT H-45 PANEL

Field of Policy and Planning
Samuel N. Seskin, Portland, OR (Chair)
Vivian E. Baker, New Jersey Transit, Newark, NJ
Margaret E. Banyan, Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, FL
Nat Bottigheimer, Princeton, NJ
Joseph Hacker, Georgia State University—PMAP, Atlanta, GA
Laurence V. Lewis, Kittelson & Associates, Inc., Oakland, CA
Val Menotti, Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Oakland, CA
Jeffrey R. Riegner, Whitman, Requardt & Associates, LLP, Wilmington, DE
Karla E. Weaver, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington, TX
David E. Wohlwill, Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pittsburgh, PA
Christopher M. Yake, City of Seattle, Seattle, WA
Mariia Zimmerman, MZ Strategies, LLC, Richmond, VA
Anthony Loui, FTA Liaison
Robert Carlson, CTAA Liaison
Darnell Grisby, APTA Liaison
Matthew Hardy, AASHTO Liaison
Alicia Mariscal, EPA Office of the Inspector General Liaison
Stephen J. Andrle, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research reported herein was performed under TCRP Project H-45 by CFA Consultants, the prime
contractor for this study. Dr. Christopher E. Ferrell, Principal at CFA Consultants was the Project Director
and Principal Investigator. Dr. Bruce S. Appleyard, Principal at CFA Consultants and Assistant Professor
at San Diego State University was the Deputy Principal Investigator.
The other authors of this report were Matthew Taecker, AICP AIA, Principal of Taecker Planning and
Design; Chris Allen, Courtney Armusewicz, and Caleb Schroder, all graduate students at San Diego State
University.
Important contributions to this project were made by Michael Carroll, President of CFA Consultants;
Dr. Reid Ewing, Professor at the University of Utah; Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, formerly Professor at the Uni-
versity of Utah and now Associate Dean for Research and Discovery and Professor at the University of
Arizona; Herbert Levinson, President of Herbert S. Levinson Consulting; John Fregonese, AICP, President
of Fregonese Associates; C.J. Gabbe, AICP, formerly Project Manager at Fregonese Associates and cur-
rently a Ph.D. student in Urban Planning at the University of California, Los Angeles; Alex Joyce, AICP,
Project Manager at Fregonese Associates; and Evan Casey, Alexander Frost, Edvardo Cordova, and
Ardisher Beheshti, all graduate students at San Diego State University.

FOREWORD
By Dianne S. Schwager
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
TCRP Research Report 187: Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies
presents practical planning and implementation strategies to enhance livability in transit
corridors. This Handbook provides a resource for planning practitioners, policy makers,
and other stakeholders to measure, understand, and improve transit corridor livability.
This Handbook provides a definition of transit corridor livability and a set of methods, met-
rics, and strategies—framed within a five-step visioning and improvement process—that com-
munities can use to improve livability in their transit corridors. This process provides transit
corridor stakeholders with a set of tools and techniques that can help in planning and building
support for corridor improvements, screening alternatives in preparation for environmental
review, identifying a corridor’s livability needs, and developing an action-oriented set of strat-
egies for improving transit corridor livability and quality of life. To assist Handbook users in
this process, a spreadsheet-based Transit Corridor Livability Calculator tool is also available for
download from the TRB website (trb.org) by searching “TCRP Research Report 187.”
The Handbook presents five steps for planning livable corridors: Step 1: Initiate Project;
Step 2: Assess the Corridor; Step 3: Identify Goals; Step 4: Develop a Vision; and Step 5:
Implement Strategies.
Much of the project research is presented in the eight appendices that accompany this
Handbook:
• Appendix A: Goals and Related Strategies.

• Appendix B: Description of Implementation Strategies.
• Appendix C: Coordination and Collaboration Strategies.
• Appendix D: Livable Transit Corridor Typology.
• Appendix E: People and Place Livability Combinations.
• Appendix F: Metrics, Methods, and Data.
• Appendix G: Statistical Analysis of Metrics and Typology Categories.
• Appendix H: Calculator User Manual.
The research was performed by CFA Consultants, with Christopher E. Ferrell, Principal
Investigator, and Bruce S. Appleyard, Deputy Principal Investigator. The research methods
included quantitative, statistical measurement and modeling of over 350 transit corridors in
the United States as well as focused qualitative data collection and analysis of 17 case study cor-
ridors. Quantitative analysis was primarily used to identify the metrics that worked best to char-
acterize the livability and quality of life outcomes of transit corridors, while qualitative analysis
served to identify and evaluate the state of the practice of livability improvement strategies.

CONTENTS
1 Handbook Introduction
1 What This Handbook Is (and Is Not) Designed to Do
2 Why Plan for Livability?
2 Why Plan Transit Corridors?
2 Defining Transit Corridor Livability
3 Transit Corridor Livability Visioning
7 Section 1 Initiate Project (Step 1)
7 Introduction
7 Step 1.1: Organize Stakeholders and Develop Collaborative Process
10 Step 1.2: Develop Stakeholder Transit Corridor Livability Definition
20 Step 1.3: Organize and Establish Focus Groups
23 Section 2 Assess the Corridor (Step 2)
23 Introduction
23 Step 2.1: Select Livability Metrics
23 Step 2.2: Define and Select Study Corridor(s)
24 Step 2.3: Apply Metrics to Corridor(s)
27 Section 3 Identify Goals (Step 3)
27 Introduction
27 Step 3.1: Identify Relevant Goals
27 Step 3.2: Identify Corridor Strengths and Needs
36 Section 4 Develop a Vision (Step 4)
36 Introduction
36 Step 4.1: Develop Corridor Improvement Scenarios
37 Step 4.2: Analyze Corridor Improvement Scenarios
37 Step 4.3: Select Vision
41 Section 5 Implement Strategies (Step 5)
41 Introduction
41 Step 5.1: Examine Menu of Possible Strategies
47 Step 5.2: Link Goals to Strategies
50 Step 5.3: Develop and Adopt Corridor Recommendations
52 Appendix A Goals and Related Strategies
52 Introduction
52 Goals Associated with Livability Principles
60 Appendix B Description of Implementation Strategies
60 Introduction
60 Government Frameworks
65 Livability Strategies
86 Strategies for Corridor Types

88 Appendix C Coordination and Collaboration Strategies

89 Interjurisdictional Coordination
92 Community Engagement
96 Appendix D Livable Transit Corridor Typology
98 Emerging Corridors
100 Transitioning Corridors
102 Integrated Corridors
105 Appendix E People and Place Livability Combinations
105 Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit
105 Transit-Accessible Economic Opportunities
106 Accessible Social and Government Services
107 Vibrant and Accessible Community, Cultural, and Recreational Opportunities
107 Healthy, Safe, Walkable Transit Corridor Neighborhoods
109 Appendix F Metrics, Methods, and Data
109 High-Quality Transit, Walking, and Bicycling Opportunities
110 Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit
111 Transit-Accessible Economic Opportunities
111 Accessible Social and Government Services
113 Vibrant and Accessible Community, Cultural, and Recreational Opportunities
114 Healthy, Safe, Walkable Transit Corridor Neighborhoods
114 Data Availability
117 Appendix G Statistical Analysis of Metrics
and Typology Categories
120 Appendix H Calculator User Manual
128 References

Handbook Introduction
While livability has received increasing attention in planning and policy circles recently,
agreement as to how to define, measure, and create it has been elusive. This is especially true
in terms of the livability benefits of transit investments. While livability definitions tend to boil
livability down to serving diverse people with diverse opportunities (RITA Office of Research,
Development, and Technology 2011), most have not been specific enough to measure it consis-
tently and implement it effectively. Furthermore, getting specific about livability—particularly
when focusing on the livability benefits of transit-supportive investments—may cause those
who do not care for transit to dismiss it.
This Handbook offers a bridge between these objectives: it provides a definition broad enough
for all but specific enough to be useful. It provides a measurable and actionable definition of
transit corridor livability that is based on core, widely accepted values that can make it uni-
versally acceptable. Using this definition, the Handbook offers a set of methods, metrics, and
strategies embedded within a five-step visioning and improvement process that communities
can use to improve livability in their transit corridors. This process, and the methods, metrics
and strategies it employs, provides transit corridor stakeholders with a set of tools and tech-
niques that can help in planning and building support for corridor improvements, screening
alternatives in preparation for environmental review, identifying a corridor’s livability needs,
and developing an action-oriented set of strategies for improving transit corridor livability and
quality of life.
What This Handbook Is (and Is Not) Designed to Do

This Handbook is designed to provide the following:
• A clear and precise understanding of transit corridor livability that is also flexible enough to
account for local values and aspirations—it is not one-size-fits-all.
• A practical, powerful, and empirically based set of analytic tools for measurement, which are
designed to supplement but not replace established travel demand, transit quality of service,
or traffic operations tools.
• A clear, step-by-step visioning process for building corridor coalitions, not for top-down
planning.
• A comprehensive menu of implementation goals and strategies that provides options without
being prescriptive.
1

2 Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies
Why Plan for Livability?

There are a number of important benefits to planning transit systems and their surrounding
communities for enhanced livability. Livability planning techniques and implementation
strategies can help:
• Increase transit ridership, walking, and bicycle use;
• Increase the number of people who can perform many of their daily activities within their
communities;
• Provide more affordable housing opportunities;
• Provide more opportunities for a community’s residents, workers, and visitors to make healthy
lifestyle choices through active transportation modes such as walking and cycling; and
• Increase public participation and equity in the planning process.
Why Plan Transit Corridors?

There are several important benefits to planning transit systems and their surrounding
communities at the corridor level. Transit corridor-level planning helps to:
• Increase transit ridership by creating consistent and connected corridor station areas;
• Provide more economic development opportunities beyond immediate station areas;
• Increase the distance people will be willing to walk or bike by integrating transit services on a
corridor-wide basis;
• Provide desirable land uses and amenities linking neighborhoods to transit;
• Provide transit-accessible activities and opportunities that serve the full spectrum of residents’
needs;
• Bring urban design, infrastructure, and streetscape improvements to areas not typically
covered by plans focused on the quarter- to half-mile radius of transit stations, which helps
create consistent and connected corridor station areas (Urban Land Institute-Los Angeles
2013);
• Provide more economic development opportunities beyond immediate station areas, which
leverages private investment with public investment collateral to transit and economic
development (Urban Land Institute-Los Angeles 2013); and
• Decrease the “first-mile/last-mile” problem of transit station access, which increases the
distance people will be willing to walk or bike and integrates transit services on a corridor-wide
basis (Urban Land Institute-Los Angeles 2013).
Defining Transit Corridor Livability

The Handbook defines livability as people having good access to opportunities they can use in
the pursuit of improvements to their quality of life.
This is a definition of livability for all.
The Handbook’s definition combines this “access to opportunities” statement with refined
and transit-specific versions of the Livability Principles developed by the Partnership for Sus-
tainable Communities—a collaboration between the U.S. Department of Transportation, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development et al. undated). The new Transit Corridor
Livability Principles are summarized and presented along with the original principles that inspired
them in Table 1.

Handbook Introduction 3
Table 1. Comparison of the Partnership’s Livability Principles

with the Transit Corridor Livability Principles.
Partnership for Sustainable

Communities' Livability Principles Transit Corridor Livability Principles
High-quality transit, walking, and bicycling
Provide more transportation choices
opportunities
Promote equitable and affordable housing Mixed-income housing near transit
Enhance economic competitiveness Transit-accessible economic opportunities
Coordinate and leverage federal policies

Accessible social and government services
and investments
Vibrant and accessible community, cultural,

Support existing communities
and recreational opportunities
Healthy, safe, walkable transit corridor

Value communities and neighborhoods
neighborhoods
Transit Corridor Livability Visioning

This Handbook uses the transit corridor livability definition as a foundation to present a
set of assessment methods, metrics, and implementation strategies that metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs), councils of governments (COGs), large transit agencies that have multi-
jurisdiction service areas, and other stakeholders can use to improve their transit corridors.
Corridor-level planning, scenario-based planning, and placemaking techniques are all embed-
ded within a familiar and effective stakeholder-led visioning process for building livable transit
communities based on a national review of best practices.
Corridor-Level Planning and MPO/COG Leadership

Transportation planners are increasingly embracing corridor-level methods for coordinating
transportation and land use investments. This Handbook is designed to fit into that trend, but
like the concept of livability, corridor planning brings with it a host of challenges.
Two categories of challenges are common to both transit corridor and livability planning
efforts: jurisdictional and interdisciplinary. Jurisdictional challenges arise because corridors often
cross governmental boundaries. Corridor-level planning requires coordination and collaboration
among overlapping jurisdictions. Cross-jurisdictional collaboration requires stakeholder leader-
ship at the regional level that can mediate, broker, and incentivize common corridor livability
development goals.
Building livability also requires an interdisciplinary approach to planning, calling for coop-
eration among public and private stakeholders that may not be used to working together. Plan-
ning pays off when stakeholders who hold different but intersecting interests work together to
clarify and commit to goals (desired outcomes) and strategies (general methods) (Mintzberg
and Quinn 1996). The transit corridor livability methods, metrics, and strategies provided in this
Handbook are embedded within a process of stakeholder engagement using the scenario plan-
ning and visioning process. This visioning process is designed to address both jurisdictional and
interdisciplinary challenges common to transit corridor livability planning, but success requires
leadership that can work collaboratively.
Because of their regional perspective and multidisciplinary contacts, MPOs and COGs are
uniquely suited to be leaders in planning and building livable transit corridors. However, many

transit agencies that provide services to multiple local jurisdictions can also play this leadership
role. This Handbook is designed for an audience of public agencies with regional responsibilities,
but can be used by anyone interested in building livable communities.
Transit Corridor Livability Assessment

This Handbook provides a five-step, best-practices process for analyzing, envisioning, and
improving livability in a transit corridor, as illustrated in Figure 1. The process provides a guide
for evaluating transit corridor needs and making decisions to promote livability. Handbook users
can employ this process and its supporting method, metrics, and strategies as a broad-based plan-
ning exercise that will help coordinate stakeholder actions as well as a supplement to existing plan-
ning processes such as the development of a regional transportation plan (RTP), a transportation
improvement program (TIP), or project screening in preparation for an environmental review
alternatives analysis.
The Handbook addresses each step as a separate section.
• Step 1: Initiate Project—presents a transit corridor livability definition and provides the
building blocks for a Livable Transit Corridor Typology. These definitional foundations are
used to provide the tools and techniques needed by stakeholders to articulate a vision for
improving livability in a transit corridor. Users are provided guidance on the methods they can
use to establish a transit corridor livability stakeholders group, analysis team, project develop-
ment process, and working transit corridor livability definition.
• Step 2: Assess the Corridor—offers a set of methods and metrics that corridor stakeholders
can use to evaluate existing livability strengths and needs as they proceed with livability improve-
ments. These assessment methods can also be used to compare their corridor to others in the
United States and identify the best goals and strategies to adopt for implementation. Handbook
users can employ the metrics provided in Section 2 to identify the study corridor’s strengths
Note: The process substeps shown in this diagram are summarized with names that do not always directly correspond to each sub-step presented in this
Handbook.
Figure 1. Transit corridor livability visioning and improvement process steps.

Handbook Introduction 5
and needs for livability improvements. This step uses a combination of metric values and
professional judgments to classify the study corridor according to the Transit Corridor Livabil-
ity Typology. Table 2 presents these metrics and their associated Transit Corridor Livability
Principles.
• Step 3: Identify Goals—provides a visioning process that combines stakeholder engagement,
fact-finding analysis, and collaborative goal setting. The goals listed in this section can help
stakeholders reach consensus and take actions that build livable transit corridors. The goals
provide critical assistance by clarifying intentions, identifying means, prioritizing resources,
and gaining stakeholder agreement in the pursuit of livability.
• Step 4: Develop a Vision—outlines actions stakeholders can use to determine what they want
their corridor to look like. Using the metrics-identified strengths and needs and general transit
corridor livability planning goals, corridor improvement scenarios are identified and analyzed.
• Step 5: Implement Strategies—offers a menu of strategies that will help corridor stakeholders
meet the goals selected from Step 3. Strategies can also be identified and selected using the
Livable Transit Corridor Typology.
Table 2. Transit Corridor Livability Principles and their metrics.
Transit Corridor Factor

Livability Principles Category1 Factor Name Metrics
Transit employment accessibility
Place Urban form (weighted employment within 45-
High-quality transit, minute transit commute)
walking, and bicycling
opportunities Corridor transit service coverage
Transit and non-auto
People (aggregate frequency of transit
service quality
service per square mile)
Corridor housing unaffordability
Mixed-income
Place (percent of income spent for
housing
housing)
Mixed-income housing Income diversity (average
near transit Economically and variance of census block group
People age-diverse household incomes in corridor
population from corridor-wide average
household income)
Employment Corridor jobs density
Place
Transit-accessible opportunities (employees/acre)
economic opportunities Consumer Corridor retail jobs density
People
opportunities (corridor retail employees/acre)
Corridor transit ridership balance
(ratio of the sum of each
Place Effective services
Accessible social and corridor’s boardings and
government services alightings)
Corridor health care opportunities
People Accessible services
(health care employees/acre)
Vibrant and accessible Place Urban form Corridor density (population/acre)

community, cultural, and Cultural &
recreational Access to culture & arts (corridor
People recreational
opportunities entertainment employees/acre)
opportunities
Pedestrian-oriented Corridor pedestrian environment
Healthy, safe, and Place
environment (intersection density)
walkable transit corridor
neighborhoods Corridor pedestrian collisions per
People Neighborhood safety
daily 100,000 pedestrians
1
Two factors were identified for each principle—people and place factors—based on an analysis of the common
components of existing livability definitions found in the literature. Place factors describe the functional and
physical attributes of a corridor that shape the livability opportunities available in a transit corridor; people factors
describe the services that people derive from the livability opportunities in that same corridor.

In designing for livability, the community engagement process must involve a diverse set of
stakeholders. This requires a commitment to engage those often left out of the typical planning
process but who are nevertheless representative of the corridor. This process offers methods
for an MPO or a COG (hereafter referred to jointly as “MPOs”) to lead a collaborative analysis,
visioning, and planning process for improving livability in a transit corridor. MPOs can be natural
leaders in this process. Their focus is regional, their work requires collaboration with a wide
variety of public and private stakeholders, and they influence or control large transportation
funding resources.
The Transit Corridor Livability Calculator Tool

To assist Handbook users in this process, a spreadsheet-based Transit Corridor Livability
Calculator tool is also available for download. The Calculator provides the data necessary to
estimate 10 of the 12 metrics used in the Handbook to gauge livability for user-defined transit
corridors in most metropolitan areas of the United States. The Calculator presents these metric
scores as they compare to the average metric scores from over 250 transit corridors from across
the country, then guides users through a process of transit corridor livability analysis, goals-setting,
and strategies selection. A step-by-step Calculator User’s Manual is included in Appendix H of
this Handbook.

SECTION 1
Initiate Project (Step 1)
Introduction
This section provides an overview of the recommended methods used to initiate a transit corridor
livability project. Initiate Project (Step 1 in Figure 1) involves three substeps:
• Step 1.1: Organize Stakeholders and Develop Collaborative Process.
• Step 1.2: Develop Stakeholder Transit Corridor Livability Definition.
• Step 1.3: Organize and Establish Focus Groups.
Suggested approaches for stakeholders undertaking each of these steps are discussed below.
Step 1.1: Organize Stakeholders and Develop

Collaborative Process
Creating opportunities consistent with the Transit Corridor Livability Principles (outlined
in Table 1) requires the support of numerous stakeholders. Stakeholder outreach, education,
coordination, and engagement not only inform decision making, but also cultivate support for
livable transit corridor goals. Broadly accepted goals form the foundation of successful livable
transit corridor partnerships and help stakeholders apply their energy and resources toward
shared aspirations and agreed upon strategies.
Typical transit corridor livability coalition stakeholders include metropolitan planning orga-
nizations (MPOs) and COGs, transportation agencies, municipal governments, state-level agen-
cies and departments, private developers and business interests, educational and social service
providers, cultural institutions, advocacy groups, and community members. (For a description
of typical stakeholder types see Appendix C.)
Coordination and Collaboration Strategies for Project Initiation

Coordination and collaboration are critical for responding to local issues, building support among
corridor stakeholders, and developing paths to implementation. Coordination and collaboration
take two basic forms: interjurisdictional cooperation among government agencies, and commu-
nity engagement with nongovernment stakeholders. Interjurisdictional cooperation can be between
governments and between agencies, even when the agencies reside within the same government.
Interjurisdictional cooperation includes:
• Shared information—gathering and synthesizing data relevant to corridor planning.
• Corridor focus—examining issues of interjurisdictional importance along corridors.
• Shared vision—making multilateral agreements that transcend geographic boundaries and
local perspectives.
7

Effective community engagement includes:

• Outreach and education—disseminating public information and inviting broad-based
participation.
• Community assessments—understanding local issues and aspirations through the eyes of
stakeholders (McConville 2013).
• Meaningful input—giving diverse stakeholders meaningful opportunities to influence and
shape decision making.
For more discussion, see Appendix C.
Organize the Stakeholder Team

Get organized as soon as possible. Stakeholders generally volunteer their time (either as indi-
viduals or as paid representatives of other organizations with other duties) so it is important to
make the most of their involvement, quickly building momentum toward action. Since transit
corridor livability initiatives generate the most benefits when they effectively address a wide range
of issues and topics, the team or organization created should reflect the diversity of backgrounds
stakeholders bring as well as the diversity of disciplines the livability initiative will address. It also
is important not to take on too much, thus losing focus and wasting limited planning resources.
The complexity of the team depends on the scope of the transit corridor livability vision, the
levels of interest and motivation stakeholders have for the effort, and the resources available.
For example, limited funds available for developing Los Angeles’s “Orange Line BRT [bus rapid
transit] Corridor Improvement Plan” necessitated creating a team that mostly concentrated on
transportation, land use, and urban design interventions. This focused scope and vision was
reflected in the makeup of their planning team, which was limited to stakeholders with interests
and capabilities in these areas.
Formal establishment of the corridor stakeholder group as a legally recognized entity may be
desirable when the team has some combination of the following expectations:
• Long-term dedicated and dependable revenue streams available for the planning and
implementation efforts.
• A wide scope of planning issues and diversity of disciplines to be addressed and that may
require formal relationships between public and private stakeholder organizations.
• There is a need for full-time staff and/or contracting authority to hire consultants.
Informal team organizations are more typical since they tend to be flexible and less costly to
administer. Organizational structures (both formal and informal) for transit corridor and livability
teams can range from a single stakeholder team or committee charged with all aspects of planning
and strategy implementation to large groups of committees, each focused on particular aspects of
the project. Figure 2 illustrates the organizational structure for Livable Roanoke Valley in south-
western Virginia.
Typical organizational structures include the following committees:
• Steering and Oversight.
• Technical Advisory.
• Issue-based Focus Groups.
Steering and Oversight Committee

Many livability and transit corridor planning efforts organize their stakeholders within systems
of tiered committees under the umbrella of a steering or oversight committee. This entity is

Initiate Project (Step 1) 9
Source: Graphic provided by The Partnership for a Livable Roanoke Valley.
Figure 2. Organizational plan for Livable Roanoke Valley.
responsible for setting the vision and goals for the overall team and often makes high-level
decisions pertaining to funding, contracting, and policies. The steering committee also sets up
and manages the overall committee and staff administrative structures.
The steering committee works best when a process for meetings and decision making are clearly
established in writing as soon as possible. Meeting agendas and rules of order that are followed
with regularity establish clear expectations for roles, responsibilities, and standards of respectful
and equitable discourse among stakeholders. Because formality can also suppress open and creative
communications, there should be sufficient time and opportunities for stakeholders to discuss
issues less formally as well.
Technical Advisory Committee

While analysts play an important role in measuring existing and forecasting future conditions,
they are not always recognized for the critical role they play in helping identify goals, select
strategies, and determine outcomes in the planning process, especially when there are diverse
stakeholders and interests. Analysts should have a mandate from their management to work
together collaboratively to reflect this diversity.
Working within established protocols of their own agencies comes naturally to staff unless
they have experience working in multiagency partnerships. Transit agencies, for example, often
conduct operational analysis and planning activities with internal agency staff. The downside
of this approach is that each partner agency’s analyst can feel little incentive to collaborate with
analysts and planners from other partner agencies, missing opportunities to develop a multi
disciplinary set of goals, strategies, and implementation activities.

To prevent this “silo effect,” consider forming a collaborative technical advisory subcommittee,
staffed by analysts from all relevant stakeholder agencies, to set standards, select methods, and
assign analysis work tasks collaboratively.
Alternatively, hiring consulting analysts to provide these services, rather than stakeholder
agency staff, can also help prevent the silo effect.
Focus Groups
For broad-scope transit corridor livability initiatives engaging a diverse collection of stake-
holders, issues, and strategies, consider creating focus groups (subcommittees) that can target
specific themes and issues. Since the areas each group will focus on is best determined after the
stakeholders define and adopt a set of Transit Corridor Livability Principles in Step 1.2, guidance
on defining and forming focus groups is provided in Step 1.3.
Recommended Practice: Organizing the Team

Establish a Steering and Oversight Committee and a Technical Advisory Team as soon as
possible to create a sense of momentum and purpose for the stakeholders. Define and establish
focus groups once the Steering and Oversight Committee has adopted a working transit corridor
livability definition.
Step 1.2: Develop Stakeholder Transit Corridor

Livability Definition
Early in the collaborative process, it is important to develop a working definition for transit
corridor livability that is agreeable to all stakeholders, but specific enough to guide the visioning
and implementation work to come. A working definition will help guide later decisions related
to identifying, analyzing, planning, and building livable transit corridors. This Handbook provides
a framework for stakeholder groups to define a common understanding of transit corridor livability.
This definition has two parts: a transit corridor definition and a definition of livability.
While the transit corridor livability definition and its principles were designed to be universally
applicable, different stakeholder groups may emphasize or de-emphasize elements of this Hand-
book’s definition based on local values and political realities. However, caution is warranted
since the stakeholders’ working definition and its principles will affect the metrics they use and
ultimately shape the corridor strengths and needs they identify.
The definition provided in this Handbook comprises six Transit Corridor Livability Prin-
ciples based on the Livability Principles developed by U.S.DOT, HUD (Housing and Urban
Development), and the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development et al. undated). As shown in Table 2, each Principle is made up of a “People”
and a “Place” factor. Brief descriptions of each Principle and its factors are provided below:
• High-Quality Transit, Walking, and Bicycling Opportunities: Opportunities for high-quality
transit, walking, and bicycling are distinguished by a combination of non-auto transportation ser-
vice quality (the people factor) with urban form characteristics (the place factor). High-quality urban
form characteristics can be described as transit-oriented development (TOD) and other compact
development patterns that increase the accessibility of people to employment and services without
the need for a car. Non-auto transportation service quality characteristics include comprehensive
and high-frequency transit services, and complete and direct sidewalk and bicycle facility networks.
• Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit: Transit corridors with equitable and affordable housing
opportunities have a combination of an economically and age-diverse population (the people

Community Engagement and Equity Planning Strategies Implementation:

Corridors of Opportunity in the Twin Cities
Community engagement plays a central role in identifying and addressing social
and economic needs in less advantaged communities, such as communities with
large shares of low-income households and immigrants. In Minneapolis-St. Paul,
the Corridors of Opportunity (COO) initiative sought to understand how all kinds
of people along a transit corridor define their needs. The initiative emphasized
the creation of programs to increase benefits to underserved populations and
worked to identify and minimize potential negative impacts. A Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) grant made the COO possible and was dedicated
to outreach activities administered by community-based organizations doing
corridor-level outreach and engagement. Micro-grants were made for outreach
activities and emphasized two-way conversations to provide people with real
opportunities for input.
This led to programs benefiting disadvantaged neighborhoods, including

programs for small business development, such as entrepreneurial training,
professional skill building, small business loans, and support for identifying
and leasing in emerging TOD locations. A grant to a Native American com
munity group led to charrettes and planning activities to change a station
area with overpasses and other pedestrian barriers into a place with a net-
work of pedestrian-friendly routes and community destinations, such as a
farmers’ market.
A co-benefit of these community-based planning activities is the expansion

of community organization capabilities. Activities built relationships among
community organization leaders and public agencies and officials, as community
members and organizations have remained involved with COO implementation.
Source: Ruch and Partnership for Regional Opportunity: Corridors of

Opportunity (2013).

factor) and adequate mixed-income housing (the place factor). Corridors with people from
diverse social and economic backgrounds can provide opportunities for residents and visitors to
feel kinship within it, while also offering opportunities for people from different backgrounds to
mingle, interact, find common ground, and possibly create new community identities in the
process. Corridors with adequate mixed-income housing provide housing rental and ownership
opportunities that are affordable to people of diverse economic and social backgrounds.
• Transit-Accessible Economic Opportunities: Transit corridors with good economic opportu-
nities have a combination of high-quality and quantity of consumer opportunities (the people
factor) and an ample supply of employment (the place factor). Corridors with high concentra-
tions of employment provide transit-accessible means for residents and visitors to earn decent
incomes. Corridors with ample consumer opportunities provide retail outlets, both large and
small, that offer a competitive consumer marketplace accessible without the need of a car.
• Accessible Social and Government Services: The quality, quantity, and accessibility of social
and governmental services (both public and private) are important elements in creating a truly
livable transit corridor. Livable corridors tend to have high-quality, effective social and govern-
ment services (a people factor) that are accessible (the place factor). Corridors with highly
accessible services provide high concentrations of health care, social welfare, and government
service outlets around transit stations. Corridors with high-quality social and governmental
services are distinguished by a high level of coordination between different levels and branches
of government and privately run providers, including highly integrated transportation and
land uses that use the full capacities of their transit, pedestrian, and bicycling facilities.
• Vibrant and Accessible Community, Cultural, and Recreational Opportunities: Transit
corridors with vibrant and accessible community, cultural, and recreational opportunities
have both numerous and diverse artistic, entertainment, and recreational venues (the people
factor) organized in compact, bicycle- and pedestrian-accessible locations near transit (the
place factor).
• Healthy, Safe, and Walkable Transit Corridor Neighborhoods: The most livable transit
corridors also have healthy, safe, and walkable communities near transit nodes and beyond.
People in these corridors are encouraged to walk and exercise more when they feel they can do
so safe from traffic (the people factor). Pedestrian safety and willingness to walk and bicycle
are enhanced when the street network is designed in a pedestrian-oriented fashion, providing
a grid street network with the most direct routes possible for people to reach their destinations
(the place factor).
The more differences between the definition and associated metrics provided in this Handbook
and those used by the stakeholders, the more difficult it will be to compare the study corridors to
the typology and the metric scores of the corridor cases from around the United States provided
herein. Therefore, it is recommended that stakeholders determine the most appropriate transit
corridor livability definition for their purposes based in part on the advice of their analysts.
Step 1.2.1: Define Your Transit Corridor

Travel corridor definitions typically include physical (place) and functional (people) character-
istics. Place characteristics such as transportation facilities and urban form are often used to define
a corridor’s physical boundaries (Blair 2011, City and County of Denver undated, Porter 2012).
The ways people use a corridor—its functional or activity pattern characteristics—can also help
define boundaries [Smith 1999, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC)
2007, Miami Dade County Transit 2011, Reconnecting America and American Public Transit
Administration undated].
This Handbook provides a variety of transit corridor definition criteria for analysts to choose
from. Most define transit corridor boundaries using both physical and functional characteristics.

A transit corridor consists of a transit alignment (the physical transit line at the center “axis” or
“spine” of the corridor), a catchment or buffer area (the width or area of influence of the transit line
that extends outward from the corridor alignment), and its length. Some corridors also contain a
wide variety of land uses, activity patterns, and travel conditions (among other characteristics) that
suggest it should be viewed as a collection of segments.
Analysts and stakeholders can consider (but are not limited to) the following criteria to determine
a transit corridor’s alignment, catchment, length, and segments.
Transit Alignment
The transit alignment can be thought of as the axis or spine of a corridor. Beyond this funda-
mental criterion, this Handbook leaves the selection of other criteria to the analyst’s discretion.
However, this Handbook recommends using one, or a combination, of the following criteria for
identifying transit alignments.
Corridor Service Configuration. The general operating configuration of transit within a

proposed or existing corridor generally takes one of two forms:
• Fixed-guideway: rail and bus services operate in their own, dedicated guideways.
• Mixed-mode: rail and bus services operate in mixed-traffic, general purpose lanes.
Transit Mode. A corridor can be centered on a high-capacity transit line or a collection

of other fixed-guideway and/or mixed-mode transit lines. The following descriptions are not
exhaustive definitions of transit mode types, but a general guide to use when determining what
transit alignment is suitable to consider when defining a corridor. More detailed definitions can
be found in Urban Transit: Systems and Technology (Vuchic 2007).
• Local, express, or rapid bus: a bus line (or collection of bus lines running on a common street)
with peak period headways of 10 minutes at most and 20 minutes in the off-peak.
• BRT: a line running mostly in a fixed-guideway or a dedicated lane/right-of-way.
• Streetcar: electrically powered rail transit running primarily in mixed traffic on city surface
streets.
• Light rail transit (LRT): an LRT line with continuous service throughout the day, running
primarily on a fixed-guideway.
• Heavy rail/rapid transit (HRT): a line running exclusively on a fixed-guideway with continuous
service throughout the day.
• Commuter rail (CR): a line with continuous service throughout the day and average station
spacings no greater than 5 miles. This Handbook considers CR lines with station spacing
longer than 5 miles to provide insufficient coverage of service to its interstation areas for
consideration of livability impacts.
Transit Level of Service Provided. Select the transit alignment based on the identification
of the transit route/line with the highest frequency and/or extent of service provided in the area
of interest.
Length
Determining the best length for a corridor can be tricky because long corridors have more varia-
tion of characteristics (land uses, activity patterns, and travel patterns), while short corridors may
not include enough of both trip origins and destinations (see Internal Capture subsection below).
In other words, a corridor needs to be long enough to be relatively self-contained [containing
enough origins (housing) and destinations (employment)] without being so long that it varies
in character significantly over its length. While a very long corridor may capture more of its

Virginia’s Orange Line Corridor: An Early Example of Transit Corridor Planning

Metropolitan Washington, D.C.’s Orange Line (Rosslyn-Ballston) Corridor is an
early, successful example of corridor-level TOD planning. In the 1960s, county
officials successfully lobbied to change the planned alignment of the Metro line,
moving it away from its planned above-ground route parallel to Interstate 66
(where it would bypass established commercial centers) to an underground align-
ment with stations at key activity centers. The extensive planning efforts that
followed are an early example of corridor-level TOD coordination across jurisdic-
tional boundaries that directed high-density development to station areas with
what they termed the “bulls-eye approach.” This approach targeted the highest-
density development within a quarter-mile of stations, with intensities tapering
off at further distances (Figure 3).
daily trips internally (containing both origins and destinations) and therefore may yield higher
livability metric scores in some cases, the analyst will miss identifying critical shortcomings and
needs in subsections of the corridor that are masked by its sheer size.
Analysts might consider breaking up very long corridors into segments that can be evaluated
separately or combined for analysis as a single unit, depending on their needs. It is strongly recom-
mended that whatever criteria chosen to determine length, the corridor should NOT include
Source: Courtesy of Arlington County Government (undated).
Figure 3. Washington, D.C.’s Rosslyn-Ballston corridor “bull’s eye” concept plan.

corridors with stations BOTH within and outside of central business districts (CBDs) (see CBD
discussion below). Otherwise, consider selecting from the following criteria when determining
corridor length.
Minimum Number of Stations. A corridor will have at least three consecutive stops or stations.
Otherwise, there is no lower limit on the measured length of the transit line.
Internal Capture. A trip between end points should be of practical length for normal daily
activities; that is, a corridor captures a substantial portion of origins and destinations of trips
within it. Internal capture can be evaluated based on the local knowledge and judgments of the
analysts or using a more quantitative approach.
Quantitative approaches use travel survey data to identify trip ends and calculate the standard
deviation of trips that begin and end within similar corridors from the region, state, or nation.
Corridor lengths that include both trip ends within one standard deviation (or two depending
on the preferences of the analyst) of total corridor trips with both origins and destinations within
its boundaries could be considered to have sufficient internal capture. Table 3 provides internal
capture means and standard deviations for a sample of transit corridors in California, Texas, and
Florida.
As discussed above, the analyst needs to be aware that longer corridors will yield greater levels
of internal capture, but also contain significant variations in built form and travel patterns that
may be best analyzed as separate segments. Similarly, short corridors will have more consistent
characteristics internally, but may not be long enough to contain sufficient numbers of origins
and destinations. The analyst must balance these competing needs using professional judgment
and local knowledge of the corridor and how it functions.
Catchment Area
Consider the following criteria to determine a corridor’s catchment area (width).
Maximum Reasonable Walking Distance. The width of a study corridor is a uniform

distance as determined by the existing transit access research literature (such as 1 mile from
high-capacity transit—including BRT—and ½ mile from each local, express, or rapid bus line
alignment, as used for this Handbook’s research).
Station Access Travel Patterns. Using station access survey data (most likely collected by the
transit agency operating the corridor’s transit services), the corridor’s catchment can be defined
by mapping the trip origins and destinations within one standard deviation (or two, depending
on the analyst’s preference) of distance to the nearest transit station, compared to other corridors
from the region, state, or nation. Alternatively, the method described above for determining
length by calculating internal capture rates using travel survey data could be used.
Table 3. Internal capture (all modes and

trip types) mean and standard deviation values
for transit corridors.
Corridor Internal Capture Values

(All Modes and Trip Types)
Standard
Mean Deviation
Corridor Type (l) (r)
Outside of CBD 63.2% 15.0%
Inside of CBD 58.7% 20.6%

Land Use Patterns. Using qualitative or quantitative assessment methods of the study
corridor’s land uses, identify a corridor’s boundaries so it includes both residential areas (origins)
and activity centers (destinations).
Travel Market Potential. Direct ridership models, travel demand forecasting models, and other
ridership projection methods can be used to identify the travel market potential for a proposed
transit alignment and its surrounding corridor.
CBDs
CBDs are important components of livable transit corridors. A transit corridor that provides
quick and convenient access to a vibrant CBD will be highly livable. However, as discussed pre-
viously, it is strongly recommended that whatever criteria the analyst chooses for determining
length, the corridor should NOT include stations both within and outside CBDs since these
areas are often substantially different from one another. If CBD station areas are included in
a corridor that also includes station areas outside the CBD, the CBD’s livability opportunities
will likely dominate the metric scores of the entire transit corridor. As a result, analysts may
inadvertently overlook the livability strengths and needs in the non-CBD areas of the corridor.
Corridors that are entirely within a CBD can be analyzed separately (and with caution) using
this Handbook’s methods and metrics. However, the statistical analysis performed to develop
these methods and metrics used data from corridors outside of CBDs. Therefore, while the same
concepts underpinning this Handbook’s methods and metrics should apply to transit corridors
inside of CBDs, CBDs are unique urban places with their own transportation and land use
dynamics, and therefore the authors of this Handbook strongly urge analysts to use these methods
with caution and to primarily rely on their own (and those of other stakeholders) professional
judgments and knowledge of transit corridors within CBDs.
Segments
A corridor can be broken up into segments based on several criteria. Each segment can be
analyzed separately or combined for analysis as a whole, depending on the needs of the stake-
holders and analysts. The following criteria can be considered for identifying corridor segments.
Station-to-Station Travel Patterns. Use boarding and alighting data for the transit alignment’s
stations/stops to identify groups of stations (segments) that are primarily trip origins (residential)
and those that are primarily trip destinations (activity centers).
Land Use Patterns. Assess the corridor qualitatively or quantitatively to group station areas
with similar land use patterns into common corridor segments.
Boston’s Orange Line Corridor: Identifying Distinct Corridor Segments

Boston’s Orange Line corridor plays a critical role in the region. Roughly one-quarter
of the region’s residents and 300,000 jobs are located near one of the Orange
Line’s 20 stations. The character of the corridor is diverse, ranging from dense,
jobs-rich downtown Boston (the Central segment), to mixed commercial-residential
areas of the north segment, to the largely residential areas along the south
segment. The Orange Line’s planners recognized these distinct corridor segments
early in the process of creating their corridor plan, and analyzed them individually
as well as at the station and corridor levels (see Figure 4).

Source: Metropolitan Area Planning Council (2013).
Figure 4. Boston’s Orange Line analysis segments with existing land uses.
Jurisdictional Boundaries. Use city, service area, or other jurisdictional boundaries to create
corridor segments. Caution is recommended since jurisdictional boundaries often are irrelevant
in terms of the functional characteristics of a corridor and the ways people use them.
Step 1.2.2: Define Livability for Your Corridor

Livability is about access to quality-of-life opportunities. The most livable communities offer
numerous and diverse opportunities (choices) for people to improve the quality of their lives.
Figure 5 illustrates how people convert livability opportunities into quality-of-life outcomes in
a transit corridor.
Opportunities come in many forms, and people’s ideas of what makes a community livable
are often different. A useful livability definition must be general enough to be inclusive. This
Handbook’s livability definition seeks to accommodate as many different perspectives as pos-
sible and says that livability occurs when people have good access to opportunities they can use in
the pursuit of improvements to their quality of life.

Figure 5. People convert livability opportunities

into quality-of-life outcomes.
A definition must also be specific enough to be useful. Without specificity, measurement and
implementation become difficult, if not impossible. This Handbook’s definition is also based on
the Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ Livability Principles (U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development et al. undated) (and other definitions found in the literature) to identify
and evaluate key livability opportunities, thereby making it as specific as possible.
Based on the Partnership’s principles, this Handbook offers a set of Transit Corridor Livability
Principles. These principles state that a livable transit corridor provides accessibility to oppor-
tunities and choices including (1) high-quality transit, walking, and bicycling opportunities;
(2) mixed-income housing near transit; (3) transit-accessible economic opportunities; (4) vibrant
and accessible community, cultural, and recreational opportunities; (5) accessible social and
government services; and (6) healthy, safe, walkable transit corridor neighborhoods. A compari-
son of the Transit Corridor Livability Principles above and those developed by the Partnership for
Sustainable Communities was shown in Table 1.
The definition and principles used in this Handbook are based on the hypothesis (generated
from a review of the existing literature) that transit corridor opportunities are composed of both
people and place opportunities. People and places are two key themes found in many livability
definitions. People and places interact with each other to create opportunities for corridor
residents, workers, and consumers to improve quality of life for themselves and their families
(Puget Sound Regional Council 2012). Livability enhances quality of life by enhancing people
and place opportunities.
Table 4 identifies key people and place opportunities (factors) for each of this Handbook’s
principles based on concepts found in the livability literature. This can help analysts and decision
makers identify and measure how these ideal characteristics interact to provide transit corridor
livability opportunities in their corridors.
People and place factors can interact to create more opportunities than the sum of their parts.
Figure 6 illustrates how these factors can combine to affect the livability opportunity outcomes
in a transit corridor. Each factor is discussed in terms of high and low levels of transit corridor
opportunities (Puget Sound Regional Council 2012). Specific combinations of these charac-
teristics and the degree to which they reinforce each other also help determine transit corridor
livability.
For example, Figure 7 illustrates how transit-oriented urban form (a place factor) provides
a diverse set of land use and urban design qualities that can—under the right circumstances—
interact with and reinforce a diverse set of travel options, including high-quality transit, walking,
and bicycling services (a people factor). In this simplified diagram, each pairing of a people
and place factor creates a set of four combinations with varying transit, walking, and bicycling
opportunities. Each corridor can be assessed according to these opportunities and classified as
one of the four descriptions shown in Figure 7.

Table 4. People and place factor components of transit corridor livability.
Transit Corridor Livability Factor Factor Name

Principles Category
Place Urban form (transit employment accessibility)
opportunities
People Transit and non-auto service quality
Place Mixed-income housing

Mixed-income housing near transit
People Economically and age-diverse population
Place Employment opportunities

Transit-accessible economic opportunities
People Consumer opportunities
Place Urban form (residential density)

Vibrant and accessible community,
cultural, and recreational opportunities
People Cultural and recreational opportunities
Place Accessible services

Accessible social and government
services
People Effective services
Place Pedestrian-oriented environment

neighborhoods
People Neighborhood safety
The darkest box (the upper-right quadrant) represents the most livable corridors, as they have
the most diverse transit, walking, and bicycling opportunities (people factor) and a diverse set of
land use activities (place factor), as might be found in TOD. Therefore, livability opportunities
are generated not merely by the diversity of people or place opportunities in isolation, but by
their interactions.
More extensive discussion of the other people and place interactions for the other Transit
Corridor Livability Principles is provided in Appendix D.
Figure 6. People and place factor interactions.

Figure 7. Urban form (place) and transit/non-auto

service quality (people) factor interactions.
Recommended Practice: Choosing Transit Corridor

Livability Definitions
Develop definitions for your transit corridor (boundaries) and livability in collaboration with
stakeholder decision makers, planners, and analysts, blending local values, aspirations, and
context with the definitions provided in this Handbook. If there are previous planning studies
for your corridor that define the boundaries or livability differently (for example, with a buffer
of two miles instead of one around the transit line), then your stakeholders will need to deter-
mine how important it is that the current study you are undertaking is consistent with these
previous definitions. It is important to remember that the more differences there are between your
definitions and those outlined in this Handbook, the more difficult it will be to use this Handbook’s
methods to guide your selection of goals and strategies. Therefore, consider carefully how much the
methods and definitions you select differ from those provided in this Handbook. If comparison
to the national transit corridor metric baselines provided in this Handbook is an important part
of the stakeholders’ analytic and collaborative processes, then aim to minimize the definitional
and methodological differences between those provided herein and those selected for use.
Step 1.3: Organize and Establish Focus Groups

Consider organizing a set of focus groups composed of interested stakeholders with appro
priate expertise, with each focus group designed around the Transit Corridor Livability Prin-
ciples adopted by the stakeholders in Step 1.2. These principles can be made into clear, concise
mission statements for each focus group. Over the course of the planning and implementation
process, each group can adopt a set of goals and strategies that clearly articulates their mission
(as determined by their assigned principle) and the means to achieve them.
Figure 2 shows how Livable Roanoke Valley’s focus groups fit into their larger organizational
structure. In the San Francisco Bay Area, Alameda County’s Eden Area Livability Initiative designed

Defining Livability in Practice: Partnership for a Livable Roanoke Valley

The Roanoke Valley in southwestern Virginia (including Roanoke City and Salem) has developed a set of livability
initiatives based on a definition that reflects community values and aspirations. Facing a number of social and
economic challenges, the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission and the Council of Community
Services created the Partnership for a Livable Roanoke Valley in 2011. In a two-year-long visioning and planning
process, these partner agencies engaged the wider community in a process to articulate a vision, principles,
goals, and strategies for improving livability in their region.
The eight Livability Guiding Principles, listed below, are written in language specific to their community, but
the themes are familiar and compare well to the Partnership for Sustainable Communities’ Livability Principles
outlined in Table 2.
• Protect the beauty and ecology of the Roanoke Valley.

• Provide a healthy and equitable quality of life for all of our citizens.
• Celebrate the diversity of our region and its contribution to our culture.
• Embrace both our traditions and new innovations to create economic vitality.
• Anticipate and adapt to change with responsible leadership.
• Build on the assets of our local communities to strengthen our regional collaboration.
• Invest in regional infrastructure improvements that meet the communities’ needs of the 21st century.
• Promote excellence in education, job training, and a culture of lifelong learning.
While this Handbook separates definition/principles from goals and strategies for the sake of clarity, Livable
Roanoke Valley’s articulation of a set of actionable and measurable principles, goals, and strategies based on
local values and aspirations provides a solid foundation for the multiagency, multisector partnership process.
Sources: Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission (2015a and 2015b).
Designing Livability Principle-Based Focus Groups: San Francisco Bay Area’s Eden Area Livability Initiative
The Eden Area Livability Initiative’s working (focus) groups are designed and organized to address the key
themes of interest to and expertise of community stakeholders.
• Agriculture and Environment Working Group: Provides educational opportunities in the school system and
surrounding community about agriculture (farming, ranching, and equestrian) while seeking park and open
space opportunities in the urban built out environment.
• Economic Development Working Group: Promotes private economic investment in Eden Area and attracts
both businesses and customers.
• Education Working Group: Advocates and provides avenues for increasing resources and opportunities
for all schools and students in the Eden Area.
• Governance Working Group: Enhances local self-governance.
• Public Safety and Realignment Working Group: Establishes guidelines and protocols regarding licensed and
unlicensed housing establishments such as group homes, care facilities, halfway houses, and other therapeutic
treatment facilities to ensure quality of service and safety of the community and program residents. Works
to prevent crime and reduce recidivism.
Source: Eden Area Livability Initiative (2015).

Table 5. Recommended focus groups according to Handbook’s Transit

Corridor Livability Principles.
Handbook’s Transit Corridor Livability Recommended Focus Groups

Principles

Transportation and land use coordination
opportunities
Mixed-income housing near transit Affordable and equitable housing
Transit-accessible economic opportunities Economic opportunities development
Vibrant and accessible community, cultural, and

Culture and recreation
recreational opportunities
Accessible social and government services Social and government services

Safe and healthy neighborhoods
neighborhoods
their process—including five working (focus) groups—with the goal “to encourage planning
and action across disciplines and interest areas.” This diversity of stakeholders and interests
is reflected in the focus groups they formed and in the text of each group’s goal statements
(Eden Area Livability Initiative 2015).
Recommended Practice: Establishing Focus Groups

Establish focus groups to oversee the planning and implementation of each of the stakeholders’
Transit Corridor Livability Principles. Table 5 provides a list of recommended focus groups
designed to address each Transit Corridor Livability Principle. The names and goals of each group
are subject to stakeholder preferences and needs, and should be tailored to directly address the
principles articulated by the stakeholders.

SECTION 2
Assess the Corridor (Step 2)
Introduction
This section provides an overview of the recommended methods used to assess livability in
transit corridors. Assessment (Step 2 in Figure 1) involves the following three substeps:
• Step 2.1: Select Livability Metrics.
• Step 2.2: Identify and Select Study Corridor(s).
• Step 2.3: Apply Metrics to Corridor(s).
Discussion of recommended approaches for MPOs and their partners undertaking each of
these steps is provided below.
Step 2.1: Select Livability Metrics

Select the metrics for analysis based on data availability, the technical experience of available
analysts, the level of detail needed to identify and select strategies, and the interests of the
corridor stakeholders.
This Handbook provides one metric to represent each people and place characteristic associ
ated with each Transit Corridor Livability Principle (see Table 2). These metrics are NOT intended
to represent the complete variety of factors that one might associate with livability. Rather, they
are offered as indicators that suggest potentially useful avenues for further investigations.
Appendix E presents these metrics and their data sources, which can be used to quickly and
routinely assess livability in a transit corridor, and assesses the availability and quality of each
data source.
Step 2.2: Define and Select Study Corridor(s)

Define the study corridor’s boundaries using the corridor definition criteria described in Step 1
and the following substeps.
Step 2.2.1: Identify General Study Area

Identify the general area within your region of interest based on stakeholder input and
transit expansion planning documents. This often requires a political and collaborative decision
between stakeholders rather than a technical or analytical one. Full participation and colla
boration between regional stakeholders can help ensure that the most relevant study areas are
identified.
23

Validating the Metrics: Corridor Non-auto Internal Trip Capture

To validate the metrics used in this Handbook, the research team used the
metric scores for 31 transit corridors in the United States to predict a proxy
indicator of quality of life (QOL) using an ordinary least squares (OLS) linear
regression model. The proxy QOL indicator selected was the non-auto internal
trip capture rate for each transit corridor in the sample. This model tested
the hypothesis that the more livability opportunities in a corridor, and the
higher its metric scores, the more QOL it would provide, and the more transit,
pedestrian, and bicycle trips that would both start and end inside the corridor’s
boundaries.
Model results (see Appendix G) confirmed this hypothesis, suggesting that

transit corridors with the most livability opportunities also internally capture
the highest proportion of the trips they generate. All independent variables—
the livability metrics—were statistically significant and the model predicted
more than 90 percent of the variation of the internal capture indicator scores.
These findings suggest that the metrics are valid and useful measures of transit
corridor livability.
Step 2.2.2: Select Corridor Alignment, Length, Catchment,

and Segments
Identify the primary existing or planned transit line within the general study area. Criteria for
defining the boundaries of a corridor should be taken from the definition of a transit corridor
developed by stakeholders in Step 1 of this Handbook.
Recommended Practice: Defining Corridor Boundaries

The analyst should represent the boundaries of all study corridors in a geographic information
system (GIS) program (for example, see Figure 8). This will make the data collection, processing,
and metrics calculation steps easier.
Step 2.3: Apply Metrics to Corridor(s)

Use the following process to complete the assessment step, using the metrics stakeholders
selected in Step 2.1.
Step 2.3.1: Collect Data

Collect the data recommended in Appendix E for each metric selected for your study cor
ridors by your technical advisory team. It is usually best to collect data in the most disaggre
gated form available. In other words, given the choice between gathering U.S. Census data at
the census tract or census block group levels, choose the block group level, which is smaller.
The GIS files recommended above that analysts develop for identifying their study corridor
boundaries are ideally suited for selecting the data inside those study corridors from larger
data files.

Assess the Corridor (Step 2) 25
Figure 8. Example of a study corridor’s boundaries mapped in GIS.
Step 2.3.2: Data Preparation

Prepare the data collected for calculating your metrics. All the data for metrics calculation
should be in a single database file. The most effective approach to data preparation is to process
and store the data in a set of geo-referenced GIS files.
Step 2.3.3: Metrics Calculation

Using the metrics selected in Step 2.1 and the spatial data processing capabilities of the ana
lysts’ GIS program, calculate the existing-conditions metrics for each study corridor and, if
appropriate, each corridor segment. An overview of the data calculation methods for each metric
is provided in Appendix E.
Recommended Practice: Selecting and Calculating Metrics

One easy way to measure the livability opportunity characteristics of a transit corridor is to
use the Transit Corridor Livability Calculator included as a companion piece to this Handbook.
The Calculator provides data for most metropolitan-area census block groups in the United
States that can be used to measure the corridor-level people and place characteristics for user-
defined transit corridors in the United States. Table 6 shows the data included in the Calculator
for each metric.

Table 6. Transit corridor livability metrics, data sources, and their availability
in the Calculator tool.
Metric Data Source(s) Included in

Calculator?
Transit employment EPA’s Smart Locations Database (SLD) 2010 Yes
accessibility (weighted D5br: Jobs within 45-minute transit commute, distance decay
employment within 45- (walk network travel time) weighted
minute commute)
Transit service SLD Yes
coverage (aggregate D4d: Aggregate frequency of transit service (D4d) per
frequency of transit square mile
service per sq. mile)
Housing unaffordability HUD’s Housing Affordability Index Dataset (HAI) Yes
(percent of income hh_type1_: housing cost as a percent of income for the
spent for housing) regional typical household (HH), defined as: avg. HH Size for
region, median income for region, average number of
commuters per HH for region
Income diversity National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS), Yes
(variance from regional 2010
median household Census ID B19013: Coefficient of variance of block group
income) median household income compared to either the metro area
or the state median; closer to zero means less diversity, closer
to one means more
Jobs density SLD Yes
(employees/acre) D1c: Gross employment density employees (jobs)/acre on
unprotected land, 2010
Retail jobs density SLD Yes
(retail employees/acre) D1c_Ret10: Gross retail employment density employees
(jobs)/acre on unprotected land
Transit balance of Transit agency route/line data No
ridership flows Inbound (to CBD) daily boardings/inbound daily alightings
Health care SLD Yes
opportunities (health D1c8_Hlth10: Gross health care (8-tier) employment density
care employees/acre) employees (jobs)/acre on unprotected land
Population density SLD Yes
(population/acre) D1b: Gross population density (people/acre) on unprotected
land
Access to culture and SLD Yes
arts (corridor D1c_Ent10: Gross entertainment employment density
entertainment employees (jobs)/acre on unprotected land
employees/acre)
Pedestrian environment SLD Yes
(intersection density) D3bmm4: Intersection density in terms of intersections having
four or more legs per square mile
Pedestrian collisions Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2010 Yes
per 100,000 Pedestrian collisions per 100,000 pedestrians California
pedestrians Only
The recommended way to calculate the average metric scores for the corridor of interest is
by entering a list of census block group ID numbers into the Calculator for all metrics with data
available (see Appendix H). For all corridors and associated metrics where Calculator data are
not available or are insufficient, obtain data from comparable data sources and use a standard
GIS software package to calculate metric values as needed.

SECTION 3
Identify Goals (Step 3)
Introduction
What livability issues do the stakeholders want to focus their efforts on? In this step, stake
holders begin to answer this question through a systematic process to develop preliminary,
applicable goals for their transit corridor. Stakeholder preliminary goals are identified and agreed
upon based on their collaborative discussions as well as the corridor’s strengths and needs identi
fied through the metrics data collection and analysis. Identifying goals (Step 3 in Figure 1) involves
two substeps:
• Step 3.1: Identify Relevant Goals.
• Step 3.2: Identify Corridor Strengths and Needs.
Although they are described sequentially, they are best done in tandem, with the identifica
tion of strengths and needs leading to the consideration of goals, and discussions about goals
leading to further investigations of strengths and needs. The goals identified in Step 3 lead to the
identification and implementation of strategies in Steps 4 and 5.
Step 3.1: Identify Relevant Goals

The Transit Corridor Livability Goals summarized in Table 7 provide a touchstone for iden
tifying a corridor’s relative strengths and needs. Handbook users should review these goals and,
based on the collective knowledge and expertise of the stakeholders, consider how well the study
corridor’s characteristics address each goal. The goals also help define and provide context for
identifying the initial list of corridor livability strengths and needs identified using the metrics
in Step 3.2. Develop an applicable list of aspirational goals for the study corridor that can be
augmented and refined as corridor strengths and needs are identified.
Step 3.2: Identify Corridor Strengths and Needs

Develop an initial list of corridor strengths and needs by comparing the metric scores for the
study corridor to either or both of the following baselines:
• The best-fit Livable Transit Corridor Typology category
• A representative sample area from within the study corridor’s region.
Consider using the following process to complete Step 3.2, using the metrics stakeholders
selected in Step 2.1.
27

Table 7. Transit Corridor Livability Principles and goals summary lookup table.
Transit Goal
Corridor
Livability
Principles Name Description
Regional Integrate corridor transit, nonmotorized modes, and land uses to provide
Access convenient access to economic, social, and other livability opportunities.
High-quality
transit,
Regional Promote pedestrian and bicycle routes that offer reasonably direct routes
walking, and
Connectivity to local destinations and transit stations/stops.
bicycling
opportunities
Demand Encourage travel decisions that favor alternatives to the car and optimize
Management use of available transit capacity.
Provide sufficient affordable housing that fits the needs of an area’s

Mixed- Affordability workforce and disabled, elderly, and low-income residents, and offer
income affordable transportation options.
housing near
transit Allow and encourage diverse housing options that reflect the variety of
Variety
households and housing needs along a corridor.
Offer a range of employment opportunities and align jobs along the

Jobs and
corridor with the skills of residents who live, or may live, along the
Housing
corridor.
Transit-
accessible
Vitality and Promote economically and culturally vibrant corridor districts. Structure
economic
Growth new growth along transit corridors and away from sensitive land.
opportunities
Encourage the reuse of previously developed land that has become
Reuse
vacant or underutilized.
Provide small parks and other recreational opportunities within walking

distance of most transit-oriented homes, and provide larger parks and
Recreation
recreation facilities along transit corridors while maintaining compact
Vibrant and walkable development near transit stations/stops.
accessible
community,
Cultural Offer opportunities for cultural enrichment.
cultural, and
Enrichment
recreational
opportunities
Provide and maintain schools and community service facilities, such as
Community
libraries and post offices, within walking distance of most homes, while
Facilities
making efficient use of land near transit and major destinations.
Essential Provide convenient transit access to health care and other essential
Services social services.
Accessible
social and
Infrastructure Promote effective and safe infrastructure and other government services,
government
and while supporting other livability goals.
services
Government
Services

Identify Goals (Step 3) 29
Table 7. (Continued).
Transit Goal
Corridor
Livability
Principles Name Description
Provide retail conveniences, recreation, basic services, and cultural

Mix of Uses destinations close to transit stations/stops and within walking distance of
most homes and jobs.
Walking and
Provide pedestrian and bicycling paths that are safe, attractive, and
Biking
support community life.
Environments
Healthy, Line streets with building facades that have generous windows, frequent
safe, and Street- entrances, and attractive features, and generally avoid parking lots or
walkable Oriented blank walls along streets. Enhance connectivity with building entrances
transit Buildings that face streets or are connected to the circulation network via a
corridor pedestrian path.
neighborhoods
Respect historic, scenic, and other characteristics of established districts
Context-
that are important for aesthetic cohesion and represent community
Sensitive
preferences. Embrace and integrate historic and other cultural resources
Design
when possible, such as through adaptive reuse.
Avoid exposure of residents and workers to noise, pollutants, or toxins

Environmental
resulting from corridor land use relationships and construction activities.
Health
Improve health in underserved neighborhoods impacted by industries.
Step 3.2.1: Typology Classification

Identifying which typology category best matches your study corridor is equal parts art and
science. While the typology and the principles are useful, descriptive tools, they are by no means
definitive or absolute. While such precision may have been technically possible, these and other
methods in this Handbook were specifically designed to be flexible enough to be useful to a wide
variety of people and places. Context is critical and the people and places within a corridor can
only be understood within the context of that corridor and its region. The typology, metrics, and
methods provided herein are intended to be flexible tools for understanding corridors and the
places within them, and, in doing so, provide a process for goal setting, strategies selection, and
ultimately, policy and programing. Therefore, analysts and stakeholders should always interpret
the typology, the metrics, and methods provided in this Handbook within the context of their
own local knowledge and understanding of their study corridor.
Three basic corridor types have been defined and categorized according to common sets of
characteristics among transit corridors in the United States that represent idealized qualities of
corridor livability.
• Emerging Transit Corridors serve lower-density, segregated-use communities with limited

transit service. While they generally score low on livability metrics scales due to infrequent
transit service, have relatively few transit- and pedestrian-accessible destinations, and have
an auto-orientation in transportation and land use patterns, these corridors can offer many
opportunities for future livability enhancements, in particular when transit services and new
major transit-accessible destinations (activity centers) are developed.
• Transitioning Transit Corridors are well on their way to providing high-performing livability
conditions but still offer considerable opportunities for improvement. They include emerg
ing corridors that have been transformed by the development of new major transit-accessible

destinations (activity centers) in at least one location along the corridor as well as urban revi
talization and redevelopment opportunities, either due to an abundance of underutilized land,
or older, sometimes economically depressed transit-oriented neighborhoods.
• Integrated Transit Corridors provide a high level of livability performance. They contain both
high-capacity and local transit services, dense and diverse destinations, reasonably direct pedes
trian routes along enhanced walking environments, and balanced jobs and housing. Livability
opportunities in these corridors include significant improvements gained from high transit
service frequencies and “first-mile/last-mile” station-to-destination access enhancements.
Analysts can use a combination of metric values from Step 2, local stakeholder knowledge,
and professional judgments to classify the study corridor according to the idealized characteris
tics of each category as shown in the Transit Corridor Livability Typology in Figure 9.
Each corridor type—shown in columns—is rated in terms of the diversity of and accessibility
to opportunities these corridors generally provide. As such, they represent idealized qualities
of corridor livability: not hard-and-fast rules. Each corridor type was designed by combining
the people and place factor for each principle and identifying those combinations that reflect
categories from typologies found in the literature, as well as statistical modeling of transit cor
ridors from around the United States.
Figure 9. Transit Corridor Livability Typology.

The boxes at the intersections of each column and row represent the quality of the combined
people and place factors, ranked as “low,” “medium,” or “high.” Rankings of “high” signify the
more accessibility to livability opportunities a corridor can achieve.
Figure 10 illustrates how corridors (represented by the black polygon lines) generally fall into
the three typology categories depending on how well they rate in terms of the Transit Corridor
Livability Principles. A similar graph is provided for each study corridor in the Calculator based
on the aggregation of metric scores.
A variety of corridor subcategories are associated with each corridor type, as illustrated in
Figure 11, to help analysts and stakeholders identify appropriate implementation strategies
(see Step 5.2). More detailed discussion of the typology framework for livable transit corridors
is provided in Appendix D.
Using stakeholder knowledge and judgments, a study corridor can be classified qualitatively
using the typology category descriptions above. These judgments are even more effective when
used in tandem with the quantitative methods described below.
Identifying the Best-Fitting Typology Category:

Individual Metric Score Matching
Handbook users can also classify their outside-of-CBD corridors by matching their indi
vidual metric scores (as calculated in Step 2.3) to the average (mean) values presented in Table 8.
Compare the existing-conditions metric values for the study corridor to the average metric values
associated with the typology and listed in Table 8. Look for the typology category that best
matches your corridor’s metric values. The typology category with the most closely matching
mean values and study corridor metric values suggests the best-fitting typology category.
Recommended Practice: Identifying the “Best-Fit” Typology Category

Look for the typology category that best matches your corridor’s metric values and the descrip
tions provided for each category. The Transit Corridor Livability Calculator can help identify the
best-fit typology category based on existing-conditions metric scores. Step-by-step instructions
Figure 10. Composite diagram from the Transit Corridor

Livability Calculator comparing the three transit corridor
typology categories.

Figure 11. Livable Transit Corridor Typology categories.
Table 8. Mean metric values for outside-of-CBD corridors by corridor type.
Metric Mean Values by Outside-of-

CBD Corridor Type
Emerging Transitioning Integrated
Transit employment accessibility
8,512 23,547 48,471
(weighted employment within 45-minute commute)
Transit service coverage (aggregate frequency of
440 1,873 7,473
transit service per square mile)
Housing unaffordability (percent of income spent
32.09 30.41 29.50
for housing)
Income diversity (variance from regional median
0.347 0.358 0.380
household income)
Jobs density (employees/acre) 3.59 8.73 29.43
Retail jobs density (retail employees/acre) 0.509 0.919 2.419
Transit corridor ridership balance (RB) 0.193 0.236 0.353
Health care opportunities (health care employees/
0.80 2.19 4.29
acre)
Population density (population/acre) 10.08 20.46 39.90
Access to culture and arts (corridor entertainment
0.48 1.23 4.89
employees/acre)
Pedestrian environment (intersection density) 85.0 115.9 167.7
Pedestrian collisions per 100,000 pedestrians 13.0 8.0 5.0

for using the Calculator to perform this function can be found in the Calculator User’s Manual
included in Appendix H.
A Note of Caution: The metric averages presented in Table 8 are estimates derived from quantita-
tive analysis (and in the case of pedestrian collisions per 100,000 pedestrians, qualitative assessment of
quantitative findings) of more than 250 outside-of-CBD transit corridors in the United States. How-
ever, in the case of the Housing Unaffordability and Income Diversity metrics, the differences between
these average values for the three typology categories are small. While this suggests that these two metrics
may not be well-suited to describing transit corridor livability conditions, this Handbook’s authors
elected to retain and present them on theoretical grounds, since they are consistent with the Tran-
sit Corridor Livability Principles. Statistical analysis also supports this decision. Analysis of variance
(ANOVA) results found that all the metrics used in this Handbook (including Housing Unaffordability
and Income Diversity) have average values for each typology category that are significantly different
from each other and that these differences are consistent with the theoretical hypotheses posed prior
to analysis (see Appendix G for presentation of these results). Nevertheless, this Handbook’s authors
advise analysts to use the metrics and mean values presented herein with caution, and let local knowl-
edge and professional judgments play a prominent role in identifying the best-fit typology category.
Step 3.2.2: Identify Initial List of Corridor Livability

Strengths and Needs
Identify those metric scores for the study corridor that are closer to the average values for
other corridor categories shown Table 8 than they are to the best-fit corridor category. These
high and low scores represent existing strengths and needs that stakeholders may be able to
leverage and build on to further enhance their corridor’s livability.
For example, the metric scores and rankings for a Transitioning Corridor—the San Francisco
Bay Area’s Richmond BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) Line corridor—provided in Table 9 suggest
the following strengths:
• Pedestrian environment (intersection density): This Transitioning Corridor has a pedestrian-
oriented, walkable environment more typically found in Integrated Corridors.
• Neighborhood safety (pedestrian collisions per 100,000 daily pedestrians): It also is safer for
pedestrians than other corridors in its typology category.
Now identify those metrics for the study corridor with scores that are well below the typology
category average values using Table 8. These scores represent livability needs in your corridor.
Metric scores and rankings for the San Francisco Bay Area’s Richmond BART Line corridor in
Table 9 suggest the following needs (where livability improvement efforts can be focused):
• Transit service coverage (aggregate frequency of transit service per square mile): Transit
service coverage is low compared to other Transitioning Corridors.
• Income diversity (variance from regional median household income): Income diversity is
low compared to other Transitioning Corridors.
• Transit corridor RB: The corridor’s low RB metric score suggests this corridor operates more
as a suburban commuter (Emerging) corridor.
Note: It is important to perform reasonableness checks on metric values to make sure they are consis-
tent with professional judgments and local knowledge of the study corridor. Unquestioned acceptance
of the metric values and rankings can lead to misconceptions about the corridor’s livability needs or
potential for improvements.
Use a combination of the metrics-identified strengths and needs (identified in Step 3.2) and the
preliminary list of goals identified here to select and refine a portfolio of final goals best suited for
improving livability in the study corridor. Table 10 provides an example of goals identification
using the metric scores for the San Francisco Bay Area’s Richmond BART Line Corridor.

Table 9. Example ranking of metric values for the San Francisco Bay Area’s Richmond BART Line corridor.
San Francisco/
Transit Mean Values by Outside-of- Richmond BART
Corridor
Factor CBD Corridor Type Line
Livability
Principles Category Name Measure (Metric) Emerging Transitioning Integrated Values Ranking
Transit employment
accessibility (weighted
Place Urban form 8,512 23,547 48,471 23,449 Average
High-quality employment within 45-
transit, minute commute)
walking, and Transit service
bicycling Transit and coverage (aggregate
opportunities People non-auto frequency of transit 440 1,873 7,473 1,120 Need
service quality service per square
mile)
Housing
Mixed-income unaffordability
Place 32.09 30.41 29.50 30.20 Average
housing (percent of income
Mixed- spent for housing)
income
housing near Income diversity
Economically
transit (average variance of
and age-
People corridor block group 0.347 0.358 0.380 0.290 Need
diverse
incomes from corridor
population
mean)
Employment Jobs density
Transit- Place 3.59 8.73 29.43 6.87 Average
opportunities (employees/acre)
accessible
economic Retail jobs density
Consumer
opportunities People (retail employees/ 0.509 0.919 2.419 1.04 Average
opportunities
acre)
Effective Transit corridor RB
Accessible Place 0.193 0.236 0.353 0.163 Need
services
social and
government Accessible Health care
People 0.80 2.19 4.29 2.32 Average
services services opportunities (health
care employees/acre)
Vibrant and Population density

Place Urban form 10.08 20.46 39.90 21.18 Average
accessible (population/acre)
community, Access to culture and
cultural, and Cultural &
arts (corridor
recreational People recreational 0.48 1.23 4.89 1.19 Average
entertainment
opportunities opportunities
employees/acre)
Pedestrian
Pedestrian-
environment
Place oriented 85.0 115.9 167.7 156.0 Strength
Healthy, safe, (intersection
environment
and walkable density)
transit corridor Pedestrian
neighborhoods Neighborhood collisions per
People 13.0 8.0 5.0 3.18 Strength
safety 100,000
pedestrians

Table 10. Example identification of applicable strategic goals using metric values
for the San Francisco Bay Area’s Richmond BART Line corridor.
Transit Metric Goals Identification

Corridor
Livability Strengths Needs Goals
Principles
High-quality Transit employment accessibility
transit, walking, (weighted employment within 45-minute
and bicycling commute)
opportunities Regional
access
Transit service coverage (aggregate Regional
frequency of transit service per square connectivity
mile)
Demand
management
Mixed-income Housing unaffordability (percent of

housing near income spent for housing)
transit Affordability
Income diversity (variance from regional
median household income) Variety
Transit- Jobs density (employees/acre)

accessible
economic Retail jobs density (retail employees/
opportunities acre)
Accessible Essential
social and services
government Infrastructure
services Transit corridor RB
and
government
services
Health care opportunities (health care

employees/acre)
Vibrant and Population density (population/acre)
accessible
community,
cultural, and Access to culture and arts (corridor
recreational entertainment employees/acre)
opportunities
Healthy, safe, Pedestrian environment (intersection
and walkable density)
transit corridor
Pedestrian collisions per 100,000
neighborhoods
pedestrians

SECTION 4
Develop a Vision (Step 4)
Introduction
This section outlines the actions corridor stakeholders can take to develop a vision for their
transit corridor. Visioning (Step 4 in Figure 1) involves three substeps:
• Step 4.1: Develop Corridor Improvement Scenarios.
• Step 4.2: Analyze Corridor Improvement Scenarios.
• Step 4.3: Select Vision.
Stakeholders should first engage in a collaborative process to outline improvement scenarios

for their corridors, based on the work done in Step 3. Then corridor analysts can estimate the
outcomes of these scenarios and prepare necessary data for evaluating these scenarios using
traditional planning analysis methods.
Step 4.1: Develop Corridor Improvement Scenarios

Engage your stakeholders in a visioning process to determine what they think their corridor
should ultimately become. These scenarios should be “what if” exercises that help stakeholders
identify the likely outcomes of different improvement strategies. Scenarios should engage the
full range of Livability Principles, factors, goals, and strategies outlined in this Handbook, with
emphasis placed on those goals identified in previous steps and their associated strategies.
Many of the most beneficial outcomes from livability improvements are realized from the
interactions between disciplines that are often kept separate. The most effective comprehensive
livability scenario planning efforts will include and leverage these disciplinary “silos,” breaking
down barriers between land use, transportation, housing, economic development, and social
services providers to name a few.
The Lincoln Land Institute report “Opening Access to Scenario Planning Tools” identifies
three critical components of scenario planning: collaboration, capacity building, and creation
of an open environment for engagement. The report defines these as follows:
Collaborative problem solving facilitates resolution of interrelated issues that cannot be resolved by
one organization alone. Capacity building is needed to enable individuals and organizations to apply sce-
nario planning methods and tools effectively to their specific planning concerns. An open environment
for information sharing and education will help accelerate the use and improvement of scenario planning
tools in multiple settings (Holway et al. 2012).
The importance of collaboration and an open environment called for in this passage cannot be
emphasized enough. In a survey of U.S. scenario planning projects, Bartholomew found that with a
handful of notable exceptions, most scenario planning efforts fail to achieve the level of public engage-
ment necessary to achieve their goals. Sixty percent of all projects that concluded with the selection
36

Develop a Vision (Step 4) 37
of a preferred scenario failed to involve the public in this critical decision. Bartholomew concludes
that the “planners’ agenda” is subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) working to frame the problems
and script the solutions in the form of value-laden scenarios. By the time the public is involved, the
planners have already decided on their preferred scenarios and outcomes (Bartholomew 2007).
Recommended Practice: Developing Action-Oriented Scenarios

Consult the following scenario planning guides and resources to help design livability
improvement scenarios for your transit corridor:
• Federal Highway Administration and Volpe Center. 2010. FHWA Scenario Planning Guide-
book. Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.
gov/planning/scenario_and_visualization/scenario_planning/scenario_planning_guidebook/
guidebook.pdf.
• Oregon Sustainable Transportation Initiative. 2013. Scenario Planning Guidelines Resources
for Developing and Evaluating Alternative Land Use and Transportation Scenarios. Oregon
Department of Transportation, Salem, OR. Available at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/
OSTI/docs/Scenario%20Planning%20Guidelines/ODOT-Guidelines-April2013-red.pdf.
• Envision Utah. 2014. A Guide to Regional Visioning: Mapping the Course for Successful Com-
munity Engaged Scenario Planning. Envision Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Available at: http://
envisionutah.org/images/guidebook-images/ScenarioPlanningGuidebook.pdf.
In close collaboration with stakeholders, develop planning-level sketches, diagrams, and other
presentation materials that will help stakeholders envision what the corridor will look like once
the livability planning and implementation process is complete. The Transit Corridor Livability
Calculator provides data for 10 of the 12 metrics for most U.S. census block groups. Create
scenarios for the study corridor by adding or subtracting from the metric scores to reflect the
implementation of different strategies. Evaluate and display for stakeholders the likely outcomes
of each scenario’s strategies once they are implemented and their effects are manifest.
Step 4.2: Analyze Corridor Improvement Scenarios

Provide comparisons of the livability metric scores for existing and future scenarios for the
study corridor. Describe the strengths and needs identified in the analysis above, the preliminary
list of goals selected in Step 3, and the likely outcomes from pursuing those goals.
Re-engage the corridor stakeholders, presenting the analysis results for likely outcomes from
the scenarios they defined in Step 4.1. Design the public involvement and stakeholder engagement
processes to ensure they are robust and inclusive.
Step 4.3: Select Vision

Using the collaborative processes outlined in the steps above, select the preferred corridor
vision scenario based on stakeholder preferences. This vision will serve as the touchstone for
creating a more detailed implementation plan—including goals and strategies—in Step 5.
Recommended Practice: Developing Supporting Materials

for the Vision
Develop supporting materials for the vision that illustrate the key aspects of the plan for each
focus group (as recommended in Step 1.1) or Transit Corridor Livability Principle (as recom-
mended in Step 1.2.2). For example, Figure 12 provides a land use concept plan for the North
Fifth Street Corridor in North Las Vegas, Nevada.

Defining and Analyzing Scenarios: Envision Utah’s Depot District

Scenario Plans
Envision Utah conducted a visioning process using scenario-based planning tools
to develop a series of scenarios for the Depot District in downtown Salt Lake City.
Envision Utah worked in close collaboration with local officials and community
members to identify a series of viable scenarios. These scenarios were evaluated
using a collection of modeling tools, producing a series of outcome indicator
values for each scenario.
Source: Envision Utah (2014).

Develop a Vision (Step 4) 39
Collaboration and Public Involvement for Successful Scenario Planning:

Sacramento’s Regional Blueprint Project
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) initiated a stakeholder and community-led scenario
planning effort in 2002 to develop a regional transportation and land use vision plan. After developing the
business-as-usual, base-case scenario, SACOG and their partners coordinated nearly 40 neighborhood and
countywide workshops. Workshops began at the neighborhood level where participants were provided
with table maps and easy-to-use computer modeling programs that would provide immediate feedback to
the groups on their proposed scenarios. The results of these workshops were integrated into a larger set
of regional scenarios for further testing, refinement, and workshopping (Sacramento Area Council of
Governments 2004).
Source: Federal Highway Administration (undated).

Source: City of North Las Vegas and PlaceWorks (2006).
Figure 12. Land use vision for the North Fifth Street Corridor Plan
in North Las Vegas, Nevada.

SECTION 5
Implement Strategies (Step 5)
Introduction
Implementation strategies link corridor goals to tangible actions. Strategies can identify methods
for addressing needs, assigning responsibilities, and finding and prioritizing resources.
Selected strategies should be tailored to the unique needs and strengths of the study corridor
and recognize available tools. Appendix B, Description of Implementation Strategies, offers a menu
of strategies, but Handbook strategies are NOT prescriptive. Handbook users are encouraged to
modify and add to the strategies provided herein to create a comprehensive list of implementa-
tion strategies, tailored to the unique needs and strengths of the study corridor. After assessing
corridor needs using metric indicators (Step 2), examining goals (Step 3), and setting a vision
supported by stakeholders (Step 4), have stakeholders review, consider, and commit to suitable
implementation strategies (Step 5). Engage corridor stakeholders in the development of strategies
to ensure they are comprehensive and reflect the specific setting.
Implementation (Step 5 in Figure 1) involves three substeps:
• Step 5.1: Examine Menu of Possible Strategies.
• Step 5.2: Link Goals to Strategies.
• Step 5.3: Develop and Adopt Corridor Recommendations.
Step 5.1: Examine Menu of Possible Strategies

A wide range of strategies are available to promote livable transit corridors. Decision makers
and stakeholders should familiarize themselves with available strategies, including those sum-
marized below. Stakeholders’ cursory review of possible strategies should inform discussion
on the most appropriate strategies for building corridor livability. Strategies listed below were
compiled based on planning literature, case studies, and professional experience.
Strategies are organized within two general categories:
• Governance Frameworks describe common ways that governments address livability needs
along transit corridors.
• Livability Strategies are associated with the Livability Principles with which they most closely
relate.
For more detailed descriptions and explanations of these strategies, see Appendix B.
41

Government Frameworks
Government frameworks are the vehicles for instituting the Livability Strategies shown
below. Government frameworks occur at all scales: federal, state, regional, city, and station area.
Literature, interviews, and case studies pointed to the following more common implementation
vehicles.
State and Federal Frameworks

State Declarations. Declarations by state governors can, through executive action, direct
state resources (and influence decisions by regional agencies and local governments) toward
livability-enhancing strategies such as compact development, transportation choices, and afford-
able housing.
Federal Programs. These support community revitalization, transportation alternatives,

and other actions that promote livability, often through grants and technical assistance.
Regional Frameworks
Regional Plans. Regional plans embrace a wide spectrum of livability goals and connect
these to TOD, with authority invested in regional plans varying among states.
TOD Guidelines. Advisory guidelines encourage livability through features like connectivity,
local destinations, and pedestrian-oriented buildings.
TOD Strategic Plans. These are action plans that actively promote TOD by funding station
area plans, offering developer incentives, dedicating land to public-private partnerships, and
cultivating community engagement.
Location-Specific Planning
Station Area Plans. These promote transit-oriented, pedestrian-friendly districts and typically
address a range of planning factors in a location-specific way.
Corridor Plans. These organize land use and transportation to address livability concerns,
such as jobs-housing balance and large-scale transportation investments, which cannot be
adequately addressed with station area or regional plans.
Grant Programs
Technical Assistance Grants. These grants address livability needs by helping local juris-
dictions overcome specific obstacles to building livable transit corridors, such as by addressing
development feasibility, infrastructure needs, or parking and transportation demand.
TOD Implementation Grants. Grants can give direct assistance—for both planning and
capital investments—to promote transit corridor livability, such as the development of infra-
structure financing plans or the funding of complete streets. In brownfield locations (sites with
abandoned and aging industrial uses), grants can help overcome implementation barriers with
site investigations and site cleanup activities.
Incremental Approaches
Livable transit corridor activities must sometimes rely on incremental planning steps to
build political support, using smaller commitments followed by more comprehensive efforts.
Pedestrian safety plans, urban design guidelines, and affordable housing inventories are

Implement Strategies (Step 5) 43
examples of incremental planning efforts that can become foundational cornerstones of larger
corridor plans.
Livability Strategies
The following Livability Strategies are organized by the Transit Corridor Livability Principle
to which they most closely relate. Handbook users should be aware that many strategies apply to
multiple principles and their related goals. (For more on goals, see Section 3 and Appendix A.)
High-Quality Transit, Walking, and Bicycling Opportunities

Opportunities for high-quality transit, walking, and bicycling are a combination of non-
auto transportation service quality with urban form characteristics. High-quality urban form
characteristics can be described as TOD and other compact development patterns that increase
the accessibility of people to employment and services without the need for a car. Non-auto
transportation service quality characteristics include comprehensive and high-frequency transit
services as well as complete and direct sidewalk and bicycle facility networks.
Connected Network Planning. Highly connected transportation networks encourage walking

and bicycling by providing direct routes to destinations, including transit. Network connectivity
can be promoted with district-level planning and by retrofitting circuitous routes.
Circuitous Route Retrofits. Circuitous route retrofits add pedestrian and bicycle connections
across superblocks and in other settings where streets do not provide local connections. They
can be promoted by local planning and by government grants.
Compact Development. Walkable districts with greater density increase housing, support local
“walk-to” retail and services, and boost transit ridership. They can be promoted using infrastructure
investments, zoning regulations, and other TOD-related tools.
Alternative Modes. The availability of alternative modes such as walking, bicycling, and
transit, and incentives for their use, offers greater travel choices, better access, and reduced reliance
on the car. Related strategies include providing free transit passes, secure bicycle parking, and
enhanced pedestrian and bicycle environments (see “Complete Streets” below).
Transit Pass Subsidies. These can be provided by landlords, developers, employers, and
universities to encourage residents, employees, and students to use transit and limit car use.
Parking Management and Requirements. Parking can be managed to reduce car use.
Strategies such as leasing parking separately from other rent (and at market-based prices) can
be paired with alternative modes and reduced zoning requirements to allow development to be
built at higher intensities (see “Compact Development”).
Transit Frequency and Reliability. Opportunities for access are enhanced by more frequent
transit service and predictable transit schedules. Specific approaches include separating transit
from potential sources of congestion and providing real-time departure information.
Last-Mile Shuttles. “Last-mile” shuttles connect corridor trunk transit lines with major
corridor destinations to increase transit use and reduce car use.
Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit

Transit corridors with equitable and affordable housing opportunities have a combination
of an economically and age-diverse population and adequate mixed-income housing. Corridors

with people from diverse social and economic backgrounds can provide opportunities for residents
and visitors to feel kinship within it while also offering opportunities for people from different back-
grounds to mingle, interact, find common ground, and possibly create new community identities in
the process. Corridors with adequate mixed-income housing provide housing rental and ownership
opportunities that are affordable to people of diverse economic and social backgrounds.
Location Efficiency. Housing-plus-transportation (H+T) cost indices influence location

decisions made by residents, employers, and developers, by communicating the benefits of access
to transit, distance to destinations, and compact mixed-use development. Location-efficient
mortgages are being offered to homebuyers in some high-density, transit-rich urban areas as a
way to bring more investment to these communities and increase the availability of affordable
housing.
Housing Production and Targets. Government agencies and nongovernment organizations

can offer real estate expertise and financial assistance to help developers, landowners, and financial
institutions overcome barriers to housing production to increase affordability.
Regulatory Streamlining. Housing production can be encouraged by addressing regulatory

obstacles to development, such as excessive parking requirements, restrictive setback and height
requirements, high fees, and lengthy development approval processes.
Housing Assistance. Low-income households can receive direct assistance from government
to rent housing, such as with Section 8 vouchers, which are generally administered at the local
level and limited to qualifying properties, such as those near transit.
Inclusionary Housing. Local jurisdictions can require residential development projects to

make a certain percentage of housing units affordable to middle- and low-income households.
Inclusionary housing relies on ongoing administration by landlords and monitoring by government.
Local Housing Trust Funds. Development fees or real estate transfer taxes can be assessed
to residential and/or commercial properties for the production of affordable housing. Housing
trust funds are gathered by local governments and used to leverage grants and financing, often
in partnership with affordable housing developers.
Anti-displacement Strategies. Rising rents can force residents out of neighborhoods. This
can be addressed with programs that reduce tax burdens among low-income households, with
below-market inclusionary housing, low-income housing production, and relocation assistance.
Transit-Accessible Economic Opportunities

Transit corridors with good economic opportunities have a combination of a high quality
and quantity of consumer opportunities and an ample supply of employment. Corridors with
high concentrations of employment provide transit-accessible means for residents and visitors
to earn decent incomes. Corridors with ample consumer opportunities provide retail outlets,
both large and small, that offer a competitive consumer marketplace accessible without the need
of a car.
Regional Competitiveness. Strategies for smart growth, TOD, and corridor planning can
promote economic opportunities and the economic health of metropolitan areas, such as by
exchanging real estate information, fostering partnerships, and efficient infrastructure.
Station Area Profiles. Station area profiles gather land use, real estate, demographic, and
other information to inform policy making and communicate development opportunities to
municipal governments, developers, and other stakeholders.

Financial Feasibility and Incentives. Financial factors can deter developers from investing
in corridor livability and TOD, but can be addressed by identifying financial barriers and offering
incentives.
Land Assemblage and Joint Development. Transit agencies and municipalities can encourage
TOD and corridor livability by helping to assemble small parcels and by making public land
available for development through public-private joint development activities.
Predevelopment Assistance. Predevelopment and site investigation funding helps developers

through critical due diligence activities such as market studies and cleanup of contaminated parcels,
and can target livable transit corridor opportunities.
District Financing and Value Capture. District-level financing can underwrite capital
improvements in a station area or subarea of strategic importance, using tools such as local
improvement districts and developer impact fees.
Activity Center Master Plans. Activity centers create nodes of commercial and cultural
activity. Activity centers generally result from large-scale master planning efforts and public-
private partnerships to facilitate land acquisition and development activities.
Jobs-Housing Alignment Activities. Corridor-level planning tools can help regions attain
jobs-housing balance, such as with spatial analysis of jobs versus housing that are accompanied
by “carrots and sticks” for developing jobs and housing in certain locations.
Social Investments. Issues affecting low-income and other disadvantaged communities can
be addressed through community-based planning activities and economic development programs,
such as job training and small business assistance. Programs can target location-efficient places
to leverage a range of additional benefits.
Accessible Social and Government Services

The quality, quantity, and accessibility of social and governmental services (both public
and private) are important elements in creating a truly livable transit corridor. Corridors
with highly accessible services provide high concentrations of health care, social welfare, and
government service outlets around transit stations. Corridors with high-quality social and
governmental services are distinguished by a high level of coordination between different
levels and branches of government and privately run providers and include highly integrated
transportation and land uses that use the full capacities of their transit, pedestrian, and bicycling
facilities.
Partnerships with Service Providers. Local and regional planners can work with area hos-
pitals, universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and other social service providers
to build new and expand existing facilities along transit corridors.
Accessible Community Services. Direct and inviting pedestrian and bicycle connections to
health and other social services enhance livability.
Efficient Infrastructure and Services. Compact development patterns allow community

resources to be used efficiently and can help leverage a wider array of community benefits com-
pared to low-intensity and less-connected places.
Community Safety. Safety and security are essential to livability and are shaped by physical
environments, government services, and community policing.

Vibrant and Accessible Community, Cultural,

and Recreational Opportunities
Transit corridors with vibrant and accessible community, cultural, and recreational oppor-
tunities have a combination of numerous and diverse artistic, entertainment, and recreational
venues organized in compact, bicycle- and pedestrian-accessible locations near transit.
Public Art. Public art enriches communities and can be promoted as part of transit infra-
structure improvements and through local zoning.
Cultural Destinations. Cultural destinations can be encouraged through joint development

for new destinations and by supporting the revitalization of established cultural districts.
District Revitalization. Revitalization is a tool for expanding destinations in established

districts along transit corridors. The revitalization of urban districts saves cultural assets through
reinvestment, while encouraging infill on underused sites.
Recreation and Open Space. Transit and other infrastructure improvements can result in
new recreation and open-space facilities. Recreation and open space can also be created using
zoning, financing districts, and development agreements.
Sense-of-Place Guidelines. Architectural guidelines can be developed to maintain the unique,

valued character of a place. The guidelines can emphasize a place’s character-defining features in
new construction and building additions, as well as preservation and adaptive reuse of historic
resources.
Healthy, Safe, and Walkable Communities

The most livable transit corridors also have healthy, safe, and walkable communities near
transit nodes and beyond. People in these corridors are encouraged to walk and exercise more
when they feel they can do so safe from traffic and crime. Pedestrian safety and willingness to
walk and bicycle are enhanced when the street network is designed in a pedestrian-oriented
fashion, providing a grid street network with the most direct routes possible for people to reach
their destinations.
Complete Streets. Complete streets emphasize pedestrians and bicyclists. MPOs and local
jurisdictions can promote them with design standards, education, and direct funding.
Walk and Bike Safety Audits. Safety audits can identify where pedestrians or bicyclists are
at risk for collision with motor vehicles in order to target funding for needed improvements.
Traffic Calming. Traffic calming supports walking and bicycling to transit and other
destinations, by introducing features like crosswalk improvements, speed tables, and pedestrian-
activated blinker lights.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Maintenance. Pedestrian and bicycle access is maintained
through ongoing maintenance and repairs, which make walking and biking safer and more
attractive.
Form-Based Codes. Form-based codes provide a clear, easily administered format, focusing
on key design characteristics that determine how buildings should relate to streets in order to
encourage walking and support community life. These codes are organized and illustrated to be
easy to use.
TOD Guidelines. See TOD Guidelines description under “Government Frameworks.”

Zoning Overlay Districts. Zoning can be amended as an overlay district to address many
factors found in form-based codes and TOD guidelines, and to provide incentives for development
near transit.
Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED recognizes that

physical factors can attract crime and other unwanted behavior, and that these physical factors
can be addressed through development codes, design guidelines, master plans, and design
review.
Step 5.2: Link Goals to Strategies

Based on examination of metrics and goals (Steps 2 and 3), Handbook users should identify
pertinent strategies by examining Tables 11 through 16, which connect goals to promising strat-
egies, and Table 17, which connects corridor types to possible strategies.
Strategies that Relate to Goals

Goals defined in Section 3 are connected to specific Livability Strategies in Tables 11 through 16.
Strategies for Corridor Types

An optional path to identifying strategies is through typology. The Handbook defines a transit
corridor typology to provide users with a framework to more easily identify corridor strengths
and needs, and connect these to appropriate implementation strategies. Three basic corridor
types are defined: Emerging, Transitioning, and Integrated. Characteristics of these corridor types
are described in Step 3.2.1, and in greater detail in Appendix D. Strategies connected to specific
typology categories are summarized Table 17.
Table 11. Strategies for building high-quality transit, walking,

and bicycling opportunities.
Goals Strategies
Connected network planning
Circuitous route retrofits
Transit frequency and reliability
Regional Access
Integrate corridor transit, nonmotorized Last-mile shuttles
modes, and land uses to provide Compact development
convenient access to economic, social, Activity center master plans
and other livability opportunities.
Jobs-housing alignment
Station area profiles
Regional competitiveness
Regional Connectivity Circuitous route retrofits
Promote pedestrian and bicycle routes
Last-mile shuttles
that offer reasonably direct routes to local
destinations and transit stations/stops. Complete streets
Pedestrian and bicycle network maintenance
Demand Management Alternative modes

Encourage travel decisions that favor Parking management and requirements
alternatives to the car and optimize use of Transit pass subsidies
available transit capacity.
Zoning overlay districts

Table 12. Strategies for encouraging equitable and affordable housing

near transit.
Goals Strategies
Location efficiency
Transit pass subsidies
Affordability Housing production and targets
Provide sufficient affordable housing Regulatory streamlining
that fits the needs of an area’s Inclusionary housing
workforce, disabled, elderly, and low- Local housing trust funds
income residents and that offers
affordable transportation options. Anti-displacement strategies
Land assemblage and joint development
Station area profiles (development site identification)
Housing production and targets
Regulatory streamlining
Variety Inclusionary housing
Allow and encourage diverse housing Local housing trust funds
options that reflect the variety of
Anti-displacement strategies
households and housing needs along a
corridor. Land assemblage and joint development
Form-based codes (housing type flexibility)
Table 13. Strategies for encouraging transit-accessible economic opportunities.
Goals Strategies
Mix of uses
Jobs and Housing
Jobs-housing alignment
Offer a range of employment
opportunities and align jobs along the Activity center master plans
corridor with the skills of residents who Station area profiles (to identify jobs or housing
live, or may live, along the corridor. growth opportunities)
Compact development
Vitality and Growth Financial feasibility and incentives
Promote economically and culturally Land assemblage and joint development
vibrant corridor districts. Structure new District financing and value capture
growth along transit corridors and
Social investments
away from sensitive land.
Station area profiles (for economic trends and opportunities)
Financial feasibility and incentives
Reuse Land assemblage and joint development
Encourage the reuse of previously District financing and value capture
developed land that has become Predevelopment assistance
vacant or underutilized.
Social investments
Table 14. Strategies for encouraging accessible social and government services.
Goals Strategies
Essential Services Partnerships with service providers

Provide convenient transit access to Accessible community services
health care and other essential social Connected network planning
services.
Last-mile shuttles
Compact development
Infrastructure and Government
Efficient infrastructure and services
Services
Promote effective and safe infrastructure Community safety
and other government services, while Walk and bike safety audits
supporting other livability goals. CPTED

Table 15. Strategies for encouraging vibrant and accessible community,

cultural, and recreational opportunities.
Goals Strategies
Recreational and Community Facilities
Provide small parks, other recreational and Recreation and open space
community opportunities, and schools within Mix of uses
walking distance of most transit-oriented homes;
provide schools as well as larger parks and
recreational facilities along transit corridors, Station area profiles (to identify underserved
while maintaining compact walkable areas)
development near transit stations/stops.
Public art
Cultural Enrichment
Cultural destinations
Offer opportunities for cultural enrichment.
District revitalization
Context-Sensitive Design District revitalization
Respect historic, scenic, and other Sense-of-place guidelines
characteristics of established districts that are
Form-based code
important for aesthetic cohesion and community
identity. Integrate historic and other cultural Station area profiles (to identify cultural
resources when possible. assets)
Table 16. Strategies for encouraging healthy, safe, walkable transit

corridor neighborhoods.
Goals Strategies
Compact development
Form-based codes
Mix of Uses
Provide retail conveniences, recreation, basic TOD and other guidelines
services, and cultural destinations close to transit Zoning overlay districts
stations/stops and within walking distance of Cultural destinations
most homes and jobs. Recreation and open space
Activity center master plans
Complete streets
Walk and bike safety audits
Walking and Biking Environments Traffic calming
Provide pedestrian and bicycling paths that are Pedestrian and bicycle network
safe, attractive, and support community life. maintenance
Community safety
CPTED
Street-Oriented Buildings
Line streets with building facades that have Form-based codes
generous windows, frequent entrances, and
attractive features; generally avoid parking lots or TOD and other design guidelines
blank walls along streets. Enhance connectivity Zoning overlay districts
with building entrances that face streets or are CPTED
connected to the circulation network via a
pedestrian path.

Table 17. Strategies associated with corridor types.
Transit Corridor Livability Corridor Type

Principle Emerging Transitioning Integrated
High-quality transit, walking, Circuitous routes retrofits Parking management
and bicycling opportunities Compact development
Last-mile shuttles
Anti-displacement
Location efficiency strategies
Mixed-income housing near
Housing production and targets Inclusionary housing
transit
Housing assistance Local housing trust funds
Station area profiles Jobs-housing
Transit-accessible economic alignment
opportunities
Activity center master plan Social investments
Accessible social and Access to services Community safety

government services Efficient infrastructure
Vibrant and accessible Cultural District Public art
community, cultural, and
destinations revitalization
Complete streets Walk and safety audits

Healthy, safe, walkable transit Traffic calming Pedestrian and bicycle
corridor neighborhoods Form-based codes network maintenance
TOD guidelines
For Emerging Corridors, strategies are often concerned with adding accessible destinations,
improving connectivity, and encouraging compact development for its associated benefits.
Transitioning Corridors face some of these same challenges, but to a lesser extent. Transitioning
Corridors can have accessible destinations and older, transit-oriented neighborhoods that can
serve as a foundation for expanding TOD patterns throughout the rest of the corridor. Integrated
Corridors exhibit high levels of performance on average, but gentrification and housing afford-
ability can present acute challenges. Enhancements can continue to be made in Integrated Corridors,
such as aligning jobs and housing, maintaining pedestrian and bicycle networks, and so on.
Some implementation strategies are generally associated with each corridor type and its com-
mon characteristics, as summarized in Table 17. Implementation strategies are described under
“Livability Strategies” (above) and are explained in Appendix B. Also note that corridors vary,
and the typology and associated strategies for corridor types serve only as a guide. Handbook users
should also consider the spectrum of goals and list of possible strategies described in Step 5.2.
Step 5.3: Develop and Adopt Corridor Recommendations

In this step, Handbook users identify and agree upon the final tasks necessary to create a
comprehensive corridor guidance document.
Step 5.3.1: Compile and Develop Strategies

Compile strategies identified in Steps 5.1 and 5.2, as well as any other strategies that emerged
during the process. Define strategies in more depth, such as by addressing how a strategy would
be applied in a project-specific way. Consider governance questions, such as how state and local

laws may allow or limit strategies. Clarify each strategy’s purpose and objectives and identify
stakeholders who may be involved with implementing the strategy.
Step 5.3.2: Set Priorities and Connect with Resources

Identify priorities, such as by evaluating critical needs, ways to leverage resources, and stake-
holder strengths. Suggested approaches to setting priorities include the following.
Look for strategies listed more than once. Priority might be given to strategies that address
multiple goals and are associated with the corridor typology. To identify strategies that leverage
multiple goals and corridor type, refer to Step 5.2.
Critically examine strategies using local knowledge and professional judgment. Promote
discussion among decision makers, stakeholders, and professional staff, using their expertise to
identify promising strategies. Consider local conditions and regional precedents.
Build on stakeholder strengths. Consider stakeholders’ capacity to implement strategies.
Stakeholder strengths may include technical skills, available resources, leadership capabilities,
and legislative or regulatory powers. Match each strategy with stakeholders who have the capacity to
help implement it. When setting priorities, consider where stakeholders, or multiple stakeholders,
can substantially contribute to a strategy’s successful implementation.
Encourage people and place compatibility. Where a strong people or place factor is coupled
with a weaker one, a strategy to address the weaker factor may leverage big livability benefits. Based
on the strengths and needs analysis (Step 2), look for people and place factor pairings where one
factor has a high metric score and its matching factor has a low score.
Target available resources. Funding vehicles and grant programs that are already established
will make some strategies more easily realized in the near term. For example, established business
improvement districts or infrastructure financing districts might provide funding vehicles for
implementation. Established grant programs should also be considered.
Step 5.3.3: Package Corridor Recommendations

Create a comprehensive guidance document containing pertinent strategies, implementation
priorities, responsibilities, resources, and other relevant matter. Preface discussion on strategies
with a summary of corridor metrics, goals, and vision (adapted from Steps 2 through 4).
Communicate corridor recommendations to decision makers and stakeholders, and seek
commitments to adopt and implement corridor recommendations. Engage in cooperative and
collaborative efforts that lay the groundwork for broad-based support. The advancement of cor-
ridor livability will require sustained attention and effort, which should continue to be informed
by the results of this Handbook.

APPENDIX A
Goals and Related Strategies
Introduction
The Transit Corridor Livability Principles outlined in this Handbook provide a framework for
understanding livability and help identify possible implementation strategies. Handbook goals
describe preferred end-state aspirations and cover a complete spectrum of livability concerns.
Consequently, this Handbook’s goals and their associated strategies should NOT be viewed as pre-
scriptive, one-size-fits-all planning tools, but rather, a flexible menu of possible actions for further
consideration. As such, the goals establish the framework for assessment metrics (in Step 2 “Assess
the Corridor”) and corridor visioning (in Step 3: “Identify Goals” and Step 4: “Develop a Vision”).
When evaluating a particular corridor, goals should be considered qualitatively in combination
with assessment metrics to identify a corridor’s strengths and needs. This will inform strategic
planning and the selection of suitable implementation strategies.
This Appendix presents the goals as they are associated with the Transit Corridor Livability
Principles. The goals embody essential attributes for each Principle. This section defines each goal
and briefly discusses its importance. Each goal is connected to a menu of related implementation
strategies.
Tables A-1 through A-6 provide menus of possible strategies. To better understand strategies
noted, refer to Appendix B.
Goals Associated with Livability Principles

The following goals define desirable end-state conditions associated with the Handbook’s six
Livability Principles:
• High-Quality Transit, Walking, and Bicycling Opportunities
• Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit
• Transit-Accessible Economic Opportunities
• Accessible Social and Government Services
• Vibrant and Accessible Community, Cultural, and Recreational Opportunities
• Healthy, Safe, and Walkable Transit Corridor Neighborhoods
High-Quality Transit, Walking, and Bicycling Opportunities

Table A-1 provides a summary of the goals and related strategies for this Principle.
Regional Access
Integrate corridor transit, nonmotorized modes, and land uses to provide convenient access
to regional economic, social, and other livability opportunities.
52

Goals and Related Strategies 53
Table A-1. Strategies for building high-quality transit, walking,

and bicycling opportunities.
Goals Strategies

Regional Access Transit frequency and reliability
Integrate corridor transit, Last-mile shuttles
nonmotorized modes, and land
Compact development
uses to provide convenient access
to regional economic, social, and Activity center master plans
other livability opportunities. Jobs-housing alignment
Station area profiles
Regional Connectivity Connected network planning

Promote pedestrian and bicycle Circuitous route retrofits
routes that offer reasonably direct Last-mile shuttles
routes to regional destinations and Complete streets
transit stations/stops.
Pedestrian and bicycle network maintenance
Demand Management Alternative modes
Encourage travel decisions that Parking management and requirements
favor alternatives to the car and Transit pass subsidies
optimize use of available transit
capacity. Zoning overlay districts
Access strategies enable residents and employees along a corridor to walk, bicycle, or ride tran-
sit to destinations that offer livability opportunities. Higher jobs and housing densities enhance
transit service and—together with the availability of local destinations—reduce reliance on the car
(Holtzclaw et al. 2002). Access strategies can also make transit investments and operations more
efficient, as ridership increases and includes a wider variety of trip types, including during non-
commute hours.
Regional Connectivity
Promote pedestrian and bicycle routes that are reasonably direct routes to regional
destinations and transit stations and stops.
Walking and bicycling connections enable community members to access livability opportu-
nities locally and provide easier access to transit service and livability opportunities regionally
and along a transit corridor. Connections must be reasonably direct (not long or circuitous) for
walking to be a practical option; direct routes also encourage higher levels of bicycling. Distrib-
uting traffic among multiple parallel routes, instead of widely spaced collector and arterial roads,
can lower traffic volumes and encourage developers to front buildings toward major streets
(Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2012). Complete and connected sidewalks, in particular, are
key elements in any pedestrian network system.
Demand Management
Encourage travel decisions that favor alternatives to the car and optimize use of available
transit capacity.
Demand management policies and programs can promote alternative modes, reduce traffic
impacts, relieve traffic congestion, and better allocate limited transportation resources (such as
parking) by influencing personal mode choice and time-of-travel decisions. Key demand manage-
ment strategies include frequent and convenient transit service, improved parking management,
and effective site planning.


Affordability
Provide sufficient affordable housing that fits the needs of an area’s workforce and
disabled, elderly, and low-income residents and that offers affordable transportation
options.
Affordable housing provides an opportunity to people of all economic strata to live in transit
corridors, and allows communities to retain a workforce serving local industries and businesses.
Local governments can promote affordable housing by encouraging its production and by provid-
ing direct assistance to renters and first-time homebuyers along transit corridors (U.S. Government
Accountability Office 2009).
Market-based housing options (housing not provided by the public sector) can also be
expanded by eliminating or reforming restrictive planning and permitting procedures and stan-
dards. Note that new construction can displace low-income households. Consider policies that
offer low-income households the opportunity to remain in neighborhoods and the social net-
works that their neighborhoods support (McConville 2013). Car-free and low-mileage housing
options also promote affordability by avoiding the high costs associated with auto ownership
(Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2010). Transit corridors can play a vital role in
enhancing affordability by improving access, even as funds available for affordable housing stay
constant (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2009).
Affordable housing near transit also benefits persons with limited mobility and—when paired
with safe paths to local destinations—provides them with greater independence. Transit access
also can reduce public sector costs associated with delivering services to mobility-challenged
persons. Dial-a-ride and other paratransit services typically offer infrequent service and have
operating costs that present a fiscal challenge to many communities.
Table A-2. Strategies for encouraging equitable and affordable housing

near transit.
Goals Strategies
Location efficiency
Transit pass subsidies
Affordability
Provide sufficient affordable
housing that fits the needs of an Regulatory streamlining
area’s workforce, disabled, Inclusionary housing
elderly, and low-income residents, Local housing trust funds
and that offers affordable Anti-displacement strategies
transportation options.
Regulatory streamlining
Variety Inclusionary housing
Allow and encourage diverse Local housing trust funds
housing options that reflect the Anti-displacement strategies
variety of households and housing
needs along a corridor.
Form-based codes (housing type flexibility)

Variety
Allow and encourage diverse housing options that reflect the variety of households and
housing needs along a corridor.
Communities benefit from a diverse range of housing choices. Housing variety offers a wider
range of choices that reflect different household preferences and financial means, and supports
people at different life stages. Diverse housing also enables the local workforce to be better
aligned with an area’s employment opportunities.

Jobs and Housing

Offer a range of employment opportunities and align jobs along the corridor that match
the skills of residents who live, or may live, along the corridor.
Regional economies benefit when both jobs and workforce housing cluster around transit.
This arrangement yields more efficient transport costs and offers access to a larger, more diverse
labor pool (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2011). Access to quality education and
training is a means to advance economic opportunities of people who live in a corridor.
Jobs-housing matching can play a critical role in reducing car travel, expanding balance, and
enhancing economic and social vitality (California Planning Roundtable 2013). Corridor planning
can also support regional economic strategies that may exist (both adopted and informal), particu-
larly around the workforce and economic development needs associated with key industry clusters.
Vitality and Growth

Promote economically and culturally vibrant corridor districts. Structure new growth
along transit corridors and away from sensitive land.
Table A-3. Strategies for encouraging transit-accessible economic opportunities.
Goals Strategies
Jobs and Housing Mix of uses

Offer a range of employment Jobs-housing alignment
opportunities and align jobs Activity center master plans
along the corridor with the skills
of residents who live, or may live, Station area profiles (to identify jobs or
along the corridor. housing growth opportunities)
Compact development
Vitality and Growth Regional competitiveness
Promote economically and culturally Financial feasibility and incentives
vibrant corridor districts. Structure Land assemblage and joint development
new growth along transit corridors District financing and value capture
and away from sensitive land.
Social investments
Station area profiles (for economic trends and opportunities)
Reuse Land assemblage and joint development
Encourage the reuse of previously
District financing and value capture
developed land that has become
vacant or underutilized. Predevelopment assistance
Social investments

Compact growth helps to put complementary land uses within walking distance of each other
and transit. At the local level, land use mix can also provide economic development benefits,
much as cultural uses can affect urban revitalization.
Compact growth also requires less infrastructure than more diffuse development patterns,
making it more affordable to build and maintain over time (Smart Growth America 2013) and
has been shown to enhance economic productivity and job creation (Kramer & Sobel 2013).
Sensitive land, such as areas with valuable natural habitats, highly productive farmland, and unique
scenic resources, can be more easily protected when growth is compact.
Urban infill and revitalization helps to increase livability opportunities within established urban
districts that have declined economically but remain accessible by transit. Infill and revitalization
can help reverse economic decline, and put more housing and jobs near transit. The adoption of
comprehensive and mutually reinforcing strategies may be needed, however, to encourage private
investments and guide public improvements (Reconnecting America and Center for Transit-
Oriented Development 2013). Strategies can “capture” the value added to urban areas as infill and
revitalization occur. “Value capture” can occur by reserving the increasing tax increment to finance
local improvements, and also results from growing assessments, developer dedications, and various
forms of tax revenue growth (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2009).
Reuse
Encourage the reuse of previously developed land that has become vacant or underutilized.
The reuse of underutilized sites can complement corridors by delivering uses that may be in
short supply, such as housing in job-rich corridors, jobs in bedroom communities, and retail
and services needed locally. Reuse can also spin off economic benefits and serve as a catalyst for
additional private investment nearby (Kramer & Sobel 2013). Reuse of large properties originally
developed in an auto-oriented fashion has the potential to knit together underutilized land and
adjacent properties into a coherent pedestrian-friendly fabric.

Essential Services
Provide convenient transit access to health care and other essential social services.
Transit access to health care, job training programs, day care, community colleges, and
other community services benefit community members in terms of convenience, cost, and
Table A-4. Strategies for encouraging accessible social and government services.
Goals Strategies
Partnerships with service providers

Essential Services
Accessible community services
Provide convenient transit access to health
care and other essential social services. Connected network planning
Last-mile shuttles
Compact development
Infrastructure and Government Services Efficient infrastructure and services
Promote effective and safe infrastructure
Community safety
and other government services, while
supporting other livability goals. Walk and bike safety audits
CPTED

independence—especially for community members who cannot drive because of age, income,
or disability. Corridor planning and implementation initiatives can emphasize transit-oriented
health care within a corridor.
Infrastructure and Government Services

Promote effective and safe infrastructure and other government services, while supporting
other livability goals.
At all levels, government provides vital services such as public safety, infrastructure, and
economic development. Limited resources require that services be provided efficiently and
effectively, and be conducted in ways that leverage a full range of livability goals.


Provide small parks, other recreational and community opportunities, and schools within
walking distance of most transit-oriented homes. Provide schools, post offices, and libraries
as well as larger parks and recreational facilities along transit corridors, while maintaining
compact walkable development near transit stations/stops.
Parks and other recreational facilities provide opportunities for physical activity and support
mental and social well-being. They also add economic value to communities and help stabilize
declining neighborhoods (Harnik and Welle 2009). Near transit, small parks help to maintain
compact walkable environments, but larger parks may not be appropriate, especially since park
use is more affected by easy access than park size (Giles-Corti et al. 2013).
Modest facilities can have a big impact. In many communities, small neighborhood and
“pocket parks” are more heavily used. Underutilized land can often be “reclaimed” for recreation,
Table A-5. Strategies for encouraging vibrant and accessible community,

cultural, and recreational opportunities.
Goals Strategies

Provide small parks, other recreational and
community opportunities, and schools within Recreation and open space
walking distance of most transit-oriented Schools and community facilities
homes; provide schools, post offices, and Mix of uses
libraries as well as larger parks and Connected network planning
recreational facilities along transit corridors, Station area profiles (to identify underserved areas)
while maintaining compact walkable
development near transit stations/stops.
Public art
Cultural Enrichment
Cultural destinations
District revitalization
Context-Sensitive Design
Respect historic, scenic, and other District revitalization
characteristics of established districts Sense-of-place guidelines
that are important for aesthetic cohesion Form-based code
and community identity. Integrate historic Station area profiles (to identify cultural assets)
and other cultural resources when possible.

such as when vacant lots become community gardens or when “parklets” are created along over-
sized roadways.
Schools, libraries, post offices, and other community facilities should be accessible by transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian. Efficient urban formats help maintain compact walkable development
patterns, such as when school campuses are also used for community programs and recreation
(Kanters et al. 2013).
Cultural Enrichment
Life is enriched when residents and employees can participate in an array of cultural activi-
ties, such as music, performance, art, crafts, and celebrations. Participation depends on having
facilities and ongoing programs.
Context-Sensitive Design
Respect historic, scenic, and other characteristics of established districts that are impor-
tant for aesthetic cohesion and represent community member preferences. Embrace and
integrate historic and other cultural resources when possible, such as through adaptive
reuse.
Established districts sometimes have historic resources, scenic resources, or aesthetic quali-
ties that community members care about and that help make districts distinct. Consider ways
to protect valuable resources and emulate the best aspects of a specific place with the design of
streets and buildings while also allowing transit-oriented intensification.
Healthy, Safe, Walkable Transit Corridor Neighborhoods

Mix of Uses
Provide retail conveniences, recreation, basic services, and cultural destinations close to
transit stations and stops, and within walking distance of most homes and jobs.
Livability is enhanced when homes and jobs are within walking distance of local retail, com-
munity facilities, amenities, and transit. Trip-chaining occurs when conveniences are available
near transit and increases the rate of transit use (Cervero 2006). Community and cultural desti-
nations, such as theaters, museums, and places of worship, also enhance livability.
Walking and Biking Environments

Provide pedestrian and bicycling paths that are safe and attractive and that support
community life.
Walking and bicycling environments are important public spaces (Gyorgyfalvy 2010).
If designed to be welcoming and safe, walking and biking environments provide access to
local destinations, offer social gathering places, promote healthful and economically stable
communities (Shoup and Ewing 2013), and increase transit use (Lee 2012). Traffic calming
features reduce traffic speeds and reduce pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ exposure to injury; traffic
lanes can be sized to reduce the potential for serious and fatal pedestrian injuries (Daisa 2006);
and traffic lanes can sometimes be eliminated to expand pedestrian and bicycle facilities
(Speck 2013).

Table A-6. Strategies for encouraging healthy, safe, walkable transit

corridor neighborhoods.
Goals Strategies
Compact development
Form-based codes
Mix of Uses
Provide retail conveniences, recreation, basic TOD and other guidelines
services, and cultural destinations close to Zoning overlay districts
transit stations/stops and within walking Cultural destinations
distance of most homes and jobs. Recreation and open space
Activity center master plans
Complete streets
Walk and bike safety audits
Walking and Biking Environments Traffic calming
Provide pedestrian and bicycling paths that
Pedestrian and bicycle network
are safe, attractive and that support
community life. maintenance
Community safety
CPTED
Line streets with building facades that have Form-based codes
generous windows, frequent entrances, and TOD and other design guidelines
attractive features, and generally avoid parking
lots or blank walls along streets. Enhance Zoning overlay districts
connectivity with building entrances that face CPTED
streets or are connected to the circulation
network via a pedestrian path.
Line streets with building facades that have generous windows, frequent entrances, and
attractive features, and generally avoid parking lots or blank walls along streets. Enhance
connectivity with building entrances that face streets or are connected to the circulation
network via a pedestrian path.
Building facades can support or deter walking and bicycle use. People walk less and there are
greater incidents of crime where streets are lined by blank walls and parking lots. Streets and
other pedestrian and bicycle environments are more attractive and discourage inappropriate
behavior when building facades with windows and entrances are nearby (Zelinka and Brennan 2001;
Loukaitou-Sideris 1999). Street-oriented buildings also encourage social interaction.

APPENDIX B
Description of Implementation
Strategies
Introduction
Strategies provide paths to implementation. Strategies can identify courses of action, set pri-
orities, link to resources, and assign responsibilities. This appendix describes important imple-
mentation strategies cited in Section 5 and Appendix A, and can be referred to as Handbook
users consider and compile a list of potential strategies.
This Appendix provides guidance by offering a preliminary menu of strategies. Selected strat-
egies should be tailored to the unique needs and strengths of the study corridor with serious con-
sideration of available resources and tools. Strategies compiled below are NOT prescriptive and
Handbook users are encouraged to customize strategies. Any strategy—whether taken directly
as-written from this Handbook or customized—will require serious stakeholder commitment
to the overall process of corridor-level planning.
This overview of implementation strategies synthesizes case study literature and interview
findings. Most strategies are broadly recognized professional practices. This Appendix has three
subsections:
• Government Frameworks describes vehicles for instituting the “Livability Strategies”
described later. Government frameworks include:
–– state and federal guidance,
–– regional frameworks,
–– location-specific plans for corridors and station areas,
–– grant programs, and
–– recognition that incremental steps are often required.
• Livability Strategies describes a menu of implementation tools, which are organized accord-
ing to the Handbook’s Transit Corridor Livability Principles.
• Strategies for Corridor Types outlines strategies associated with whether a corridor is emerg-
ing, transitioning, or integrated. For descriptions of corridor types, see Appendix D.
Government Frameworks
State and Federal Guidance
State and federal livability-related guidance often comes in the form of overarching principles
and generalized recommendations. While they defer authority to local planning efforts, this high
level guidance can play a vital role in encouraging the adoption of implementation of livable
transit corridor strategies.
60

Description of Implementation Strategies 61
State-Level Declarations
Declarations by state governors can, through executive action, direct state departments and influ-
ence decisions by regional agencies and local governments. In Pennsylvania, the governor called for
comprehensive transit-oriented planning by issuing the “Keystone Principles for Growth, Invest-
ment and Resource Conservation” in 2005. The Keystone Principles call for state agencies to make
decisions that emphasize redevelopment, efficient infrastructure, transportation choices, compact
development, job opportunities, business-related sustainability efforts, housing opportunities, and
regional planning (Governor’s Economic Cabinet, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2005).
In Massachusetts, the governor’s office established “Sustainable Development Principles” to
guide state agency policies and programs. These principles call for compact development, social
equity, affordable housing, economic development, transportation choice, and coordination
among stakeholders. The principles are a touchstone as the state funds infrastructure and plan-
ning activities, and precipitated the development of Massachusetts’ “Smart Growth Toolkit,”
an educational guide that uses case studies to highlight successful strategies.
Federal Programs
Federal programs for smart growth and livability have jump-started transit-oriented livability
initiatives in regions across the country. The sizable Livable Communities Act (LCA) grants lever-
age planning and investments focusing on community revitalization, affordable housing, brown-
field cleanup, and integrating land use and transportation. LCA grants went to local jurisdictions
and NGOs, with an emphasis on partnerships, community participation, and social equity.
The federal New Starts program funds transportation improvements. Several MPOs cite ways
that New Starts programs leveraged community livability objectives, such as by funding pedes-
trian and bicycle connections to stations.
In Minneapolis-Saint Paul, a HUD Sustainable Communities Planning Grant improved liv-
ability along corridors as part of the region’s “Partnership for Regional Opportunity” program.
Diverse projects were funded, including TOD studies, predevelopment and planning grants,
small business supports, demonstration projects for TOD benefits, and community engagement.
A large part of this HUD grant was dedicated to community engagement and developing the
leadership capacities of community-based organizations.
Regional Frameworks
Regional frameworks offer comprehensive transit-oriented planning and implementation
tools. Regional frameworks allow a “whole system” perspective on transportation, land use,
and other factors relating to livability, and coordinates actions across jurisdictional boundaries.
Regional Plans
Regional plans can be designed to express a host of livability goals for transit access along cor-
ridors. Livability is at the heart of the Chicago area’s regional plan, “Go to 2040.” Its introduction
declares: “While development should fit the local context, community choices about land use
and housing should also emphasize principles that improve livability, such as:
• support for transit, walking, and bicycling
• a range of housing options
• environmental protection
• access to green space
• design, aesthetics, and local historic character.” (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
2014)

“Go to 2040” promotes development of comprehensive plans, ordinances, and regulations

consistent with walkable compact development and educating decision makers. The plan recom-
mends supporting local comprehensive planning and compact development through grant pro-
grams, infrastructure investments, technical assistance, and collaboration among municipalities.
It stresses that housing affordability should factor into transportation costs and encourages local
communities to allow mixed uses and higher densities within “location-efficient” areas near tran-
sit. Counties and municipalities can increase density by providing density bonuses in exchange
for affordable units; creating transit overlay districts, or using form-based codes to address com-
munity fit. A “Public Participation Plan” accompanies “Go to 2040” (Chicago Metropolitan
Agency for Planning 2010).
TOD Guidelines
While TOD guideline documents do not address the complete spectrum of livability concerns,
they cover many aspects of livability and model a type of document that could promote livabil-
ity. Dallas Area Rapid Transit’s (DART’s) TOD Guidelines illustrate livability factors typically
addressed, including (but not limited to):
• Maintaining compact development patterns,
• Mixing complementary land uses,
• Providing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity,
• Constructing street-facing buildings,
• Avoiding street-facing parking lots and blank walls, and
• Encouraging community-serving recreation and destinations (Dallas Area Rapid Transit
District 2008).
Minneapolis-Saint Paul’s “Handbook for Transit-Oriented Development Grants” provides clear
guidance and criteria for TOD program grant applicants (see “TOD Implementation Grants” above)
(Metropolitan Council 2014b). To compete for funds, proposed projects are evaluated across the
following factors:
• Urban Design: Evaluation criteria include active pedestrian-oriented first floors, buildings’
transparency, street-oriented architecture, minimal setbacks, and shared amenities.
• Land Use: Evaluation criteria include transit- and retail-supportive uses, avoiding auto-oriented
uses, and providing local conveniences and services.
• Mobility: Evaluation criteria include parking and transportation features that reduce the
supply of parking and encourage alternative modes of transportation. Bike facilities and
pedestrian-oriented features are also noted, such as short blocks, direct paths, and trail ameni-
ties (Metropolitan Council 2014a).
TOD Strategic Plans

In 2013, the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities (Met Council) adopted a “TOD Strate-
gic Action Plan” (SAP) that provides high level guidance to promote supporting TOD by:
• Collaborating with partners to promote TOD, including technical assistance and stakeholder
engagement;
• Leveraging limited resources, such as with strategic planning and incentives for development;
• Joint development and strategic land acquisition; and
• Focusing on implementation, including administration of the TOD grant program (Metro-
politan Council 2013).
Met Council’s TOD principles offer a touchstone when developing strategies for TOD
implementation:
• Collaboration: engaging all levels of government, the private sector, regional institutions, and
the public to implement a shared vision.

• Equity: connecting all residents to opportunities such as good jobs, transportation choices,
safe and stable housing, a range of parks and natural areas, and vibrant open spaces.
• Stewardship: using resources prudently to help ensure the region’s financial, social, and envi-
ronmental sustainability, now and for future generations.
• Integration: aligning and coordinating policies, plans, resources, and actions both within and
outside of the Met Council to more effectively achieve regional and community goals.
• Accountability: identifying appropriate indicators and measuring outcomes to evaluate the
effectiveness of goals and policies (Metropolitan Council 2013).
Met Council emphasizes coordination and collaboration, as implementation requires actions
of public, private, and nonprofit partners at the regional, municipal, corridor and district levels.
Location-Specific Planning
Comprehensive plans for specific areas or corridors promote implementation by recognizing
local conditions and opportunities and by connecting broad goals to implementation measures.
Planning around corridors and station area plans encourage solutions that cut across disciplin-
ary boundaries.
Station Area Plans

Station area plans focus on areas within comfortable walking distance of transit. These transit-
oriented and pedestrian-friendly districts are building blocks for livable transit corridors. Station
area plans must integrate a range of planning factors. Common elements for station area plans
include, but are not limited to:
• Local destinations and complementary uses,
• Network connectivity,
• Complete street design,
• Community recreation and open space,
• Building-street relationships, and
• Market feasibility and financing strategies for upfront costs.
Corridor Plans
In spite of their utility in addressing planning goals, few corridor-level plans were discovered
as part of case study research. Nevertheless, the corridor-level plans examined are noteworthy.
In Minneapolis-Saint Paul, the Corridors of Opportunity (COO) program emphasizes whole
system approaches to organizing land use and transportation. Under the COO, action plans
spring from corridor-specific analysis and provide station area parameters that local jurisdic-
tions can build on, such as by adopting station area plans. The corridor action plans provide
action-oriented and aspirational guidance. Based on interviews conducted for this Handbook,
the following suggestions were identified for developing guidance for encouraging corridor-
level planning:
• Develop a process to identify infrastructure needs and redevelopment sites at least five years
before opening a new transit line.
• Identify infrastructure needs that should be in place on opening day, and within 10, 20, and
25 years.
• Identify local, state, and federal funding sources for infrastructure projects.
• Identify a clear vision for each station area in the corridor.
• Assemble management teams of neighborhood residents, city staff, and elected officials that
will implement the vision.

Grant Programs
Grants from governments and NGOs can help overcome obstacles to livable transit corridors.
Grant criteria can target particular livability goals.
Technical Assistance Grants

Technical assistance grants are sometimes used by MPOs to help local jurisdictions over-
come obstacles to TOD and address livability needs. Technical assistance grants can have a nar-
row focus and can be used for such things as area plans, development feasibility studies, street
improvement plans, and parking and transportation demand management recommendations.
TOD Implementation Grants

Met Council’s TOD grants program promotes moderate- to high-density development and
affordable housing near transit. TOD grants can be used for both planning and capital projects.
Minneapolis-Saint Paul region applicants can apply for funding from the Livable Communi-
ties Demonstration Account (LCDA) and the Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA). LCDA
funding goes toward parcel assembly, placemaking activities, complete streets, energy efficiency
installations, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and planning activities. TBRA funding goes
to site investigation, cleanup of polluted land or buildings, and other predevelopment needs,
such as market studies, legal work, community workshops, site capacity studies, traffic studies,
and contaminated site investigations.
Grant programs come with guidance on best practices, such as use of Met Council’s “Hand-
book for TOD” discussed above (see “TOD Guidelines”). Funding priorities are guided by a
TOD SAP developed by Met Council in collaboration with government and other stakeholders.
TOD program staff who administer implementation-focused grants have real estate experience
that enables them to work closely with developers, landowners, and financial institutions to
overcome barriers to development.
Incremental Approaches
Sometimes sweeping comprehensive corridor plans are not possible, but each planning effort
along a corridor can help build support with the public and helped attract politicians to the
cause.
In the Village of Niles, Illinois, near Chicago, Milwaukee Avenue was an arterial highway char-
acterized by aging highway commercial uses and high traffic volumes. Sidewalks were missing
along most of the auto-oriented corridor, and rights-of-way were frequently used as an exten-
sion of parking lots. In response, the Village looked to create a community focal point to take
advantage of relatively high levels of bus commuters along the corridor.
In 2006, after months of planning, the Village adopted the “Milwaukee Avenue Plan.” The plan
profiled land use and transportation conditions along the corridor, and featured a real estate
market analysis that looked at not only retail opportunities but also possibilities for office and
multifamily residences that might occur with redevelopment (Village of Niles 2006).
However, planners and decision makers chose to take an incremental approach and land
use changes were avoided in this plan. Plan recommendations focused on planning principles
and illustrative design concepts for street improvements and redevelopment. Street concepts
addressed pedestrian-oriented fundamentals like maintaining continuous sidewalks, reducing
curb cuts, increasing landscaping, and introducing consistent decorative elements. Attractive
illustrations described concepts to inspire property owners, and showed new buildings fronting

onto Milwaukee Avenue with parking in the rear. “Next steps” call for additional planning
and design to position the community for street construction grants and possible land use
and zoning changes.
The Village of Niles used the 2006 plan to seek funding for street improvements from the
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning
(CMAP) and the Illinois Transportation Enhancement Program (ITEP). A series of separate proj-
ect-level planning documents were prepared for sidewalks, landscaping, street furnishings, pedes-
trian crosswalks, intersection design, and designation of Milwaukee Avenue as a BRT network.
As incremental improvements were made, the Village applied for and received a Local Techni-
cal Assistance grant from CMAP for a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Adopted in 2014, it provides
explicit design guidance for improvements along Milwaukee Avenue in the form of multimodal
streets improvements. The Plan also recommends mixed-use development and increased land
use densities, to promote transit- and pedestrian-oriented redevelopment (Sam Schwartz Engi-
neering D.P.C. and Farr Associates 2014). These land use recommendations led to subsequent
changes in local zoning.
Livability Strategies
This section contains a wide range of implementation strategies, but cannot be exhaustive
given the countless settings and governance tools available. These strategies are the most promi-
nent and often used, as identified in case studies and literature searches. They are organized by
the Livability Principle to which they most closely relate, and many strategies apply to multiple
Transit Corridor Livability Principles and their related goals. (For more on goals and related
strategies, see Section 3 and Appendix A.)
Building High-Quality Transit, Walking, and Bicycling Opportunities

Strategies can encourage a wide range of transportation choices and transit-oriented environ-
ments to people who live and work along a transit corridor.
Connected Network Planning

Highly connected transportation networks encourage walking and bicycling by providing
direct routes to destinations. “Connectivity” is the extent to which networks are connected and
can be promoted with district-level planning. The most common planning tools used to pursue
these strategies include station area plans and pedestrian/bicycle master plans that have diagrams
or standards to establish new, or retrofit existing, networks. Los Angeles’s Metro promotes the
development of pedestrian mobility plans for station areas. Los Angeles’s Metro has provided
some direct funding for pedestrian and bike connections between the Orange Line BRT stations
and surrounding neighborhoods. Along Los Angeles’s Orange Line, station area profiles have
been developed, flagging locations where connectivity improvements are needed (see also “Land
Use Profiles”) (Raimi + Associates et al. 2012).
Transportation network connectivity is also addressed by TOD guidelines, which offer general
guidance for direct connections and interconnected street patterns, such as in Met Council’s
“Handbook for Transit-Oriented Development Grants” (Metropolitan Council 2014b).
Circuitous Route Retrofits

Circuitous route retrofits are a specific tool for adding pedestrian and bicycle routes, where
existing routes are overly circuitous. Overly circuitous routes are often attributable to superblocks

(such as in commercial areas), cul-de-sacs (such as in residential areas), and loop roads (that do
not connect through).
Area plans can be instrumental in mitigating circuitous routes. Fremont, California’s City Center
came about where superblocks containing shopping centers surrounded by arterial roadways pro-
vided few local streets and made walking to a regional transit station impractical. Fremont’s “City
Center Community Plan” calls for a fine-grain network of pedestrian routes in the near term, and
the creation of local streets as redevelopment occurs. The plan includes financing mechanisms for
new pedestrian routes and local streets (Raimi + Associates and Sargent Town Planning 2012).
Bellevue, Washington’s, “Subarea Plan” calls for completion of a pedestrian corridor that
cuts through the center of multiple superblocks. Phase 1 improvements create tree-lined paths
across the parking lots and terminate in a regional shopping mall. Long-term, redevelopment
will be used to establish a pedestrian-oriented shopping street lined by new buildings (City of
Bellevue undated).
Circuitous routes can also be addressed through government assistance. In Minneapolis-
St. Paul, LCA grants promote connectivity by funding targeted improvements, such as miss-
ing street or path connections that—if provided—will reduce the distance to destinations and
expand networks (Metropolitan Council 2014a).
Shuttle bus service can also help mitigate effects of highly circuitous routes, where direct con-
nections for pedestrians and bicyclists are not provided (see “Last-Mile Shuttles”).
Compact Development
Density can improve livability by increasing the supply of housing, supporting a wider vari-
ety of local walk-to retail and services, and boosting transit ridership, which justifies improve-
ments to transit levels of service. Strategies that increase density include density zoning bonuses,
mixed-use zoning codes, specific plans, reduced on-site parking standards, “unbundling” rent
from parking, using parking lifts, and taking advantage of shared-parking and off-site arrange-
ments among complementary uses (see “Demand Management”).
Compact development also delivers more efficient community infrastructure and services.
When infrastructure is less spread out, per capita and per household costs go down, both upfront
capital costs and costs for ongoing repairs and maintenance. With greater efficiency, limited
public resources can be more fully leveraged, not just for infrastructure improvements but also
to address other livability needs (see “Efficient Infrastructure and Services”).
Alternative Modes
Alternative modes refer to transportation options other than the dominant mode in the United
States—the private, single-occupant automobile. Alternative modes include walking, bicycling,
transit use, and carpooling. Incentives for alternative modes offer greater travel choices, provide
better access, and reduce reliance on cars, all of which support walkable mixed-use districts
(see “Compact Development”), affordability (see “Location Efficiency”), and other social and
economic benefits.
Alternative modes are associated with livability goals and strategies, including, but not lim-
ited to:
• Transit availability and affordability, such as providing free transit passes (see “Transit Pass
Subsidies”) and offering easy-to-use transit service (see “Transit Frequency and Reliability”) .
• Bicycle facilities and availability, such as bike paths, secure bicycle parking, lockers and showers
for bike commuters, and low-cost bike rentals such as bike-share programs.

• Enhanced pedestrian environments, such as continuous sidewalks lined by street trees and
street-oriented buildings (see “Complete Streets” and “Form-Based Codes”).
• Carpool facilities and programs, such as preferential parking for carpools, carpool lanes, and
employer-funded carpool vehicles.
The availability of alternative modes can be leveraged through education and marketing, such
as by providing information on travel options to employers and employees, and with advertising
and special events, such as annual bike-to-work days.
Transit Pass Subsidies

Among strategies for alternative modes, transit pass subsidies deserve special mention. Transit
subsidies can include free or low-cost transit passes, and employer commuter-check programs
that allow employees to pay for transit with pretax dollars. Transit pass subsidies can be provided
by landlords and can be required or incentivized as part of new development; often they are tied
to a commensurate reduction in on-site parking requirements. Companies also provide transit
pass subsidies, not only as a benefit to employees, but also to reduce demand for on-site parking
(which may be expensive to construct) or to reduce traffic congestion (which may be a condition
for allowing a company to expand).
Met Council’s COO program educates employers on the significant cost of providing free
on-site parking, as compared with the costs of promoting alternative modes such as employee
transit pass programs, carpool incentives, and realistic bicycling options. The program also
encourages employers to locate near transit, such as by promoting location opportunities along
transit corridors and describing workforce demographics (Metropolitan Council 2014a).
MPOs and transit agencies can encourage, and local jurisdictions can require, that employers,
multifamily housing developers, schools, and other organizations purchase transit passes in bulk
and provide transit passes to users at a discount. Transit passes can be built into rents, homeown-
ers’ association fees, and covenants that stay with a property regardless of ownership. Residential
development near transit can include transit pass subsidies to leverage additional housing-plus-
transportation affordability (see “Location Efficiency”) (McGraw et al. 2014).
Parking Management and Requirements

A principal way to manage parking demand is to communicate market-rate costs associated
with parking to motorists. Free parking does not reflect the cost of providing parking nor does
it signal that parking demand may exceed supply.
Landlords and employers can unbundle the rent for parking from the rent for a residential
unit or commercial space, so potential parking consumers are aware of its price. This allocates
parking using supply-and-demand principles, and enables users of alternative modes to enjoy
cost savings.
Municipalities can also price public garage and street parking so demand matches supply.
When parking that is in demand is priced fairly, motorists can chose to park in less desirable
locations or avoid reliance on the car by using alternative modes.
Development intensities increase when parking demand is managed, which helps to boost
the production of housing and the availability of walk-to retail (see “Compact Development”).
On-site parking can displace other uses and activities, and high construction costs associated
with on-site parking makes some potential development projects financially infeasible, especially
when parking must be provided in a multilevel parking garage or below grade.
Municipal zoning requirements can play the biggest role in how well parking is managed.
When on-site parking requirements exceed actual demand, they increase supply, reduce parking

prices artificially, subsidize car use, and undermine the affordability of alternative modes. On-
site parking standards can be determined by analyzing comparable case studies and the extent
to which residents or employees can use alternative modes. Minimum on-site parking standards
can be eliminated altogether, and maximum on-site parking standards have been imposed by
some cities to create market demand to fully utilize available parking.
Transit Frequency and Reliability

Opportunities for access are enhanced by more frequent transit service and predictable transit
schedules. Frequent transit service allows easy access to destinations that are not within walking
distance of home or work, but providing frequency depends on ridership levels (see “Compact
Development”), transit system operating costs, and available resources.
Transit service reliability (adhering to schedules) makes transit use more convenient and
easier to coordinate with daily activities, even when service is less frequent. Common strategies
include separating transit from potential sources of congestion, such as with dedicated BRT
lanes, signal prioritization, and queue-jump lanes at congested intersections; timed transfers
between transit vehicles; and providing real-time departure information to avoid long wait times
(Fan and Guthrie 2013).
Last-Mile Shuttles
Last-mile shuttles connect corridor trunk transit lines with major destinations peripheral
to the corridor. Convenient shuttles encourage transit use and lessen reliance on the car. Case
studies suggest that most regions rely on local bus service to provide last-mile transit connectiv-
ity, but service levels for connecting buses can vary. Timed transfers between last-mile shuttles
and the trunk transit lines they serve have been shown to improve service reliability and transit
ridership. Over time, sufficient shuttle and bus services in a station area can replace the need for
station park-and-ride lots, freeing up land for TOD.
Improving connecting bus service to LA’s Orange Line has been suggested in one study as
the best way to increase access to affordable housing along the corridor. The study notes that
relatively little multifamily housing is within a quarter mile of the Orange Line. Within a few
miles, high concentrations of low-income households are along local bus lines that connect to
the Orange Line, but bus service improvements are needed to shift travel decisions (Raimi +
Associates et al. 2012).
Generally, last-mile shuttles to major employers, hospitals, and other destinations are initiated
and operated by these users, but can be operated by transit agencies and funded by community
benefits district financing. One example is in Emeryville, California, where the free Emery-Go-
Round serves employees, residents, and shoppers, and is funded by commercial property owners
within a transportation business improvement district (Emeryville TMA undated).

The following strategies can promote more equitable and affordable housing for people along
a transit corridor.
Location Efficiency
“Housing-plus-transportation cost savings made possible with good transit access are key
to the success of affordable-by-design projects,” says one Minneapolis-St. Paul COO report
(Fan and Guthrie 2013). Producing housing near transit may be more effective at promoting
affordability than inclusionary requirements in auto-reliant locations.

The report encourages the use of “housing-plus-transportation” (H+T) cost indices to com-
municate real costs and benefits when location decisions are made by residents, employers, and
developers. According to another COO report, location-efficient transit-oriented households
provide the following benefits:
• Less neighborhood traffic,
• Fewer vehicle-miles traveled (VMT),
• Lower foreclosure rates,
• Lower household bankruptcy rates,
• More stable real estate values, and
• Higher observable growth rates (McGraw et al. 2014).
H+T affects the availability of low-income housing and strengthens low-income household bud-
gets, particularly in transit-oriented environments (see Figure B-1). In the San Francisco Bay Area,
TransForm launched GreenTRIP (TransForm undated), a program that demonstrates reduced
trip generation associated with housing projects close to transit and containing transportation
demand management features. The tool is effective at convincing municipalities and developers
to reduce on-site parking, which lowers construction costs and boosts production of affordable
housing. Lower trip generation also can avoid traffic impacts that require expensive mitigations.
While housing costs at the outskirts of regions are often lower, the combined cost of H+T can render such locations much less affordable,
as is illustrated by the Center for Neighborhood Technology’s analysis for the Minneapolis-St. Paul region.
Source: McGraw et al. 2014. H+T ® Index, Center for Neighborhood Technology.
Figure B-1. Housing versus HT affordability.

H+T affordability is also promoted by location-efficient mortgages (LEMs). LEMs broaden

the pool of eligible home buyers, by recognizing that lower transportation costs help a house-
hold’s ability to cover a mortgage (McGraw et al. 2014).
Housing Production and Targets

Housing targets are a way that MPOs and other regional and state agencies encourage and
allocate housing across jurisdictions in equitable ways. Cities are required to zone for and pro-
mote production of affordable housing using California’s Regional Housing Needs Allocations
(RHNA) and Minnesota’s Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA).
Under both programs, local jurisdictions prepare their own affordable housing plans that pledge
zoned capacity and local programs for affordable housing, such as housing assistance, building
rehabilitation grants, waivers of municipal fees, housing impact fees to finance housing trust
funds, and affordable inclusionary requirements. Grant assistance can seek to leverage social
equity benefits by supporting TOD studies and demonstration projects, predevelopment and
planning, small business programs, and community engagement (California Department of
Housing and Community Development 2010; Minnesota Code § 473.254).
Government agencies and NGOs can also offer real estate expertise and financial assistance to
help developers, landowners, and financial institutions overcome barriers to housing produc-
tion to increase affordability. The Met Council encourages affordable housing production with
a Housing/Transit-Oriented Development Loan Program, technical assistance grants (see “TOD
Implementation Grants”), and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and High Density Corridor
Housing Program (Metropolitan Council 2013).
Broadly speaking, affordable housing strategies play an important role in Minneapolis-
St. Paul’s COO system. The COO specifically emphasizes the importance of having housing
developers deliver large levels of new housing in transit-oriented locations (Partnership for
Regional Opportunity: Corridors of Opportunity 2016). Compact affordable-by-design projects
have economies of scale that encourage financially feasible development with little or no public
subsidy, such as by increasing allowable densities or decreasing the size of dwellings.
Regulatory Streamlining
Housing production can be encouraged by addressing regulatory obstacles. Transit-accessible
locations tend to have higher land costs and more difficulty in attaining development approvals.
TOD zoning, in which a developer can build by right, can level the playing field between transit-
oriented and automobile-reliant locations. Obstacles can also be eliminated by allowing higher
densities, reducing minimum parking requirements, and permitting shallow building setbacks.
While form-based concerns deserve to be addressed, one should recognize that design flexibility
can reduce developer risk.
In multiple case studies, the Urban Land Institute (ULI) examined how development regula-
tions create obstacles to housing and TOD generally. The city of Minneapolis asked a ULI advi-
sory panel to tell it whether it is pursuing the right strategies to achieve its TOD vision. In addition
to calling for land assemblage and district-level financing tools, the panel held that good projects
may be stopped by excessive parking requirements, restrictive setback and height requirements,
high fees, unnecessary limitations on use, and lengthy development approval processes. The panel
called for zoning that accounts for development feasibility, allows by-right approvals, and in other
ways encourages private development (Urban Land Institute, Rose Center of Minneapolis 2010).
Housing Assistance
Low-income households can receive direct assistance from government to rent housing, such
as with Section 8 vouchers. Rent subsidy vouchers are generally administered at the local level

and limited to qualifying properties. Government pays the property owners an amount in excess
of the voucher’s value to encourage landlord participation and long-term agreements.
Long-term housing assistance agreements eventually expire, however, and property owners
may not renew their participation, particularly when market conditions have increased rents
significantly. This can lead to evictions of low-income tenants and undermines neighborhoods’
stability (see “Anti-Displacement Strategies”).
Voucher programs can give preference to properties near transit to leverage H+T affordability
(see “Location Efficiency”). The federal government encourages location efficiency indirectly
as part of plans required for federal funding. As of 2008, however, there were “currently no
direct incentives through HUD- and FTA-funded programs for locating affordable housing near
transit . . . [although] HUD and FTA will assess the feasibility of encouraging and/or providing
targeted incentives for financing affordable housing near transit” (Federal Transit Administra-
tion and Housing and Urban Development 2008).
Inclusionary Housing
Inclusionary housing refers to municipal and county planning ordinances that require that a
certain percentage of new development be set aside for occupancy by families of very low, low,
and moderate income. Inclusionary housing relies on ongoing administration by landlords and
monitoring by government (Powell and Stringham 2005).
While inclusionary policies can provide additional affordable units in residential projects that
are being built, such requirements place an additional economic burden on developers and may
reduce the economic feasibility of some projects and reduce housing production (see “Housing
Production and Targets” and “Regulatory Streamlining”).
Local Housing Trust Funds

Development fees or real estate transfer taxes can be assessed to residential and commercial
properties for the production of affordable housing. Housing trust funds are gathered by local
governments and used to leverage grants and financing, often in partnership with affordable
housing developers. Housing trust funds can be found throughout the United States, and several
states have adopted legislation that encourages or enables local jurisdictions to dedicate public
funds to affordable housing (Center for Community Change undated).
Housing trust funds can play a vital role in promoting low-income housing generally, and
the funds can be applied to transit-oriented locations. In Seattle, housing and smart growth
advocates have pushed for expanding housing trust funding and targeting its application in
transit-oriented communities (Valdez 2014).
Anti-Displacement Strategies
Rising rents can force residents out of neighborhoods, which can be addressed with programs
that reduce tax burdens among low-income households, below-market inclusionary housing,
low-income housing production, and relocation assistance. Development can displace residents
and raise rents as a locale becomes more favored. Tax abatement, property value increment
exemption, and tax credits are ways to help reduce property tax burdens among low-income
households. Land trusts can add stability by serving as a financial vehicle for retaining affordable
housing. In Minneapolis, development applicants must evaluate how many existing dwellings
and residents might be displaced as a result of a development project, and adopt strategies to
address impacts, such as replacement of affordable units, relocation assistance, and direct com-
pensation (Metropolitan Area Planning Council undated).


These strategies can enhance employment, retail, and other economic opportunities for indi-
viduals who live and work along transit corridors, and in the process, enhance the region’s
economic competitiveness.
Regional Competitiveness
Strategies for TOD and corridor planning can promote economic opportunity and the eco-
nomic health of metropolitan areas. As illustrated by the conclusions of the Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) in its report “Linking Transit, Communities and
Development,” “[O]ur regional economy can better compete . . . when we plan and act as a region
rather than as a set of counties and municipalities that happen to be located in close proximity.”
The report makes the point that land use and transportation planning are connected to economic
development by
• Exchanging information,
• Fostering communication, and
• Leveraging transportation and other infrastructure (Delaware Valley Regional Planning Com-
mission 2003).
All the counties represented by DVRPC offer financial assistance in the form of business
development resources such as technical support, low-interest loans, and tax credits; infrastruc-
ture and real estate development incentives such as tax increment financing and tax abatements;
and workforce training and placement programs. Counties also maintain an inventory of devel-
opment opportunity sites near transit (see “Station Area Profiles”) (Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission 2003).
Economic justifications for TOD are stressed across all the case studies reviewed for this
Handbook, and help encourage broad support for TOD, even where decision makers give TOD
social and environmental benefits less emphasis. DART provides market-based evidence on
the economic performance of TOD versus conventional development in a 2014 report called
“Development Impacts of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit Light Rail System,” “[B]enefits of devel-
opment near light rail stations [are] not only felt by the individuals who have increasingly used
the service, but also by developers who continue to see business opportunities near rail stations,
and by local governments that receive increased property tax revenues associated with develop-
ment.” The report notes that the value of properties near transit significantly exceeds similar
properties not associated with transit (Clower et al. 2014).
Station Area Profiles

Across the nation, MPOs and transit agencies compile information profiles to direct
resources toward transit-accessible areas with the greatest potential for positive change. The
information sets the stage for informed policy making and helps communicate opportunities
to municipal governments and developers. LA’s “Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit Sustainable
Corridor Implementation Plan” and DVRPC’s “Linking Transit, Communities and Develop-
ment: Regional Inventory of Transit-Oriented Development Sites” gather similar information
for station areas, such as existing land use, zoning designations, inventories of housing and
jobs, infrastructure capacity, pedestrian and bicycle connections, pending improvements, and
development opportunity sites (Raimi + Associates et al. 2012; Delaware Valley Regional Plan-
ning Commission 2003).
In the Boston area, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council’s (MAPC’s) “Orange Line Oppor-
tunity Corridor Report,” brings together demographic, economic, transportation, land use

characteristics, and walkability scores, along with descriptions of recent and anticipated develop-
ment activity to:
• Prioritize infrastructure investments,
• Identify land acquisition and joint development opportunities,
• Initiate policy and zoning changes to intensify land use,
• Connect concentrations of low-income households with anti-displacement programs,
• Solicit developer interest to help implement plans, and
• Bring together public and private stakeholders (Metropolitan Area Planning Council 2013).
In Dallas, the city’s Office of Economic Development has created a series of station area
profiles that describe major development sites, recent real estate activity, and policies and
programs promoting economic development (City of Dallas, Dallas Office of Economic
Development 2010).
Financial Feasibility and Incentives

Financial incentives are a common strategy used for economic development, often at the
corridor scale. Minneapolis-St. Paul’s COO jobs-housing paper found that high land costs asso-
ciated with transit-accessible sites can deter developers. It recommended that where market
forces have not reached a feasibility tipping point, financial incentives such as density bonuses,
tax abatements, and grants for site preparation be considered (see “TOD Implementation
Grants”) (Fan and Guthrie 2013).
Another common strategy for overcoming financial obstacles is to provide an annotated
bibliography of available financing tools and funding sources. Examples include capital grants
for transportation and infrastructure improvements, technical assistance grants, economic
development incentives, and mortgage assistance within TODs.
Land use regulations also influence development feasibility. Additional density increases
future revenues and can be allowed by right—in recognition of TOD’s advantages—or with a
density bonus to leverage additional livability features. Parking reductions also improve the bot-
tom line for development because of the high cost of providing parking on site (see “Regulatory
Streamlining”).
Land Assemblage and Joint Development

Transit agencies and municipalities can help make TOD feasible by helping to assemble small
parcels and by making public land available for development through public-private joint devel-
opment activities. In urbanized areas, smaller parcels make it difficult for development to attain
sufficient economies of scale to be economically feasible. Consequently, acquisition and assem-
blage of parcels can play a vital role. Financial resources for these activities include land banking
activities, land assemblage tax credits, and government-sponsored redevelopment.
Transit agencies and municipalities often have land resources near transit that can be lever-
aged to enhance livability. Joint development refers to the joining of public land with private
development capital and expertise to attain goals. According to interviews conducted for this
Handbook, The Fort Worth Transit Agency (The “T”) has teamed with the Fort Worth Hous-
ing Authority to develop a mixed-use master plan at the city’s Texas and Pacific rail station on
T-owned land. The master plan emphasizes the production of affordable housing, and will also
contain market-rate housing, retail, community services, and recreational open space. A non-
profit housing developer, Fort Worth South, is the master developer and will be responsible for
financing infrastructure.
In addition to development on The T’s land, some acquisition and assemblage of other par-
cels is expected, and the city has undertaken planning to coordinate development. The master

plan effort emerged out of a market study on housing demand in the vicinity and subsequent
conversations between The T and the Housing Authority. Housing will have urban design char-
acteristics to promote density and walkability.
MPOs can take an active role in encouraging development on land they control, or can lever-
age by partnering with local jurisdictions and housing authorities to acquire and assemble key
parcels. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Met Council’s Land Acquisition for Affordable New Devel-
opment (LAAND) program makes loans to acquire land for affordable housing projects, with
criteria including proximity to public transit and consistency with existing community plans.
In addition, the region’s Hiawatha Land Assembly Fund program has acquired, assembled, and
prepared TOD opportunity sites since the 1990s, and used $5 million of Federal Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. The fund created a one-time source for property
acquisition along the Hiawatha Line, with acquisitions first occurring in downtown Minneapolis
and then elsewhere along the corridor (Metropolitan Council 2013).
“Patient money” fronted by government is sometimes needed as a development catalyst.
“Strategic Acquisition Fund for Transit-Oriented Development,” a report developed for the
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and Metropolitan Council, notes that acquisitions and
assemblage requires significant effort and carries relatively high financial risk. In places where
development seems too risky, municipalities can increase development activity by reducing or
deferring development fees. For priority projects, governments and foundations can participate
financially with low-cost loans or as “first-loss” investment partners (McGraw et al. 2014).
Predevelopment Assistance and Brownfields

In Minneapolis-St. Paul, the LCA grants encourage TOD where there are economic and
environmental obstacles. Predevelopment and site investigation funding helps developers
through critical due diligence activities such as conducting market studies, investigating and
cleaning up contaminated sites, performing critical legal work, and building support among
local stakeholders. To be eligible, projects must be proximate to LRT, BRT, commuter rail, or
high-frequency express bus stations (Metropolitan Council undated).
Brownfields—sites with abandoned and aging industrial uses—can present opportunities
for growth along transit with industrial sites that may require cleanup of contaminants—often
an expensive and risky proposition. Predevelopment assistance can be essential for brownfield
redevelopment. Along Philadelphia’s North Broad corridor, industrial land within a few blocks
of transit has been reclaimed for new residential development, replacing blight with housing
opportunities and economic support for local businesses (The Philadelphia City Planning Com-
mission 2005).
District Financing and Value Capture

District-level financing can underwrite capital improvements in a station area or subarea of
strategic importance. Several district-level financing tools are available (Urban Land Institute
2010).
Local Improvement Districts. Local improvement districts (LIDs) and business improve-
ment districts (BIDs) use parcel-based assessments. The revenue from these assessments can
leverage ongoing services as well as public improvements. In turn, BID/LID services and improve-
ments leverage higher levels of economic activity and private investment. BID/LID services are
generally established with a majority of property owners.
Revenue Bonds. Revenue bonds can pay sizable upfront costs but must be adopted by area
property owners. These bonds require a revenue stream to service the debt.

Developer Impact Fees. Developers can be assessed impact fees, which can be pooled to
finance area infrastructure improvements. To raise revenues from fees, private development
must be financially feasible.
Tax Credits. A variety of federal tax credits could be used for TOD and related infrastructure
based on eligibility, such as New Markets Tax Credits and historic and energy tax credit programs.
Parking Increment. By increasing parking rates at meters and in publicly owned garages,
the increment above the current rate can be used to help pay for infrastructure improvements. In
Portland, Oregon, a meter rate increase of 25 cents per hour raised a $28 million bond to finance
a streetcar downtown.
Tax Increment Financing. Tax increment financing (TIF) allows governments to retain
future increases from property tax revenues (that is, the increment above prior tax revenues) to
finance local projects. Bonding against future revenues can leverage significant capital for
• Street improvements,
• Lot assemblage,
• Site remediation,
• Assistance to displaced residents and businesses,
• Job training within corridor and vicinity,
• Attracting uses that serve the community,
• Direct rehabilitation of structures, and
• Traffic improvements, including traffic calming.
Value-Capture Financing. Value-capture tools, such as TIF, allow governments to leverage

revenues during financial upswings resulting from public planning and investments. Although
value capture can finance improvements and yield community benefits in strong markets, it has
more limited application where market forces are marginal or largely absent (Mathur 2014).
Interviews conducted for this study found that while value-capture financing tools are being
widely considered and used in transit corridors across the country, there was also an emerging
sense that while they work well in healthy real estate markets, development subsidies and other
incentives may be needed in more challenged markets. In these difficult market conditions, value-
capture tools may be counterproductive.
Activity Center Master Plans

New activity centers typically result from large-scale master plans and can create new nodes
of commercial and cultural activity. This is especially important for Emerging Corridors, which
are characterized by single-use, low-intensity development (see Appendix D). Activity center
master plans can also address a corridor’s jobs-housing balance by emphasizing jobs or housing
creation.
Activity centers can be constructed in “greenfield locations,” in low-intensity emerging areas,
or as part of the redevelopment in urban areas. Unlike historic downtowns that grew incremen-
tally over time, activity centers typically result from master planning (to guide character, use,
and intensity) and public-private partnerships (to facilitate implementation such as through
land acquisition and infrastructure financing).
Bloomington, Minnesota, redeveloped an underutilized site along the Hiawatha LRT Line
through the “Bloomington Central Station Development Plan.” High-intensity development
complements other uses on the LRT line. The plan creates a mixed-use node near the regional
airport and gives employees at the Mall of America new housing options, helping to address
corridor-level jobs-housing balance. Transportation strategies for the high-intensity mixed-use

district included parking garages (financed as part of districtwide infrastructure) and aggressive
transportation demand management programs. Walkability is promoted with complete streets,
public open space, and local conveniences (City of Bloomington 2013).
Near Portland, Oregon, the Blue Line LRT corridor has had relatively few major transit-
accessible destinations farther out from Portland. The city of Hillsboro acquired underutilized
land west of and adjacent to downtown to create a civic and cultural center with direct transit
access. The activity center has helped support the revitalization of the downtown that it abuts
(City of Hillsboro 2010).
The Village of Niles, Illinois, grew without a downtown, and community leaders have recently
expressed their desire for an activity center. Along the Milwaukee Avenue transit corridor, two
clusters of larger commercial parcels have been identified as future activity centers. The Village’s
“Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan” emphasizes fine-grain connections in these areas; and land use
planning was underway at the time of this writing to allow increased intensities and offer incen-
tives for the redevelopment of designated activity center areas (Sam Schwartz Engineering D.P.C
and Farr Associates 2014).
Jobs-Housing Alignment Activities

In 2009, the Federal Highway Administration found that across all modes, commute trips
between job and home resulted in 623 trillion VMT and 28 percent of total annual VMT. When
there is a mismatch between the location and number of jobs and homes, workers often take
jobs that are far from where they can afford housing. Increased transit service can help close this
location gap when job and housing opportunities are near reliable transit (East-West Gateway
Council of Governments 2012). When they are not, coordinated land use planning and transit
service expansions can help to reduce the location gap. (For economic effects on households
from the combined cost of housing and transportation, see “Location Efficiency.”)
Furthermore, jobs-housing strategies can better utilize available transit capacity, such as by
encouraging jobs or housing near certain transit stations. For example, job centers in the “reverse
commute direction” can leverage transit capacity when job growth occurs.
Regional and corridor-level planning tools for attaining jobs-housing balance compare the
location of job concentrations to available housing (see Figure B-2). For example, in its report
“Jobs-Housing Balance: CMAP Regional Snapshot Report,” the CMAP focuses on:
• The dimensions of jobs-housing balance, including the location of job centers;
• The density of jobs and housing, concentrations of affordable housing;
• Local jobs-housing ratios;
• Commute patterns;
• Travel time from areas of affordable housing to jobs; and
• Opportunities for corrective job and housing growth, such as housing opportunity sites near
suburban job centers (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2008).
Spatial analysis of jobs and housing can be generalized, as illustrated by CMAP’s “Jobs-Housing
Balance” report, or can be specific to transit station areas and corridors, such as the Center for
Transit-Oriented Development’s (CTOD) approach for regional Los Angeles (see Figure B-3).
In “Creating Successful Transit-Oriented Districts in Los Angeles,” CTOD measures the mix and
intensity of jobs and housing across seven transit corridors, and evaluates the relative balance
of jobs and housing within each corridor. Such corridor-level analysis helps to determine where
job or housing growth should be targeted (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2010).
Policy tools to achieve jobs-housing balance can be characterized as “carrots and sticks.”
“Carrots” include planning and capital grants, public-private joint development initiatives, and

While the Chicago region’s affordable housing is concentrated in urban neighborhoods and inner
suburbs, most employment sub-centers are concentrated in outer suburbs with limited transit options.
Source: Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (2008).
Figure B-2. Regional patterns of jobs and housing.
regional infrastructure investment priorities. “Sticks” include local land use plan compliance
with regional jobs-housing balance objectives and limits to regional infrastructure investments,
assuming such governance tools are available.
Corridor-level planning can provide analysis and make recommendations that are more
fine-grained. Corridor plans can synthesize critical station area land use information to identify
opportunities and challenges. Information databases can be used to balance jobs and housing,

By graphing the housing versus employment intensity within walking distance of each light rail station, planners in Los Angeles gain insights as to jobs-housing balance. Here, each LRT corridor has
its own color and the whole LRT system is shown. Alternatively, a graph with only one corridor shown allows planners to quickly surmise the jobs-housing performance of that corridor.
Source: Center for Transit-Oriented Development (2010).
Figure B-3. Station area snapshot of jobs and housing.

set priorities for land acquisition and joint development, and boost land use by development
incentives (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2010).
Another approach for jobs-housing balance is to encourage major employers to locate near
transit and in parts of the region having relatively affordable housing. In the Twin Cities, the
COO initiative includes outreach to and research on developers, employers, and business leaders
to leverage private-sector job creation in transit-oriented locations. This research provides stake-
holders with workforce demographics along transit corridors and relates the economic advantages
of transit-oriented locations (Fan and Guthrie 2013).
Social Investments
Community engagement plays a central role in identifying and addressing social and economic
needs in less advantaged communities. In the Twin Cities, social needs are addressed by the COO
initiative, which has programs that can identify community’s needs and leverage resources, maxi-
mize benefits, and minimize impacts. Grant recipients must be within eligible transit-oriented
areas and must include in the planning process populations who tend to be underrepresented in
decision making (such as people of color, immigrants, and people with disabilities) (Fan and
Guthrie 2013).
Another benefit of the COO’s community-based planning activities is by expanding the
capacity of community organizations; as a result, community members and organizations have
remained involved in the process throughout TOD-related implementation activities. This
deeply embedded level of involvement has also built active and productive relationships among
community organization leaders, public agencies, and officials.
Programs benefiting disadvantaged neighborhoods include help for small business development,
such as entrepreneurial training, professional skill building, small business loans, and support for
identifying and leasing in emerging TOD locations. Met Council also works in partnership with
larger employers to encourage employment and training persons from disadvantaged communities.
The program is organized around three Ps: procurement (buy from local small businesses), per-
sonnel (hire from local disadvantaged populations), and placemaking (enhance walking, bicycling,
transit, and community building) (Central Corridor Funders Collaborative 2011).
Another workforce program is focused on jobs and job skills along Minneapolis-St. Paul’s
Green Line. The program began with analysis and demand estimate of job skills needed by
employers along the corridor, and then worked with job skills programs and other social service
providers to connect with disadvantaged populations and teach job skills that are in demand.

These strategies can help support the well-being of persons along a corridor by enhancing and
leveraging health and community services.
Partnerships with Service Providers

Local and regional planners can work with area hospitals, universities, NGOs, and other
social service providers to build new and expand existing facilities along transit corridors. For
example, the City of Oakland, California, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), and the
San Francisco Bay Area’s MPO, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, worked closely
with social services providers to support the development of the Fruitvale BART Transit Village,
building a new home for a Head Start childcare center and a community health clinic called
La Clinica de la Raza (Scully 2005).

The city of Hillsboro, Oregon, chose to locate and construct a new civic center complex
with government offices and other public services adjacent to Portland’s Metropolitan Area
Express’s (MAX’s) Blue Line light rail station. Shortly after the civic center was completed,
Pacific University located its new Health Professions Campus adjacent to a MAX light rail
station. The move was facilitated proactively through coordination and support from the city
of Hillsboro, Washington County, the TriMet transit agency, and Metro regional government
(TriMet 2010).
MPOs can also proactively encourage social services along corridors, particularly corridors
with high concentrations of low-income households. In Minneapolis-St. Paul, Met Council
reached out to job skills programs and other social service providers to encourage their presence
along the Green Line (Metropolitan Council 2014c).
Local development codes can offer clear incentives for public uses, such as by exempting com-
munity facilities from floor-area-ratio (FAR) limits and parking requirements, or by allowing
high FARs and providing other favorable development standards for hospital facilities within
walking distance of transit.
Accessible Community Services

Safe and direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to health and other social services enhance
access. Plan policies can explain how new paths can be created or how new buildings can face
existing street connections to establish more inviting connections. Capital improvement plans
can give priority to making such improvements to provide access to health care and social
services, especially to serve disadvantaged populations who rely on transit.
Shuttle service between transit stations and hospitals and other major service providers
allows services in more peripheral locations to be connected with a livable transit corridor (see
“Last-Mile Shuttles”).
Efficient Infrastructure and Services

Compact development patterns allow community resources to be used efficiently and help
leverage a wider array of community benefits. Compact development in transit corridors reduces
the cost of infrastructure and other public facilities, as compared with low-intensity and less-
connected places. Compact development also reduces the ongoing costs of delivering municipal
and social services. Many planning and finance tools are available to deliver more efficient infra-
structure and services by promoting compact development patterns. Compact development
tools can be targeted along transit corridors to leverage infrastructure and services, and provide
for the long-term fiscal health of corridor communities.
Conversely, the provision of infrastructure can encourage compact development. Infrastruc-
ture financing districts and assistance can make vacant and underutilized sites near transit more
appealing to private investors. Through infrastructure, communities can also leverage more from
development, such as affordable housing, public open space, and pedestrian-oriented develop-
ment patterns.
Community Safety
Safety and security are essential to livability, and are shaped by physical environments, gov-
ernment services, and community policing. Community policing brings police and community
members together to identify and address problems associated with crime and unwanted behavior.
Recent mode choice research has found that people are more likely to choose to walk, bicycle, or
ride transit in low-crime neighborhoods (Ferrell et al. 2015). Typically, safety planning efforts and
police resources are organized within walkable geographies, which can be an accompaniment to

station area planning and programs. Community policing programs include community mem-
ber outreach and education, neighborhood watch activities, foot and bicycle police patrols, and
increasing officers’ connections to citizens they serve (Carter et al. 2003).
Physical conditions that deter crime and unwanted behavior place activity and eyes on the
street through the orientation and extent of building fronts, windows, and building entrances,
which can be addressed by development codes and guidelines (Clarke undated) (see “Crime Pre-
vention through Environmental Design” and “Form-Based Codes”).
Lighting also affects safety along pedestrian and bicycle routes (Farrington and Welsh 2002).
Public lighting that enhances corridor safety can be promoted with grants and district-level
financing programs. Private light sources, such as architectural and security lighting, can be
encouraged through design guidelines and cooperation with property owners.

These strategies can help enrich corridors with community, cultural, and recreational facilities
and programs.
Public Art
“Arts on the Line” was the first program of its kind in the United States, and dedicated one
percent of capital improvements to public art along Boston’s Red Line corridor. Boston’s transit
agency—the MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority)—requires station designs to
incorporate art, with community members participating in the art selection process. The MBTA
program limits art to placements on functional elements already required for the construction
of the facility. Artists help design lighting, fences, plazas, benches, and retaining walls. Durable
materials are required, such as ceramic tile, bronze, steel, glass, and concrete. Ongoing maintenance
costs are factored into the art selected and its final design (Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority undated).
Public art, particularly functional art, is an integral part of the transit station design process
for LA’s Orange Line. Orange Line art elements include sculpted seating at platforms, terrazzo
paving, and ornate metalwork. Specialized artwork gives variability and a specialized identity to
individual stations (Federal Transit Administration 2011).
Local zoning can also encourage public art as part of private investment, and such incentives
can be targeted near transit to make a more livable corridor. Bloomington’s Central Station
Master Plan provides a density bonus for public art, and art is often encouraged as part of a local
design review process (City of Bloomington 2013).
Cultural Destinations
“Extending the Vision for North Broad Street” is a corridor-focused advocacy plan for one
of Philadelphia’s principal cultural and institutional corridors. The corridor has underused and
distressed properties, but also significant cultural assets and Temple University’s Medical Center.
To promote cultural and economic vitality, the plan provides a framework for development and
recommends specific public- and private-sector investments and actions including:
• Preservation and reuse of existing assets, including technical assistance
• Reuse of industrial buildings as art and residential lofts
• Context-sensitive development on vacant and underused sites
• Expansion of convention center and cultural venues
• New neighborhood grocery stores

• Public art
• Commercial and way-finding signage programs
• Other district identity and branding features (The Philadelphia City Planning Commission
2005).
The City of Philadelphia also works with property owners to encourage the use of parking lots
for farmers’ markets and community events (The Philadelphia City Planning Commission 2005).
Joint development can emphasize the creation of cultural resources. In Minneapolis, the city,
Hennepin County, and neighborhood organizations negotiated with a school district to acquire
a site for a mixed-use project to create a market plaza along the Hiawatha Line. The plaza would
host cultural events, entertainment, and retail uses (Gilyard 2010).
In Los Angeles, the ULI emphasized the importance of branding the identity of cultural nodes
to cultivate them as destinations. Branding can be cultivated with way-finding signage, distinct
street improvements, and special events (Urban Land Institute-Los Angeles 2013).
Transit-accessible cultural destinations are also encouraged through the revitalization of
urban districts, as discussed below.
District Revitalization
Revitalization is a tool for expanding destinations in established districts along transit cor-
ridors. The revitalization of urban districts occurs through reinvestment, reuse, and infill on
underused sites.
Along Philadelphia’s Broad Street corridor, a wealth of theaters, libraries, and the university
are mixed with economically challenged areas marked by vacant storefronts and properties fall-
ing into disrepair. An inclusive process resulted in a corridor plan that focuses on the retention of
existing community assets, such as with historic preservation, public art, and street enhancements,
while encouraging the renovation of existing buildings and infill development on underused
lots. A special-services district supports façade improvements, ongoing street cleaning, graffiti
abatement, public safety programs, and marketing campaigns (The Philadelphia City Planning
Commission 2005).
In Saint Louis, the Great Streets Initiative for South Grand promotes cultural vitality through
building an authentic sense of place, comfortable and safe walking environments, economic
vitality, and community open space (DW Legacy Design Foundation 2010).
Recreation and Open Space

In the 1970s, decision makers reached agreement to construct Boston’s Orange Line after years
of contentious debate over using that corridor alignment as a freeway. As told by Neal Pierce
and Robert Guskind in Breakthroughs: Recreating the American City, the freeway was touted by
engineers and bureaucrats, while support for transit resulted from effective community engage-
ment. By building rail instead of freeway, land was made available to create parks, trails, and
other public facilities along the Orange Line right-of-way (Pierce and Guskind 1993).
Recreation and open space can also be created using finance mechanisms for parks and com-
munity facilities, such as financing districts and development agreements (see “District Financing
and Value Capture”). Ongoing expenses associated with public recreation can be addressed with
park conservancies, nonprofits responsible for ongoing maintenance and stewardship, where park
districts have insufficient resources for new spaces. Met Council has provided predevelopment
funding to encourage park conservancies in recreation-deficient locations (Metropolitan Council,
Partnership for Regional Opportunity 2014).

Sense-of-Place Guidelines
Architectural guidelines can be developed to maintain the unique, valued character of a place.
The guidelines can emphasize a place’s character-defining features in new construction and
building additions, as well as preservation and adaptive reuse of historic resources. Cultural
opportunities for livability include a sense of connection with a locale, its geography, and history.
Architectural guidelines can also encourage new construction to have a look and features that
reinforce attributes for the local context. Regional context is visually communicated through
the use of local building methods and traditions, and can be emulated through the selection of
materials, color, roof form, the size and proportion of openings, prevailing structural systems,
the rhythms of structural bays, cornice treatments, and so on.
Sense-of-place guidelines can be used in new emerging areas, but are particularly important
to maintain compatibility with historic buildings in established urban areas. While infill devel-
opment and intensification can play a vital role in revitalizing established areas by increasing
activity and opportunities (see “Compact Development”), the unique architectural traditions
of a place can inspire architects to avoid an aesthetic sameness from simply applying modern
construction techniques and materials.
The protection of historic resources also promotes cultural livability opportunities. Existing
historic buildings of architectural merit exhibit the artisanship and craft of past generations.
Historic resource surveys can identify potential assets so their protection can be planned for, a
step that can be part of station area planning (see “Station Area Profiles”). The reuse and inten-
sification of historic assets can often be accommodated through context-sensitive design.
Healthy, Safe, and Walkable Transit Corridor Neighborhoods

These strategies can help make pedestrian-oriented places where people feel healthier and safer.
Complete Streets
Essential ingredients for livability are streets designed for the comfort and safety of pedestri-
ans and bicyclists. “Complete streets” balance the needs of multiple transportation modes, and
encourage walking or biking for many trips. Sidewalks that are protected from traffic are common
to most complete streets, and bicycle facilities are incorporated into compete streets networks.
Jurisdictions that fund and construct roadways can implement complete streets with design
standards. MPOs and interest groups can help effect that outcome through education. The design
of complete streets also benefits from the participation of diverse stakeholders to present a balance
of perspectives. MPOs can also influence the design of streets when they have funding authority.
Walk and Bike Safety Audits

Safety audits can identify where pedestrians or bicyclists are at risk for collision with motor
vehicles. Specific roadway segments or general network conditions can be considered. Factors
include visibility, pedestrian and bicyclist refuge areas, crosswalks, traffic speed controls, and
safety signage. Audits generally recommend improvements and guide funding decisions.
For Philadelphia’s “North Broad Street Safety Audit,” near-term funding priorities focus on
near-term, low-cost items such as striping crosswalks and refuge islands and improved signal
phasing. Mid-term priorities include bike lanes, “road diets” (that is, repurposing vehicle lanes as
pedestrian or bicycle facilities), and traffic calming features. Long-term high-cost items included
context-sensitive sidewalk improvements and road diets (Delaware Valley Regional Planning
Commission 2009).

Traffic Calming
“Traffic Calming is the combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative
effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for nonmotorized
street users.” (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2015) Traffic calming supports walking
and bicycling to transit and other destinations by enabling pedestrians and bicyclists to feel safe.
Traffic calming measures include narrowing lanes, crosswalk improvements, speed tables, and
pedestrian-activated blinker lights (Lockwood 1997).
Traffic calming addresses a wide array of livability concerns. It can be implemented with road-
way design manuals, street improvement plans, master plans, safe-routes-to-school programs,
and capital grants.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network Maintenance

Pedestrian and bicycle networks help establish and enhance corridor livability as long as
ongoing funding is secured for maintenance and repairs. In the case of pedestrian routes, lack
of maintenance can result in uplifted sidewalks, tripping hazards, potholes, standing water, and
other safety concerns. Maintenance may also have an economic dimension, as the success of
shopping districts relies in part on the cleanliness of sidewalks. Bicycle facilities are safer and
better used when relatively smooth pavement is maintained.
Form-Based Codes
“A form-based code is a land development regulation that fosters predictable built results
and a high-quality public realm by using physical form as the organizing principle for the code”
(Form-Based Codes Institute 2016). Form-based codes provide clear standards for design features
that are critical for more walkable environments, such as regulations that ensure pedestrian-
oriented buildings.
As measurable standards, form-based codes offer reliable urban design results through an
administrative process and without relying on discretionary forms of review. Development
projects that conform to a form-based code can generally be entitled more quickly and with
less uncertainty than under conventional development codes where pedestrian-oriented urban
design may be expected but is not spelled out.
To help encourage development and walkability near transit, MPOs, such as the San Francisco
Bay Area’s Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Minneapolis-Saint Paul’s Metropoli-
tan Council, provide technical assistance grants to local jurisdictions for form-based codes.
Form-based codes focus on key pedestrian-oriented design characteristics for how build-
ings should relate to streets to encourage walking and support community life (see Figure B-4).
Form-based codes require that most of a block’s street frontage comprise building fronts with
main entrances and windows, and that parking should be placed behind or below buildings.
Form-based development patterns line walking routes with activity and visual interest, and place
“eyes on the street.” In the absence of form-based provisions, connectivity of pedestrian networks
surrounding transit can suffer, as streets may be lined by blank walls and parking lots.
Form-based codes feature clear diagrams and illustrations, and typically address the design
of streets, as well as buildings. Form-based streets standards emphasize sidewalks, street trees,
public amenities, and other features that make walking more attractive.
TOD Guidelines
To inspire pedestrian-oriented development patterns near transit, MPOs often develop form-
based guidelines that also emphasize opportunities and needs associated with transit, such as

Form-based codes describe key design characteristics for more walkable places. Clear guidance is given by illustrating acceptable
street-oriented building types and architectural features.
Source: Citizens for Modern Transit (2013).
Figure B-4. Form-based guidance.
land use intensity, local destinations adjacent to stations, connectivity, and easy access to transit
stations (see “TOD Strategic Plans” and “TOD Guidelines”). Met Council—the Minneapolis
region’s metropolitan planning organization—provides an easy-to-use checklist for local juris-
dictions working to develop TOD (see Figure B-5).
Zoning Overlay Districts

Zoning can be amended as an overlay district to address many factors found in form-based
codes and TOD guidelines and to provide incentives for development near transit. Overlay dis-
tricts are applied in addition to or “on top of” existing zoning, making them easier to adopt.
MPOs and other government entities can develop model ordinance language for overlay zoning,
which local jurisdictions can use if they choose. For example, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
has a model ordinance for a TOD Overlay District, which covers uses, parking requirements, and
building relationships, in a format that can be readily adopted (Commonwealth of Massachusetts
undated).
Along Minneapolis’s Hiawatha corridor the city adopted zoning overlay districts near transit
stations to encourage higher densities by reducing parking requirements, allowing shared park-
ing, and prohibiting auto-oriented uses. Minneapolis grants an automatic increase in allowable
FAR/density when a project includes affordable housing or ground-floor retail. Along shopping
streets, overlay districts can also have build-to lines and active ground-floor requirements to
maintain continuous storefronts (City of Minneapolis 2011).
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

CPTED recognizes that physical conditions can affect whether a place is prone to crime and
other unwanted behavior. Accessible locations that are not easily seen can invite crime, such as

Met Council’s Handbook for Transit-Oriented Development Grants is accompanied by form-based guidelines, but distills considerations into
easy-to-use checklists.
Source: Metropolitan Council 2014b.
Figure B-5. The Minneapolis region’s TOD checklist.
where sightlines are obstructed or where blank walls, instead of windows, face streets. Lighting,
maintenance, graffiti abatement, and other factors are also considered by CPTED.
Designers, planners, and police officers can undergo CPTED training to identify and correct
problematic conditions, whether on public or private land. Development codes, design guide-
lines, master plans, and design review can address CPTED concerns (Clarke undated).
Strategies for Corridor Types

While every transit corridor is unique, characteristically similar corridors often face similar
challenges. This Handbook defines three basic corridor types: Emerging, Transitioning, and
Integrated Corridors. Users can identify suitable strategies for their corridor by examining the
corridor type with which it is most closely associated and referring to Step 5.3 in the Hand-
book. Refer to Table B-1 and Appendix D for further discussion on corridor types and related
strategies.

Table B-1. Strategies associated with corridor types.
Transit Corridor Livability Corridor Type

Principle Emerging Transitioning Integrated
• Connected network planning
High-quality transit, walking, • Circuitous routes retrofits • Parking management
and bicycling opportunities • Compact development
• Last-mile shuttles
• Anti-displacement
• Location efficiency strategies
Mixed-income housing near • Inclusionary housing
• Housing production and targets
transit • Local housing trust
• Housing assistance
funds
• Station area profiles • Jobs-housing

Accessible economic alignment
• Financial feasibility and incentives
opportunities • Social investments
• Activity center master plan
Accessible social and • Access to services • Community safety

government services • Efficient infrastructure
Vibrant and accessible • Cultural • District • Public art

community, cultural, and
destinations revitalization
• Complete streets • Walk and safety audits

Healthy, safe, and walkable • Traffic calming • Pedestrian and bicycle
transit corridor neighborhoods • Form-based codes network maintenance
• TOD guidelines

APPENDIX C
Coordination and
Collaboration Strategies
Coordination and collaboration are vital to tailoring analysis and decisions to a particular
corridor. Coordination and collaboration can be critical for defining local aspirations, under-
standing local issues, and customizing strategies to be accepted and effective. Broadly accepted
goals form the foundation of successful livable transit corridor partnerships, helping stakeholders
and government agencies to apply their energy and resources toward shared aspirations and agreed
upon strategies.
Planning for livability requires that stakeholders have an opportunity to understand—and
help others understand—key issues and provide meaningful input on options and proposals. For
informed decisions, planning relationships need to be explained clearly and reliably, along with
the benefits and impacts of proposed strategies. When a corridor is planned using coordination
and collaboration, the goals and strategies reflect the insights and aspirations of all stakeholders.
Stakeholders with an interest in livability are diverse. The following are common stakeholders
and their areas of interest:
• Regional agencies provide transportation planning and financing (e.g., MPOs) and land use
coordination services (e.g., COGs) across municipal and county boundaries within metro-
politan areas. MPOs are typically responsible for preparing regional transportation plans (RTPs)
and regional transportation improvement programs (RTIPs) that provide important oppor-
tunities to transit corridor plans and projects to receive funding and political support from
local, state, and federal agencies.
• Transportation agencies are concerned with access along corridors generally and have specific
concerns relating to transit ridership levels, capital investment decisions, and ongoing opera-
tional decisions across various modes and at the local and regional scale.
• Municipal governments set land use and standards for private development and have direct
authority over local streets and infrastructure. Municipal policies also relate to housing, economic
development, and other dimensions of livability.
• State departments have responsibility for complementary policies pertaining to transporta-
tion, housing, the environment, economic development, and social services. State departments
of transportation (DOTs) are responsible for creating statewide transportation improvement
programs (STIPs) where, like in the case of RTIPS, transit corridor improvement planning
efforts can receive crucial financial and political support.
• Private developers and business interests deliver most nongovernment investments, including
most forms of development within regulatory limits and procedures.
• Advocacy groups represent an array of concerns that may focus on a locale (e.g., community
groups) or a specific interest (such as affordable housing or bicycling).
• Community members who live or work along a corridor are central stakeholders, regardless
of whether they are represented by an organization.
88

Coordination and Collaboration Strategies 89
Effective planning for livable transit corridors requires coordination and collaboration on
several levels. Corridor planning requires consideration of issues by diverse corridor stakeholders,
each with a stake in associated outcomes. Livability targets a full spectrum of human needs, so
livability planning requires participation by stakeholders to be responsive. Coordination and
collaboration also cultivate broad-based support among stakeholders, which enables decision
makers at all levels of government to successfully advance livable corridor planning principles.
Coordination and collaboration must target both interjurisdictional cooperation and commu-
nity engagement to succeed. Interjurisdictional cooperation addresses the multifaceted nature of
livable transit corridors. Complete and integrated corridors only arise through separate but con-
nected actions on the part of transit agencies, local governments, regional organizations, service
care providers, real estate investors, and others. Active community engagement also plays a vital
role, since it communicates the importance of livable corridor planning and its implications at
the local level, while providing nongovernment stakeholders with opportunities for input as strate-
gies and implementing actions are developed. Input by community stakeholders is important for
aligning decisions with community values, mitigating potential negative impacts, and leveraging
local benefits.
Interjurisdictional Coordination
A complete set of transit corridor livability opportunities can only be attained with strategies
that encourage collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries. The actions of many government
agencies and local jurisdictions need to be aligned. Each jurisdiction has specific interests and lim-
ited authority, but few have a mandate to consider corridor livability in a holistic, integrated way.
Pennsylvania’s “Keystone Principles for Growth, Investment and Resource Conservation” recog-
nizes the need for greater coordination among government agencies regarding decisions and invest-
ments surrounding land use, transportation, and economic development, generally. The Keystone
Principles prioritize state investments and coordination activities around smart growth criteria,
including site location, infrastructure efficiency, land use density and diversity, affordable housing,
job creation, and enhancement of environmental and cultural resources (Governor’s Economic
Cabinet, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 2005).
Pennsylvania’s Keystone Principles show how states can play the role of stakeholder orches-
trator, providing policies, rules, guidelines, and a forum for different governmental actors to
collaborate. This statewide directive set a framework for the Philadelphia region’s “Land Use,
Transportation, and Economic Development Plan” (LUTED), which sets transportation invest-
ment priorities and promotes smart growth principles. LUTED was developed with an advisory
committee comprising interested agencies at the state, regional, and local level (Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission 2008).
Intergovernmental coordination, particularly at the corridor level, also benefits when regional
government takes an active role. Livable corridor planning requires coordinated guidance by
MPOs, transit agencies, and local governments, both between governments and among agencies
within the same government. Jurisdictional coordination acknowledges that implementation
involves numerous players, including government agencies, social service providers, and private
developers.
Interjurisdictional cooperation often occurs by sharing information, approaching corridors
as an integrated unit, and working together to develop a shared vision. Chicago’s “Go to 2040”
regional plan supports coordination among local jurisdictions and regional agencies and notes
that “[w]ith local autonomy over land use comes responsibility to consider how those decisions
shape a community’s livability, including how they affect neighboring communities and the

region as a whole. As a region, we need to implement policies and investments that make livability
the highest priority. Intergovernmental approaches are often the best way to solve planning prob-
lems in housing, transit, economic development, and other areas, . . . [including] collaborative
planning groups that are organized around a transportation corridor. . . . At a less formal level,
coordination between municipalities is beneficial for information sharing . . . [and] fostering
networked collaboration to share ideas and strategies. . . .” (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for
Planning 2010).
Interjurisdictional coordination for livable corridor planning benefits from the following
strategies:
• Shared information—gathering and synthesizing data relevant to corridor planning.
• Corridor focus—examining issues of interjurisdictional importance along corridors.
• Shared vision—making multilateral agreements that transcend geographic boundaries and
narrow perspectives.
Shared Information
When government agencies convene to focus on a corridor, livability issues and opportuni-
ties are understood more completely. Corridors are geographic areas that—with comprehensive
planning—can offer high levels of livability opportunities. Jurisdictions should appreciate the
benefits of corridor-focused planning and think about livability issues through that lens.
Good information sets a foundation for understanding issues that cross jurisdictional bound-
aries at the corridor level. Shared information improves access to data for planning purposes by
governments and also nongovernment stakeholders such as developers and health providers.
Station Area Profiles. Station area profiles can identify issues for interested jurisdictions to
consider. These profiles gather information relevant to planning decisions, such as land use pat-
terns, inventories of development opportunity sites, market assessments for TOD uses, and
levels of connection between stations and surrounding areas. While they often lead to a shared
vision among multiple jurisdictions, they can also be used where jurisdictions are not ready or
are unable to initiate a process for arriving at a shared vision.
Network and Corridor Assessments. Profiles can be the basis for analyzing and creating a
larger system of transit catchment areas, and can help prioritize corridors for further planning.
For Los Angeles, the Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD) authored “Creating
Successful Transit-Oriented Districts” to “[e]ducate public agency staff, advocacy groups . . . 
and policymakers on the benefits of TOD, and best practices in TOD policymaking and
implementation. . . . Given the fragmentation of public agencies within the City of Los Angeles
and other local jurisdictions, and the multi-department structure required to plan and implement
TOD, many local government and private actors do not fully understand the regulatory, plan-
ning, and implementation steps needed to promote successful TOD.” The report defines goals
(similar to this Handbook’s Livability Principles) and evaluates performance for light rail station
areas and for the city as a whole. Shared information in the report provides a foundation for
future decision making, as CTOD concludes by noting that its “station profile sheets, affordability
index, and other screen mapping all provide data-driven tools to understand the performance of
station areas . . . to more comprehensively and systematically plan for transit-oriented districts . . .”
(Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2010, pp. 9–10).
Background Reports. Shared information also includes reviews of existing planning docu-
ments, including adopted plans and studies. Relevant documents set a framework for moving
forward. Adopted plans set policy and regulator parameters and may offer implementation tools;

existing studies highlight issues relevant to livability planning. Two types of studies are most
common:
• Studies focused on TOD market opportunities and overcoming barriers to feasibility.
• Studies that develop station area profiles to guide decisions on how to target policies and
resources.
Corridor Focus
Focus on the corridor and how multiple factors need to come together to enhance livability.
Address challenges along the corridor in multifaceted and integrated ways that includes coop-
eration among jurisdictions.
Convening Interested Agencies. The development of the “Orange Line Bus Rapid Transit
Sustainable Corridor Implementation Plan” in Los Angeles, California, offers a case in point.
Throughout the development of the plan, the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) and the consultant team worked closely with community members, NGOs, and public
agency staff at Metro, LA’s transit agency, and the city of Los Angeles. The process included
one-on-one stakeholder interviews, public workshops, an online survey for each station area,
Corridor Working Group meetings, and meetings with individual neighborhood councils and
neighborhood associations (Raimi + Associates and Sargent Town Planning 2012).
Local governments can also convene agencies and develop partnerships to address issues. The
Village of Niles, Illinois (a suburb adjacent to the city of Chicago), has been working to advance
livability along the Milwaukee Avenue corridor by getting the attention of area’s transit agency,
highway authority, and MPO to receive funding for corridor-level planning and implementation
(Camiros Consultants 2014). Such leadership by decision makers and planners is sometimes
needed to highlight corridor opportunities and attract the interest and support of other political
decision makers.
Community Assessments. Community assessments can also be initiated by nongovernment

organizations with an interest in the issues faced by particular corridors. The Urban Land Institute
(ULI) is a nonprofit research and education organization, which often convenes panels of experts
to consider special urban challenges. In 2013, ULI published a Transit Corridor Report that
examined three transit corridors in Los Angeles. In a short time, ULI experts in planning and
development generated comprehensive assessments of each corridor’s development potential
and made recommendations relating to policy and regulatory changes, physical improvements,
and overcoming obstacles to implementation (Urban Land Institute-Los Angeles 2013).
Because organizations such as ULI operate outside of government, they can initiate public dis-
course more easily, particularly around controversial issues. One ULI recommendation was to
designate a staff person in the Los Angeles Mayor’s office to focus on each corridor of interest, by
facilitating discussion among city departments and other agencies, to address corridor concerns
in a more integrated way (Urban Land Institute-Los Angeles 2013).
Shared Vision
Interjurisdictional visioning and plan development provide forums for goal setting and deci-
sion making that transcend narrow perspectives and geographic and organizational boundaries.
Common Goals. Shared goals align policies across jurisdictional boundaries, so separate
actions add up to increased livability along a corridor. Coordination occurs in the process of
working together to implement shared goals, not only after goals are adopted. Interjurisdictional

cooperation can go beyond goal setting to include implementation programs, but must be accom-
panied by modes of governance (joint powers agreements and memorandums of understanding,
for example) that allow such actions to occur.
Prioritizing Investments. A shared vision encourages more systematic ways of prioritizing

corridor livability and TOD-related investments, such as the phasing of new development and
intensification of stations with significant land opportunities. Because corridor livability and TOD
integrate issues and disciplines, there are diverse funding sources that would better promote
livability if brought under a single plan umbrella (Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2010).
Partnerships. A shared vision aligns the actions of regional and local jurisdictions. Inter-
views conducted for this Handbook found that in many areas, including Fort Worth, Texas,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Minneapolis-St. Paul, to name a few, transit agencies, MPOs, and
local governments are working closely with each other to encourage TOD. Often, these agencies
partner to create a TOD Guidebook, conduct economic development studies, and coordinate
master planning activities to gain developer interest. Public-private partnerships can be criti-
cally important as well, with many regions focusing on working closely with affordable housing
developers, often on publicly owned properties.
Public investment in transit can leverage private investment and coordinate funding sources
to promote more effective TOD planning and implementation.
Community Engagement
Community engagement makes planning more responsive to local needs, builds broad-based
support, and helps remove barriers to implementation. It enables participants to examine issues
together, find connections, articulate values, discuss priorities, and anticipate implementing
actions. Strive for broad-based participation when conceiving of and implementing decisions,
and reduce barriers to participation by low-income, minority, and other populations who tend
to be underrepresented (McConville 2013). The results are decisions tailored to issues and per-
spectives unique to each corridor, greater transparency in decision making, and higher levels of
agreement moving forward.
The St. Louis region’s East-West Gateway COG’s “Public Engagement Plan” sums up the
importance of community engagement this way: “Meaningful engagement is critical because it
ensures that the widest cross section of citizens can weigh in. . . . Furthermore, engagement can
improve the resulting plan by considering development from a variety of perspectives, lending
it greater legitimacy because the very people whose lives it will impact have helped develop it.”
(Public Agenda and FOCUS St. Louis et al. 2012)
Fundamental components for effective community engagement include:
• Outreach and education—disseminating public information and inviting broad-based
participation.
• Community assessments—understanding local issues and aspirations through the eyes of
stakeholders.
• Meaningful input—giving diverse stakeholders meaningful opportunities to have a say and
collaborate.
Outreach and Education

Outreach and education encourages anyone with a stake in corridor livability to participate as
plans are formulated. Reach out to diverse stakeholders to understand planning issues, evaluate

options, develop shared objectives, and coordinate implementing actions. Outreach invites
broad-based participation, such as with public information campaigns using traditional media
and new media. Education keeps the public informed of issues surrounding livable corridor
planning and upcoming decisions, helps community members understand the effects of corridor
plans at the local level, and explains how plans respond to local issues and concerns.
Lessons Learned. A 1960s attempt to build a freeway in Boston’s southwest corridor met
strong community opposition. Plans for the freeway were replaced by cooperative planning
through outreach and education, which is credited with redirecting land and money for the
freeway toward transit (Boston’s heavy rail Orange Line) and neighborhood-serving land uses
(Pierce and Guskind 1993).
MBTA planning for the Orange Line focused on community outreach “to build consensus
within the bureaucracy and neighborhoods.” MBTA helped lead an effort characterized as “people
power.” Two principles guided community engagement: “One was that we’d look at everything
together. And the second was that we wouldn’t do anything that we didn’t talk to people in
the neighborhood about.” The Orange Line opened with broad community support in 1987
(Pierce and Guskind 1993).
Encouraging Participation. Outreach that draws people into the planning process can help
address skepticism around the benefits of livable corridor planning. “In order to engage the full
participation of community members in the planning process, and thus gain broad support for
future development or other changes that make neighborhoods more transit supportive, there
needs to be more education about TOD planning concepts [and best practices], and the potential
benefits of density as well as other [practices] that make station areas more transit supportive”
(Center for Transit-Oriented Development 2010) and livable. A variety of communication and
outreach techniques are available and hands-on workshops and interactive online tools can boost
participation and inform decisions.
Public Participation Planning. Outreach and education have become broadly accepted as
part of the mission of MPOs and other government agencies. The CMAP has a Public Partici-
pation Plan that details how CMAP should maintain “a proactive public participation process . . .
that provides complete information, timely public notice, full public access to key decisions, and
supports early and continuing involvement of the public in developing and implementing regional
plans and capital programs.” To encourage participation, messages need to make planning issues
relevant to each target audience (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2013).
Informed Decision Making. Education plays a vital role in helping raise awareness around
the relationship between transit and livability, and the need for integrated planning. The East-West
Gateway Council of Government’s “TOD Framework Master Plan” developed partly as a way to
better inform decision makers of alternative development patterns. “In a metropolitan area that
is growing relatively slowly and that has traditionally followed lower-density suburban patterns
of growth over the last several decades, leaders from throughout the region have continued to
search for appropriate strategies to promote transit-oriented development. . . . [T]his regional
TOD study helps metropolitan areas similar to St. Louis understand what TOD means for smaller
and mid-sized cities that have instead focused on suburban sprawl over the last several decades”
(East-West Gateway Council of Governments 2013).
St. Louis’ “TOD Framework Master Plan” succeeds as a guiding document not because it
makes strong recommendations—it doesn’t. It focuses on issues that matter to decision makers,
including these basic components:
• A regional demographic and market analysis,
• Site analysis and development feasibility analysis for each station area,

• An outline of key issues impacting development viability at station areas,

• Recommendations for local jurisdictions, Metro, and other stakeholders, and
• A menu of available implementation tools (East-West Gateway Council of Governments 2013).
Outreach Techniques. Strive for broad-based participation when conceiving of and imple-
menting decisions and reduce barriers to participation by low-income, minority, and other
populations who tend to be underrepresented. A host of outreach and education techniques
are available, including traditional and new media, public forums and workshops, and surveys
and questionnaires. Interactive, hands-on participation can boost participation and provide
opportunities for meaningful input. Education is also vital, as stakeholders can appreciate plans
more—and participate in more meaningful ways—when conditions and considerations are
explained clearly and reliably. Outreach techniques include:
• Resources and guidelines for workshops and other forms of outreach,
• Traditional media (newspapers, radio and television),
• New media (internet and social media), and
• Targeted outreach (for example, interviews, focus groups, language translation, direct out-
reach at events like farmers markets) (Lennertz 2013).
Underrepresented Populations. Targeted outreach is particularly important for encouraging

participation among population groups who otherwise might not be engaged. This includes low-
income households, immigrants, people of color, small business owners, and youth. Interviews
conducted with public agency staff in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region found that their Partnership
for Regional Opportunity program uses a host of proactive and integrated strategies for including
underrepresented populations in decisions. The program combines direct outreach emphasizing
two-way conversations to provide people with opportunities for input with a corridor-level steer-
ing committee representing a cross section of interests and selected grant recipients. Results include
programs that target the needs of underrepresented populations, such as programs for small busi-
nesses, including entrepreneurial training, professional skill building, small business loans, and
assistance with leasing in emerging TOD locations (Metropolitan Council undated).
Conditions and Assessments

Develop a thorough understanding of livable corridor strengths and needs by engaging stake-
holders with diverse yet intersecting interests (see Sections 2 and 3 of this Handbook). Local
conditions and stakeholder aspirations can be understood through community engagement,
where stakeholders have an opportunity to frame local issues, articulate aspirations, and tailor
strategies.
Planning agencies can miss conditions and opportunities that are readily understood by com-
munity members. Local conditions and aspirations can be revealed in several ways including,
but not limited to:
• Station area and corridor-level analysis,
• Community workshops on issues and aspirations, and
• Design charrettes to explore local issues and opportunities.
Meaningful Input
Direct Dialogue. Community engagement helps to align recommendations with stake-
holder interests and preferences. Inclusive dialogue allows direct input from constituents who
will be affected by corridor plans and an opportunity to address their issues and concerns. While
agencies and planners focus on a vision for a corridor as a whole, inclusive dialogue can reveal

local opportunities and allows local interests to advocate for context-sensitive interventions.
Engagement creates more transparency around decision making and tends to broaden support
for recommendations.
The CMAP’s “Public Participation Plan” (PPP) “seeks to develop a proactive public participa-
tion process in northeastern Illinois that provides complete information, timely public notice,
full public access to key decisions, and supports early and continuing involvement of the public
in developing regional plans and capital programs.” The PPP further asserts that:
• The public should have opportunities for input in decisions that affect their lives, and have
information needed for informed input.
• The participation process should capture the interests and needs of all participants.
• The public’s contribution should be considered in the decision-making process, and the pro-
cess should communicate how participants’ input influenced the decisions that were made
(Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2013).
Steps for Public Decision Making. The East-West Gateway’s “Public Engagement Plan”
for their Regional Plan for Sustainable Development (RPSD) says that “[m]eaningful citizen
engagement is critical because it will ensure that the widest cross section of citizens can weigh in
on the plan, the RPSD is well understood, and ultimately, the RPSD is accepted by citizens and
elected officials” and stakeholders. “Furthermore, public engagement can improve the resulting
plan by considering sustainable development from a variety of perspectives, lending it greater
legitimacy because the very people whose lives it will impact have developed it. . . . [The RPSD]
is not meant as a prescriptive or strict protocol; rather at each step along the way, local leaders
and stakeholders can consider how best to tailor both the principles and the meeting structure
to the local context” (Public Agenda and FOCUS St. Louis et al. 2012).
The “Public Engagement Plan” was developed by a nonpartisan research and public engagement
organization—Public Agenda with FOCUS St. Louis. The organization facilitated brainstorming
and conversation, using real-time polling, prioritization exercises, and online information and
surveys. Community members are given a voice in decision making through the following process:
• Articulate values,
• Collect information,
• Foster awareness,
• Articulate priorities, and
• Consider scenarios (Public Agenda and FOCUS St. Louis et al. 2012).
At the local level in St. Louis, community workshops and advisory committees gave community
members opportunities to shape the Great Streets Initiative along South Grand Street. Community
engagement to develop a corridor plan used the following process:
• Review analysis,
• Develop project goals,
• Evaluate alternatives, and
• Comment on recommendations (DW Legacy Design Foundation 2010).

APPENDIX D
Livable Transit Corridor Typology
While every transit corridor is unique, characteristically similar corridors often face similar
challenges. The Livable Transit Corridor Typology can help to match planning strategies to
characteristically similar corridors. This method has been applied at the scale of the transit-
oriented district by several metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). For example, as a way
to prioritize planning grants and public investments, Metro, the Portland-area MPO, has cate
gorized transit station areas according to market readiness and urban form (TriMet et al. 2011).
This Handbook’s Livable Transit Corridor Typology can also be used to prioritize planning and
investments and point to additional ways to effectively implement its Livability Principles.
“A focus at the corridor scale should make it possible to represent interactions among stations
and neighborhoods and thereby assess their compatibility and codependence.” (Moore et al. 2007)
Livability can be more fully leveraged if transit agency decisions and local development decisions
are informed by better understanding a corridor’s general characteristics and needs, as highlighted
by understanding common ways that corridors can progress (Moore et al. 2007).
The following corridor type descriptions offer guidance for how to approach a particular
corridor, based on the corridor type with which it is most closely associated. Three corridor
types have been defined to describe relative levels of performance and suggest how corridors can
progress toward higher levels of livability:
• Emerging Corridors are found in low-density, use-segregated communities. They generally
score low on livability metrics because of infrequent transit service, primarily focused on
commuting hours; relatively few transit- and pedestrian-accessible destinations; and auto-
oriented transportation and land use patterns.
• Transitioning Corridors are well on their way to providing high-performing livability con-
ditions but still offer considerable opportunities for improvement. Some would be classified
as Emerging if not for the development of a major activity center in a least one location along
the corridor. Transitioning corridors also include older transit-oriented neighborhoods where
investments in enhancing transit services and economic development can help propel these
corridors toward increased livability.
• Integrated Corridors score high on this Handbook’s livability metrics. They contain many
transit-oriented destinations, have direct routes and enhanced walking environments, and
balanced jobs and housing.
These categories provide a framework that can help Handbook users identify the goals and
planning strategies best suited for the existing conditions and desired outcomes for their cor-
ridors. Each category is described in detail below and illustrated with case studies. Figure D-1
illustrates and provides a summary description of each typology category.
96

Livable Transit Corridor Typology 97
Emerging Corridors have few destinations accessible by transit or on foot; Transitioning Corridors offer
a significant but incomplete set of destinations; Integrated Corridors offer access to a complete range
of opportunities.
Figure D-1. Corridor characteristics and performance (CBD  central business

district).

Emerging Corridors
As greenfield low-intensity (suburban, low-density, low-diversity) development occurs, the
transit services provided are typically infrequent, local bus routes. Such new growth areas are
typically developed with use-segregated, auto-oriented urban form patterns, dominated by
residential or commercial/industrial uses at lower densities. Lower-intensity uses are associated
with lower demand for public transit, and do not deliver sufficient market support for retail and
other local destinations to bring them within walking distance of most homes or jobs. Pedestrian
access to transit and local destinations is further encumbered by the circuitous street patterns
featured in most new developments.
Emerging Corridors provide a starting point for transit service but often perform poorly in
attaining livability goals. A corridor will likely remain Emerging as long it stays at a relatively low
intensity, lacks transit-accessible destinations, and delivers few transit-accessible opportunities.
Emerging Corridors can achieve higher levels of livability by intensifying development and by
attracting major destinations to transit-accessible locations along a corridor, a process that is
described below under “Transitioning Corridors.”
Transit modes vary along Emerging Corridors. Low-intensity areas must often rely on bus
service. High-capacity heavy and light rail sometimes serve Emerging Corridors, but often make
use of historic rail infrastructure or are placed in freeway rights-of-way. Infrastructure invest-
ments to create new high-capacity transit services are rare because of the lower ridership levels
associated with lower land use intensities. (The presence or addition of major destinations may
justify such investments, as described in “Transitioning Corridors.”)
In Emerging Corridors, transit service tends to be infrequent because of lower land use intensi-
ties. Commuter transit service may be offered only during peak periods. Transit service intended
for residents’ access to local destinations may be available during commute and non-commute
hours, but with widely spaced headways. Stops or stations are often widely spaced as well, designed
to provide fast line-haul service to regional activity centers. Because long station spacing provides
less service coverage within these corridors (since station access trips are longer) only limited land
use changes can occur.
Strengths and Needs

Many Emerging Corridors share the following opportunities for livability strengths:
• Vacant or underutilized land development opportunities,
• Historic rail or road rights-of-way that can be used for transit investments, and
• Support for transit investments by local residents frustrated by existing congested road
conditions.
Livability enhancement needs typically found in Emerging Corridors include:
• Low population and employment densities,
• Separated land uses,
• Low quality and frequency of transit services,
• Auto-oriented land uses and street designs,
• Auto-dominated travel patterns, and
• Long travel distances to employment centers.
Three common types of Emerging Corridors are:
• Commercial/industrial,
• Suburban commuter, and
• Local bus.

Commercial/Industrial
Commercial/Industrial Emerging Corridors are dominated by employment uses that are gener-
ally low-rise and low-intensity, and may have little housing, retail, or cultural activities. Transit
service is generally limited to commute hours, with little or no service at other times. Typical transit
modes include:
• Commuter rail or newer light rail services along historic rail alignments.
• Express or local commuter bus services along major arterials with limited hours of operation.
Case Study Example: Sacramento’s Gold Line Light Rail Corridor

The Gold Line corridor along U.S. Route 50 east of Sacramento, California, was part of the
original light rail system opened in 1987. This corridor—defined here as running from Historic
Folsom Station (the line’s terminus) to Butterfield Way station—primarily contains commercial
and industrial uses near the rail line, with its stations and low-density suburban residential
uses further out. Key activity centers in and near this corridor include Mather Air Force Base
(just beyond a mile from Mather Station), the Rancho Cordova Town Center mall (Zinfandel
Station), and the Rancho Cordova Town Center (Cordova Town Center). While this corridor
has traditionally been dominated by commercial and industrial uses, recent efforts—particularly
by the City of Rancho Cordova—have seen it become the focus of TOD plans and development
activities (Bizjak 2004), raising its prospects for elevating its livability in the future.
Suburban Commuter
Suburban Commuter Corridors offer high-speed transit service between low-density, use-
segregated residential areas and employment centers. They may have some limited neighborhood
commercial uses but offer few employment opportunities. Suburban Commuter Corridors are
largely car-dependent except for commute trips. Access to transit stations is primarily designed
to accommodate park-and-ride, auto drop-off, or bus access modes.
Station access transit services are generally limited to peak periods in these corridors, while the
line-haul commuter line provides frequent service during the peaks and infrequent service (or in
some of these corridors, no service) during the off-peak periods. Typical transit modes include:
• High-speed commuter, heavy or light rail, and BRT along historic rail alignments or freeway
rights-of-way.
• Commuter bus service along major arterials with limited hours of operation.
Case Study Example: Cleveland’s Blue Line

Cleveland’s Blue Line corridor has light rail transit service between downtown Cleveland
and Shaker Heights, providing regional access to residents who live at relatively low densities.
However, employment opportunities are rare along this corridor between its terminus at Van
Aken Center and Shaker Square, as is pedestrian- or transit-based access to cultural destinations,
health care, and major retailers. The relative lack of these opportunities within this Suburban
Commuter Corridor is mitigated by the access to a higher diversity of opportunities available to
corridor residents in the CBD, but transit service is generally limited to commute hours, and the
travel time between outlying stations and the CBD is high.
Local Bus
Local Bus Corridors offer limited local bus service that is generally used by residents to access
nearby, within-corridor destinations. Low-density housing typically is in walking distance of bus

stops in Local Bus Corridors, and “strip commercial” uses may be located between the arterial
bus route and residential areas.
Local Bus Corridors generally follow arterial and collector roadways, with auto-oriented land
uses and street network patterns. Buses along the route share lanes with other traffic, requiring
little in the way of transit infrastructure investments. In areas with lower-intensity land uses,
transit service often follows circuitous routes in order to serve a larger area.
Circuitous routes and closely spaced bus stops result in long travel times, especially if transit
is used for commuting. Because of this high time cost, individuals who are transit dependent
(because of income, age, or disability) comprise a high proportion of Local Bus Corridor transit
ridership, and may rely on the bus for access to health care, grocery stores, and other essential needs.
Case Study Example: Camelback Road, Phoenix

The Camelback Road corridor in Phoenix is an example of a Local Bus Corridor. Camelback
Road is an arterial roadway flanked by low-intensity suburban commercial, which, in turn, is
surrounded by low-density residential. Single-story retail and office buildings face parking lots.
Arizona State University and local planners have been exploring how the arterial can intensify
in walkable, transit-oriented ways to take advantage of growing market support for infill and
redevelopment of aging commercial uses (Arizona State University, School of Planning 2007).
Transitioning Corridors
Transitioning Corridors have the potential to be highly livable, but often lack key opportuni-
ties that will catalyze a high quality of life. They can occur in both suburban and urban areas. In
suburban areas, Transitioning Corridors often resemble use-segregated Emerging Corridors but
have developed new, major, transit-accessible destinations in at least one location along the cor-
ridor. Such major destinations are usually included within activity centers—mixed-use nodes
at moderate to high densities.
In urban locations, Transitioning Corridors may be found in areas that originally developed
as transit-oriented neighborhoods, but economic trends and regional growth patterns have left
these areas in a state of neglect or decline. These corridors often have many underutilized sites
(for example, vacant parcels, excessive parking, and otherwise low-intensity development).
Stops or stations are often widely spaced in suburban and exurban Transitioning Corridors,
providing fast service to activity centers. However, redeveloping, older areas may have legacy
transit services with short station spacings, making these corridors attractive for transit-oriented
development.
A corridor will likely remain Transitioning as long its transit is focused on fast commuter
services to activity centers, neglecting transit service coverage within the corridor. Low-intensity
development patterns—particularly around stations—also hinder livability improvements.
Livability gains in Transitioning Corridors require coordinated land use and economic and transit
improvements.
Strengths and Needs

Most Transitioning Corridors share the following opportunities for livability enhancements:
• Vacant or underutilized land development opportunities;
• Concentrated employment centers within the corridor or nearby;
• Transit-oriented design and street networks ready for transit investments; and
• Economic development opportunities with good accessibility to regional jobs.

Livability enhancement needs typically found in Transitioning Corridors include:

• Separated land uses;
• Economically challenged neighborhoods; and
• Transit services focused on high-speed access to activity centers (particularly CBDs), often
with few intra-corridor transit options.
Two common types of Transitioning Corridors are
• Major destination and
• Revitalizing/redeveloping.
Major Destination Corridors

Major Destination Corridors are distinguishable from Emerging Corridors by the presence of
a large travel destination around at least one station. These destination nodes are usually activity
centers (master-planned, mixed-use developments). These key stations introduce significant
new transit-accessible opportunities for retail, cultural, and community activities. Destination
nodes are also employment centers and can have housing at moderate to high densities, creating
a better jobs-housing balance. Destination nodes generally have moderate intensities overall,
with the potential for higher intensities associated with Transit-Oriented Nodes Corridors (see
“Integrated Corridors”).
Outside of destination nodes, Major Destination Corridors are surrounded by low-density
residential and/or commercial uses. Activity centers along these corridors may offer walkable and
bikable connections to transit and local destinations, but street connections are not always direct.
Activity centers are often auto-oriented, with larger blocks that must be traversed by pedestrian
and bicycle paths.
Along Major Destination Corridors, frequent transit service may be available during commute
hours, with infrequent service during non-commute hours. Typical transit modes include:
• Commuter, heavy, or light rail along historic rail or newer highway alignments;
• Express bus service along major arterials;
• Light rail or BRT as part of more recent capital projects; and
• Local bus service and shuttle bus service.
Case Study Example: Washington, D.C.’s Metro Orange Line

Washington, D.C.’s, Metro Orange Line in Northern Virginia is a good example of a Major
Destination Corridor. This area has undergone rapid employment densification along its inner
stations (near the Washington, D.C.-Virginia border), while much of the rest of the corridor has
remained relatively residential and suburban. Therefore, while retail and overall employment
opportunities are high in this corridor, housing and travel options are relatively low outside its
activity centers. The lack of coordination between these transit-accessible activity centers and the
mostly suburban development patterns surrounding them indicates that the livability benefits
these corridors offer in terms of employment diversity are somewhat compromised by a lack of
diverse corridor travel options.
Revitalizing/Redeveloping Corridors
Revitalizing/Redeveloping Corridors often have large amounts of underutilized land, such as
vacant sites, excessive parking lots, and low-rise buildings. These conditions often exist where eco-
nomic decline and disinvestment has occurred, such as in urban areas that grew initially around
access to streetcar lines that have since been abandoned. These corridors present opportunities

to reposition communities economically. In locations with growth, Revitalizing/Redevelop-

ing Corridors can include attractive neighborhoods with high livability potential to combine
new and existing homes and industries. In locations projected to lose population, Revitalizing/
Redeveloping Corridors offer opportunities to increase parks, urban agriculture, and other
community-supportive uses.
Along these corridors, frequent transit service may be available during commute hours, with
infrequent service during non-commute hours. Typical transit modes include
• Commuter, heavy, or light rail along historic rail alignments;
• Express bus service along major arterials;
• Light rail or BRT as part of more recent capital projects; and
Case Study Example: Chicago’s Green Line/Lake Street El

In late 1991, the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) faced a large budget shortfall. At the
same time, the Green Line elevated train was experiencing low ridership as Chicago’s west side
experienced a protracted period of economic and population decline, and CTA proposed that
the Green Line be closed. The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) joined with other
organizations to stimulate urban revitalization along the Green Line to maintain service and
turn blighted neighborhoods around. CNT’s Green Line initiative focused on stimulating infill
development, enhancing public safety, increasing jobs, and strengthening local shops and com-
munity institutions that were already in place. The city of Chicago was an important partner
in implementing revitalization measures along the Green Line, including the remaking of the
severely blighted Horner public housing project into a mixed-use, mixed-income, high-density
neighborhood. Federal Empowerment Zone and HUD HOPE VI grants helped support these
efforts (Project for Public Spaces, Inc. 1997). In 2012, the city announced plans to build a Green
Line station at Cermak Road as part of an effort to improve service quality to residential neighbor-
hoods along the corridor, serve the nearby McCormick Place Convention Center, and build TOD
on station-adjacent, vacant properties (Spielman 2011).
Integrated Corridors
Integrated Corridors are served by high-capacity transit modes, including HRT, LRT, CR,
and/or BRT with dedicated bus lanes. Integrated Corridors also include nearly ubiquitous local
bus service that extends the catchment area for high-capacity transit and connects transit users
to more destinations during commute and non-commute hours.
Integrated Corridors have TOD conditions with destinations that have a dense, diverse set of
opportunities, translating into higher levels of transit ridership. Such corridors have relatively
balanced matches between the skills and incomes of the residents and the kinds of jobs and
housing within their catchment area. Within walking distance of each transit station or stop of
an Integrated Corridor, dense and diverse destinations also make it possible to make most daily
and many occasional needs on foot.
Integrated Corridors typically have high levels of livability. The two general types of Integrated
Corridors are:
• Continuous transit-oriented and
• Transit-oriented nodes.
Each type is served by high-capacity transit modes, local bus service, and dense, diverse
destinations, but they differ in the extent of transit-oriented conditions beyond the immediate

vicinity of their transit stations (see descriptions below). Stops and stations are typically
closely spaced in Integrated Corridors, providing comprehensive transit service coverage
and opportunities for development intensification. Livability improvements in these cor-
ridors are usually focused on providing affordable housing opportunities, transit service
improvements (such as last-mile station access services) and other non-auto operational
enhancements.
Strengths and Needs

Most Integrated Corridors share the following opportunities for livability enhancements:
• Concentrated employment centers, within the corridor or nearby;
• Transit-oriented design and street networks ready for transit investments; and
• Economic development opportunities with good accessibility to regional jobs.
Livability enhancement needs typically found in Integrated Corridors include:

• Established, built-out land uses offer few development opportunities,
• High real estate prices can exclude low- and moderate-income residents, and
• High real estate prices makes transit right-of-way acquisition expensive.
Continuous Transit-Oriented Corridor

A Continuous Transit-Oriented Corridor is an extended urban area consisting of multiple
TODs with overlapping and fine-grained transit-oriented connections and development patterns.
Within this type of corridor, TODs merge and extend beyond the maximum (quarter- to half-mile)
walking distance that limit standalone TODs.
Continuous Transit-Oriented Corridors are generally associated with established urban
areas where there is a mix of uses and moderate or high density. Small blocks provide excel-
lent street connectivity, with ubiquitous walking and bicycle routes. These areas generally
were developed before freeways and high car-ownership rates made dispersed patterns of
development possible.
Along Continuous Transit-Oriented Corridors, frequent service is available during commute
and non-commute hours. Typical transit modes include:
• All high-capacity transit modes (heavy rail, light rail, BRT, and express bus) and
Case Study Example: Philadelphia’s South Broad Street Line

Philadelphia’s South Broad Street Line runs from Pattison (AT&T) Station to Lombard-
South Station near downtown. South Broad Street has high-quality transit-oriented urban
form throughout the entire corridor, with population density scores nearly triple the average of
all cases studied for this Handbook’s research. These urban form characteristics combine with
high-quality transit services and nonmotorized services (intersection densities more than dou-
ble the average) to provide a high level of transit and nonmotorized travel opportunities that
are typical among Continuous Transit-Oriented Corridors. This high-quality transit-oriented
urban area also provides a rich collection of economic opportunities, with retail job densities
at over four times the study average. The corridor also has vibrant and expanding artistic com-
munities, with nearly four times as many arts employees as the study average. This manifests in
higher-than-average levels of livability in terms of both people and place across all the Transit
Corridor Livability Principles.

Transit-Oriented Nodes Corridor

Transit-Oriented Nodes Corridors possess all the characteristics of Integrated Corridors within
the walkable vicinity of a transit station or stop. Outside the station areas, however, development
patterns are low-density and tend to be auto-oriented.
Transit-Oriented Nodes Corridors are generally associated with mixed-use development in
suburban settings, at moderate and high intensities. These corridors may include activity centers;
master-planned suburban town centers; the redevelopment of “greyfields” (economically outdated
uses or underused land), such as with vacant shopping centers; and incremental intensification
with loose assemblages of multifamily, retail, and employment development projects.
As in Major Destination Corridors, walking and bicycle connections to transit and local desti-
nations may be reasonably direct, but may rely on walking and bicycle routes that are separated
from street connections that may be indirect.
Along Transit-Oriented Nodes Corridors, frequent service may be available during commute
hours, with infrequent service during non-commute hours. Typical transit modes include:
• Heavy rail or light rail along historic rail alignments,
• Express bus service along major arterials,
• Light rail or BRT as part of more recent capital projects, and
Case Study Example: San Francisco Bay Area’s BART Pittsburg-Bay

Point Line
A good example of a Transit-Oriented Nodes Corridor is BART’s Pittsburg-Bay Point Line in
the eastern San Francisco Bay Area. This corridor has lower-density, single-family-home neigh-
borhoods outside of station areas, but higher population and employment densities around key
stations where TOD plans have begun to transform the corridor. These growing station-area
nodes create inconsistencies between within-station and outside-of-station areas in terms of
transportation and land use. While station areas are increasingly pedestrian- and transit-oriented
in form and function, the areas beyond walking distance of these stations are decidedly auto-
oriented (Cervero 1998).

APPENDIX E
People and Place Livability

Combinations
As discussed in Section 2, each corridor type can be distinguished by its combination of

people and place factors. The various combinations of these characteristics, and the degree
to which these combinations are consistent with and mutually reinforce each other, help
determine the quality of transit corridor livability. For ease of interpretation, these factors
combine and interact along a simple continuum: low- to high-quality of transit corridor livability
opportunities.
The discussion of people and place interactions for High-Quality Transit, Walking, and
Bicycling Opportunities Principle is provided in Section 1. Additional discussion of the people
and place interactions for the remaining Transit Corridor Livability Principles are provided in
this appendix.

Affordable housing is a combination of the amount and diversity of housing for a variety of
incomes (place), and the degree to which the housing in the corridor is available to a diverse
population (people). Figure E-1 illustrates how these two factors interact to create mixed-income
housing opportunities near transit, with the darkest box representing the highest level of livability
opportunities.
Different combinations of these people and place factors create a set of four transit corridor
livability categories with varying qualities of mixed-income housing and population diversity
(including age, race, income, and education).

While there are many important aspects of economic life, economic livability opportunities
can be reduced to two essential components: employment (place) and consumer opportunities
(people). Labeling these components as people and place factors may seem arbitrary—for example,
employment is arguably as much about people as it is about place. However, this distinction is
useful for this typology since retail usually moves to where people live, and decisions regarding
location of nonretail employment generally relate to the quality of places, for example, access to
markets, suppliers, or clusters of innovation.
Figure E-2 illustrates how employment and consumer opportunities interact, with the upper-
right quadrant representing the highest level of livability opportunities. Varying combinations
of these people and place factors create a set of four transit corridor livability categories with
varying qualities of employment and consumer opportunities.
105

Figure E-1. Mixed-income housing (place) and

population diversity (people) factor combinations.

Accessible government services provide an important foundation for building a community
with rich livability opportunities. Effective planning and public policies (place) that address
the needs and desires of corridor residents can encourage civic-mindedness and community
involvement. Accessibility to critical services (people) such as education and health care are a
direct result of effective governmental policies and public involvement. Figure E-3 illustrates how
Figure E-2. Employment opportunities (place) and

consumer opportunities (people) factor combinations.

People and Place Livability Combinations 107
Figure E-3. Accessible social services (people)

and effective government services (place) factor
combinations.
corridor access to government services (place), and social services (people) opportunities interact,
with upper-right quadrant representing the highest level of livability opportunities.

Vibrant community, cultural, and recreational opportunities are (in part) a consequence of
accessibility, and accessibility in a transit corridor is highly dependent on urban form patterns.
Compact urban form patterns allow for more efficient use of the resources required to build
and maintain streets, sewers, and energy infrastructure, to name a few. Well-designed public works
investments—such as parks and other public spaces—create cost-effective cultural and recreational
opportunities for people to enhance their quality of life.
Figure E-4 illustrates how urban form (place), and community, cultural, and recreational
(people) opportunities interact, with the upper-right quadrant representing the highest level of
livability opportunities.

Neighborhood safety is an important element of livability. In transit corridors, neighborhood
design and infrastructure influence how people feel about walking and riding bicycles, thus affect-
ing the physical health of the population. The combination of a pedestrian-oriented environment
(place) and neighborhood safety from crimes and traffic collisions (people) can have important
effects on public health and livability outcomes. These interactions are illustrated in Figure E-5
with the upper-right quadrant representing the highest level of livability opportunities.

Figure E-4. Vibrant and accessible community,

cultural, and recreational opportunities factor
combinations.
Figure E-5. Pedestrian-oriented environment (place)

and neighborhood safety (people) factor combinations.

APPENDIX F
Metrics, Methods, and Data
This Appendix discusses the metrics, methods, and data sources this Handbook uses to mea-
sure transit corridor livability. This Appendix focuses on 11 of the 12 metrics used in Step 2 of
this Handbook and in the Calculator. These measures and metrics were identified and selected
based on the following criteria:
• Metrics found in research literature that were theoretically consistent with Transit Corridor
Livability Principles, their people and place factors, and the Transit Corridor Livability Goals
(described in Step 2).
• Metrics that would reasonably reflect the values and needs of people who live, work, and recreate
in a corridor (relevance).
• Metrics that reflect the needs of a variety of stakeholders and corridor contexts (transfer-
ability).
• Metrics that are accurate and balanced when considering multiple goals (Haas and Fabish
2013).
• Metrics that are appropriate for corridor-level analysis.
• Metrics that are useful as performance measures for strategies.
• Metrics that are relatively easy for Handbook users to calculate.
• Metrics that use readily available data and can be obtained at a low cost to the Handbook users
(Haas and Fabish 2013).
Table F-1 lists this Handbook’s measures and metrics, the Transit Corridor Livability Prin-
ciple each one illustrates, and data sources best used to calculate them. Each metric is categorized
according to the concept it is measuring (that is, each metric has a “measure” name).
High-Quality Transit, Walking,

and Bicycling Opportunities
Measure: Corridor Transit Frequency of Service
Metric: Aggregate Frequency of Transit Service per Square Mile
Calculation Method(s). Because of the complicated process involved in calculating this
metric, it is recommended that analysts consult the EPA’s Smart Location Database Version 2.0
User Guide (available at http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/sld_
userguide.pdf). Modifications to this metric’s values for the purposes of scenarios analysis should
be done using the methods EPA used to calculate this metric. Transit travel time data are typically
calculated by MPOs for travel demand modeling forecasts.
109

Table F-1. Transit corridor livability analysis metrics and associated data sources.
Transit Corridor Metric Data Source(s)

Livability
Principles
Transit employment EPA’s Smart Locations Data Set (SLD) 2010
accessibility SLD ID D5br: Jobs within 45-minute transit commute,
High-quality transit, distance decay (walk network travel time) weighted
walking, and
bicycling Transit frequency of SLD
opportunities service coverage SLD ID D4d: Aggregate frequency of transit service
(aggregate frequency of (D4d) per square mile
transit service per sq. mile)
Housing unaffordability HUD’s Housing Affordability Index Data Set (HAI)

(percent of income spent SLD ID hh_type1_: housing cost as a percent of
for housing) income for the regional typical household, defined as:
Avg. HH size for region, median income for region,
Mixed-income average number of commuters per HH for region
housing near transit Income diversity National Historical Geographic Information System
(coefficient of variance of (NHGIS), 2010
income within corridor) Census ID B19013: Average of coefficient of variation
of block group median household income compared to
an average of a corridor’s median
Jobs density SLD
(employees/acre) SLD ID D1c: Gross employment density employees
Transit-accessible (jobs)/acre on unprotected land, 2010
economic
opportunities Retail jobs density (retail SLD
employees/acre) SLD ID D1c_Ret10: Gross retail employment density
employees (jobs)/acre on unprotected land
Transit corridor ridership Transit agency route/line data
balance (RB) Inbound (to CBD) daily boardings/inbound daily alightings
Accessible social
and government Health care opportunities SLD
services (health care SLD ID D1c8_Hlth10: Gross health care (8-tier)
employees/acre) employment density employees (jobs)/acre on
unprotected land
Population density SLD
Vibrant and (population/acre) SLD ID D1b: Gross population density (people/acre)
accessible on unprotected land
community, cultural
& recreational Access to culture and arts SLD
opportunities (entertainment SLD ID D1c_Ent10: Gross entertainment employment
employees/acre) density employees (jobs)/acre on unprotected land
Pedestrian environment SLD
Healthy, Safe and (intersection density) SLD ID D3bmm4: Intersection density in terms of
Walkable Transit intersections having four or more legs per square mile
Corridor
Neighborhoods Pedestrian collisions per Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2010
100,000 pedestrians Pedestrian collisions per 100,000 pedestrians

Measure: Housing Unaffordability
Metric: Percent of Household Income Spent for Housing
Calculation Method(s). This metric was modeled by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) by estimating block-level aggregate income and block-level aggregate rent by
apportioning from block group 5-year American Community survey totals, using the proportion
of households and the proportion of renter-occupied housing units, respectively. Corridor totals
are aggregated from these block-level estimates. The data for this metric comes from U.S. Census

Metrics, Methods, and Data 111
sources, including the 5-year, 2005 to 2010, American Community Survey (ACS) and the 2010
Census (SF1 Form). Block-level data for this metric used in the Calculator and for the research sup-
porting this Handbook were obtained from the HUD’s Location Affordability Index dataset.
Measure: Racial, Income, Age, and (Dis)Ability Diversity

Metric: Corridor/Neighborhood Income Diversity Metric
(Coefficient of Variance)
Coefficient of Variance (CV) is used to measure income diversity for transit corridors. The CV
measures dispersion or how spread out values are from the mean and serves as a standardized
method for measuring and comparing income diversity between corridors.
CV is defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean for each sample set. As such,
the larger CV value, the more dispersion and diversity in corridor incomes. Lower values indicate
there is lack of diversity.
The data used for this calculation is the 2010 median income for each block group in the United
States as recorded in the National Historic Geographical Information System. For the Handbook,
the research team segmented out block groups contained within each corridor and performed a
separate calculation for each corridor-segmented dataset. The mean and standard deviation for
each corridor-segmented dataset were calculated and the ratio of these two numbers produced the
CV for that corridor.

Measure: Jobs Density
Metric: Corridor/Neighborhood Employees per Acre
Calculation Method(s). This metric provides the density of jobs that are accessible within
the study corridor or neighborhood. Jobs density can be computed for small areas by dividing
population by gross land area. Jobs data can be obtained from the Local Employment Dynam-
ics (LED) Database from the U.S. Census. Corridor or neighborhood (block, block group, or
census tract) area data can be obtained from the U.S. Census and downloaded from American
FactFinder. While these data are easily downloaded from the Internet for geographic units as
small as census block groups, they require some effort to aggregate to the corridor level.
Measure: Retail Jobs Density

Metric: Corridor Retail Employees per Acre
Calculation Method(s). This metric provides the density of retail jobs that are accessible
within the study corridor or neighborhood. Jobs density can be computed for small areas by
dividing population by gross land area. It is calculated in the same manner and uses the same
data sources as described above for the Corridor/Neighborhood Employees per Acre metrics.

Measure: Public Infrastructure and Service Costs
Metric: Transit Ridership Balance (A Measure of Transit Corridor
Capacity Utilization)
The purpose of the Ridership Balance (RB) metric is to provide a measure of transit corridor
capacity utilization by gauging the balance (or imbalance) of ridership along a given corridor

and, by extension, present an intra-corridor performance measure of transportation and land

use integration. This metric works on the assumption that travel is a derived demand influenced
by the accessibility of land use origins and destinations within a transit corridor.
The RB metric is a proxy measure of how well a transit corridor investment has been utilized
and leveraged by synergistic land use planning actions. In short, the RB metric is a measure of
transportation and land use integration, how well the government investments in transportation
have been leveraged for land use planning as well as other services (for example, local transit
and shuttles).
Calculation Method(s). At its core, the RB metric is the ratio of the sum of a corridor’s
boardings and alightings, as summed by each station, traveling in a chosen direction, as shown
in Equation F-1 below:
Equation F-1. RB Metric
RB = for a chosen direction,

∑ corridor station boardings
∑ corridor station alightings
Note that neither CBD stations nor terminus stations are included in the RB metric calcula-
tion. Because these stations represent greater, extra-corridor catchment areas and thereby have
greater influence on ridership than the intra-corridor stations, they would likely obscure intra-
corridor land use/transportation integration performance.
Furthermore, the RB measure requires station-level boarding and alighting ridership numbers
that are directionally split (for example, inbound, outbound, east, west)—the most important
thing to do is to choose a direction for the RB measure for a specific corridor segment and stick
to it. For example, if a CBD along the corridor for an inbound measurement is not available, the
eastbound ridership data for those stations along that corridor can be used. Where possible, the
inbound direction was used, in this instance defined as toward-the-CBD.
It is important to note, however, that the RB’s toward-CBD inbound definition does not nec-
essarily match the reported format of ridership data, typically assigning an inbound/outbound
direction to an entire line which may pass through the CBD rather than having a terminus
located there.
For example, the LA Metro Rail Gold Line passes through the Los Angeles CBD, from Atlantic
station to Sierra Madre Villa (see Figure F-1), rendering a portion of the line’s chosen direction
for the RB measure to be actually heading in the outbound direction.
Therefore, prior to calculating the RB metric it may be necessary to swap the direction
of the boarding and alighting data of some corridors; in other words, reassign the reported
outbound-boardings as inbound-boardings and vice-versa (the same applying to the alight-
ing data).
This is illustrated by the Sierra Madre-Chinatown corridor on the Metro Rail Gold Line (see
Figure F-1). The corridor’s reported inbound direction is toward the Sierra Madre Villa station.
However, the CBD is situated nearer the opposite end of the corridor (Chinatown Station).
Thus, to correctly calculate the corridor’s RB metric, the directionality of this data must first be
swapped.
The final step in calculating the RB metric is to invert all values greater than “1” (which hap-
pens when number of corridor station boardings in the numerator of the equation above is
greater than the number of corridor station alightings in the denominator). For all values greater
than “1,” simply divide all alightings by all boardings. In doing so, all values will approach “1”
as the ridership balance of the corridor is closer to perfect balance.

Figure F-1. The Gold Line’s reported inbound terminus is Sierra Madre Villa,
opposite the toward-CBD direction.
Measure: Health Care Opportunities

Metric: Corridor/Neighborhood Health Care Opportunities
(Health Care Jobs per Acre)
Calculation Method(s). Health care jobs density can be computed for small areas by dividing
the number of health care jobs by gross land area. It is calculated in the same manner and uses the
same data sources as described above for the Corridor/Neighborhood Employees per Acre metrics.

Measure: Population Density
Metric: Corridor/Neighborhood Population per Acre
Calculation Method(s). Population density can be computed for small areas by dividing
population by gross land area. Both can come from the U.S. Census and be downloaded from
American FactFinder or EPA’s Smart Location Database. While these data are easily downloaded
from the Internet for small geographic units (as small as census block groups), they require some
effort to aggregate to the corridor level. For existing-conditions analysis, this measure is cal-
culated using the ACS data (U.S. Census), using the total population at the block level and then
aggregating up to the corridor level.
Measure: Corridor Cultural Opportunities

Metric: Access to Culture and Arts (Corridor Entertainment Employees
per Acre)
Calculation Method(s). Entertainment jobs density can be computed for small areas by
dividing population by gross land area. It is calculated in the same manner and uses the same

data sources as described above for the Corridor/Neighborhood Employees per Acre metrics.
This measure is calculated using the LED Database (U.S. Census), summing the number of Arts,
Entertainment, and Recreation (AER) jobs [North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) 71] at the block level and then aggregating up to the corridor level.

Measure: Corridor Pedestrian Environment
Metric: Corridor/Neighborhood Intersection Density
Calculation Method(s). Street connectivity is computed for small areas either in terms of
intersection density or percentage of four-or-more-way intersections. Starting with a national
dataset of street centerlines, a national database of street intersection locations is produced,
including for each intersection feature a count of streets that meet there. Intersections are
counted in a GIS program and divided by land area to obtain intersection density. Four-or-
more-way intersections are counted and divided by the total number of intersections to obtain
the percentage of four-or-more-way intersections in a given area.
Measure: Corridor Pedestrian Collisions Rate

Metric: Corridor/Neighborhood Pedestrian Collisions
per 100,000 Daily Pedestrians
Calculation Method(s). Disaggregate collisions data (individual collisions records with
latitude/longitude location tags) are currently available for all of California, and the team antic-
ipates that similar data will eventually be available for other states. Simple pedestrian collision
rates (all casualties, including fatalities and injuries) can be calculated for California corridors
by counting the number of pedestrian collisions in a corridor and dividing an estimate of the
corridor’s walking population. Equation F-2 provides the calculation formula for this metric.
Equation F-2. Daily Pedestrian Collision Rate Formula
 PC 
 Pop ∗ PS ∗ 100,000
PCR =
365
Where,
PCR = Daily Pedestrian Collision Rate
PC = Total Annual Pedestrian Collisions
Pop = Total Population
PS = Pedestrian Mode Share percentage from Census Journey to Work data.
Data Availability
Table F-2 reports on the primary data sources needed by the Handbook users.

Table F-2. Data availability and quality assessment by source.
Applicable
Data Source Data Availability Notes
Measures/Metrics
Availability: Excellent
• Population Density Data are easily downloaded from the Internet
(Population/Acre) for small geographic units (as small as census
U.S. Census/ACS
• Income Diversity (CV of blocks) but requires some effort to aggregate to
income within corridor) the corridor level.
Data Quality: Excellent
• Population Density
(Population/Acre)
• Employment
Opportunities (Corridor
Employees/Acre)
• Retail Opportunities
(Retail Employment/Acre)
• Access to Culture & Availability: Very Good
Arts (Corridor
Data are easily downloaded from the Internet
Entertainment
for small geographic units (as small as census
Employees/Acre)
Smart Location block groups) but requires some effort to
• Corridor Health Care
Database (EPA) aggregate to the corridor level. Data is
Opportunities (Health
generally available for U.S. metropolitan areas
Care Employees/Acre)
only.
• Pedestrian Environment
(Intersections/Acre) Data Quality: Excellent
• Transit Jobs
Accessibility
• Transit Frequency of
Service Coverage
(Aggregate Frequency Of
Transit Service per sq.
mile)
• Employment
Opportunities (Corridor Availability: Excellent
Employees/Acre) Data are easily downloaded from the Internet
• Retail Opportunities for small geographic units (as small as census
(Retail Employment/Acre) blocks) but requires some effort to aggregate to
LED Database (U.S.
• Access to Culture & Arts the corridor level.
Census)
(Corridor Entertainment
Employees/Acre) Data Quality: Excellent
• Corridor Health Care Data for all states available except
Opportunities (Health Massachusetts.
Care Employees/Acre)
Availability: Good
Data are easily downloaded from the Internet
TIGER/Line Streets • Pedestrian Environment
but requires substantial effort using GIS scripts
Shapefiles (Intersections/Acre)
to count intersections at the corridor level.
Data Quality: Very Good
• Corridor Line-Haul Mode

Availability: Problematic
(“Dummy” Variables for
Transit Modes) Data are easily found on the Internet, but it is
Transit Agency
• Corridor Line-Haul Mode time-consuming to gather data for each agency
Websites
Service Frequencies and route.
(Peak Period Average
Headways)
(continued on next page)

Table F-2. (Continued).
Applicable
Data Source Data Availability Notes
Measures/Metrics
Availability: Excellent
• Corridor Park Coverage
National Resources
(Park Acreage as % of GIS data are easily downloaded from the
Inventory Parks and
Total Corridor Acreage) Internet and purport to provide shape file data
Open Space Inventory
• Corridor Park Density on park areas throughout the U.S.
Database (USDA)
(# Corridor Parks/Acre)
Availability: Good
• Transit Cost Efficiency Historical data on transit agency expenses and
National Transit (Transit Operating ridership are easily downloaded from the
Database (NTD) Expense per Person-Miles Internet, but are only available at the agency
Traveled) level; our analysis requires corridor-level data.
Data Quality: Problematic
Availability: Very Good (Outside California:

Problematic)
• Pedestrian Collisions California’s SWITRS database provides
Statewide Integrated
Rate (Number of Corridor detailed records of all recorded collisions in the
Traffic Records
Pedestrian Collisions per state along with intersection-level geographic
System (SWITRS)
Capita) identifiers. Unable to find similar statewide
dataset for states outside of California.

APPENDIX G
Statistical Analysis of Metrics

and Typology Categories
Table G-1 provides factor analysis results for 10 of the 12 metrics used in this Handbook.
The two factor variables produced in this process were then used (along with the remaining 2 of
12 total metrics) as independent variables in an ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression
model to predict a proxy quality-of-life indicator variable: the corridor non-auto internal trip
capture rate.
Linear regression model results using the variables (factors) produced from the factor analysis
model run plus the two remaining metrics—corridor pedestrian environment and corridor pedes-
trian collisions per daily 100,000 pedestrians—are shown in Table G-2.
Linear regression results suggest the collection of livability metrics (the independent variables)
is a good predictor of transit corridor non-auto internal trip capture rates, and by inference,
transit corridor quality of life. These findings helped the Handbook’s research team validate the
metrics.
Table G-3 provides analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical analysis results suggesting that
for the 250 outside-of-CBD corridors analyzed, the metrics used in this Handbook (including
Housing Unaffordability and Income Diversity) have average values for each typology category
that are significantly different from each other. These significant differences are consistent with
the theoretical hypotheses posed prior to analysis and the values shown in Table 10 (see Step 3 for
additional discussion of these results). These findings indicate that as a group, the 12 metrics used
in this study are useful for distinguishing one typology category from another. Furthermore, since
the linear regression model (see Table G-3) predicting corridor non-auto internal capture rates
provided validation of the metrics, these ANOVA results also help validate the typology.
117

Table G-1. Factor (loadings) analysis results

summary table for outside-of-CBD corridors.
a
Rotated Component Matrix
Factor
Metric 1 2
Transit employment accessibility 0.839 0.439
Corridor transit service coverage 0.795 0.486
Corridor housing unaffordability -0.137 -0.845
Corridor income diversity 0.680
Corridor jobs density 0.925
Corridor retail jobs density 0.897 -0.157
Corridor health care opportunities 0.705 0.522
Corridor density (population/acre) 0.754 0.463
Access to culture & arts 0.918
Ridership balance 0.332 0.101
Notes:
N = 250 U.S. Transit corridors.
Extraction method: Principal component analysis.
Rotation method: Varimax with kaiser normalization.
a
Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Total Variation Explained: 71.69%.
Table G-2. OLS linear regression results predicting outside-of-CBD corridor

non-auto internal capture rates.
Variable (Factor or Metric) Coefficient Significance

Factor 1: Transportation/Land Use/ Livable Opportunities
Integration 0.043 ***
Factor 2: Housing Affordability & Income Diversity 0.164 ***
Pedestrian environment (intersection density) 0.355 ***
Pedestrian collisions per 100,000 pedestrians -0.256 ***
Constant 0.093 **
Model Fit
1
N 31
R Square 0.914
Notes:
1
Non-auto Internal Capture Rates developed for 31 transit corridors from California, Texas, and Florida
National Household Transportation Survey Supplementary datasets.
** = p < 0.05
*** = p < 0.01

Statistical Analysis of Metrics and Typology Categories 119
Table G-3. ANOVA results comparing average metric scores for each outside-of-CBD
transit corridor typology category.
Degrees
Sum of of Mean F-
Variable (Metric) Squares Freedom Square Statistic P-Value
Transit Jobs Accessibility Between Groups 4.121E+10 2 2.061E+10 193.215 0.000
Within Groups 2.655E+10 249 106644971
Total 6.777E+10 251
Transit service coverage Between Groups 1182198429 2 591099214 128.986 0.000
(aggregate frequency of
Within Groups 1136495917 248 4582645
transit service per square
mile) Total 2318694345 250
Housing unaffordability Between Groups 234.932 2 117.466 5.219 0.006
(percent of income spent
Within Groups 5648.862 251 22.505
for housing)
Total 5883.794 253
Income diversity Between Groups .060 2 .030 6.161 0.002
(variance from regional
Within Groups 1.218 251 .005
median household
income) Total 1.278 253
Jobs density Between Groups 15694.037 2 7847.019 165.450 0.000
(employees/acre)
Within Groups 11904.508 251 47.428
Total 27598.545 253
Retail jobs density (retail Between Groups 88.899 2 44.449 134.779 0.000
employees/acre) Within Groups 82.778 251 .330
Total 171.677 253
Transit balance of Between Groups .350 2 .175 2.512 0.089
ridership flows
Within Groups 4.732 68 .070
Total 5.082 70
Health care opportunities Between Groups 332.513 2 166.257 80.229 0.000
(health care employees/
Within Groups 520.143 251 2.072
acre)
Total 852.656 253
Population density Between Groups 23995.677 2 11997.839 191.116 0.000
(population/acre)
Within Groups 15757.190 251 62.778
Total 39752.868 253
Access to culture and Between Groups 459.856 2 229.928 157.497 0.000
arts (corridor
entertainment Within Groups 366.433 251 1.460
employees/acre) Total 826.288 253
Pedestrian environment Between Groups 174445.130 2 87222.565 97.357 0.000
(intersection density)
Within Groups 224871.842 251 895.904
Total 399316.972 253
Pedestrian collisions per Between Groups 43.936 2 21.968 4.630 0.013
100,000 pedestrians
Within Groups 313.167 66 4.745
Total 357.103 68
Notes: P-Values less than 0.100 are considered statistically significant, indicating there are significant differences between
the average values of each typology group for that variable (metric).

APPENDIX H
Calculator User Manual
This appendix explains how to use the Transit Corridor Livability Calculator (the Calculator).
The Calculator serves as a supplement to the Handbook for helping users through a process of
transit corridor livability analysis, goals-setting, and strategies selection. However, users should
be aware that the Calculator is NOT a predictive model and therefore is NOT designed to tell
the user how and when to make corridor improvements and what specific outcomes will result.
Furthermore, the Calculator is NOT a judgmental tool for making assessments about the rela-
tive value of a corridor. Rather, it is intended to be descriptive, providing insights about the key
characteristics of these places and communities.
Nevertheless, the Calculator is designed to help corridor stakeholders analyze, identify, and assess
a corridor’s livability strengths and needs, based on the Transit Corridor Livability Principles. It
does this by providing users the data for most of the transit corridor livability metrics (based on
the Transit Corridor Livability Principles as defined in the Handbook) for an unlimited number
of user-defined transit corridors across the United States. Users can then use the Calculator to
create a graphic, dashboard visualization of that corridor’s livability performance, showing how
it ranks in terms of the Principles compared to a survey of over 250 transit corridors across the
United States. This is accomplished by cross-referencing these metrics against threshold values
associated with each transit corridor livability type identified within this research: Emerging,
Transitioning, or Integrated.
At its core, the Calculator is a standalone series of linked Excel worksheets, which includes a
nationwide dataset for 10 of the 12 Metrics described in this Handbook, provided at the census
block groups (CBGs) level. The Calculator then aggregates these data from the CBGs in the user’s
specified corridor to calculate corridor-wide metric values.
The Calculator works through the following Calculator (C-)Steps:
• C-Step 1: Define Your Transit Corridor’s Boundaries.
• C-Step 2: Identify Your Corridor’s CBGs.
• C-Step 3: Insert Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) Code ID Numbers for
Corridor CBGs in the (1) Inputs worksheet.
• C-Step 4: Determine Metrics to Be Used.
• C-Step 5: View the Livability Metrics in the (2) Metric Scores worksheet.
• C-Step 6: View and Evaluate Transit Corridor Livability Performance on the (3) Livability
Performance worksheet.
• C-Step 7: View Individual Metric Performance and Select Strategies in the (4) Strategy Selection
worksheet.
• C-Step 8: View Selected Strategy Information in the (5) Strategy Summary worksheet
The following sections provide instructions on completing each of these steps.
120

Calculator User Manual 121
C-Step 1: Define Your Transit Corridor’s Boundaries

As outlined in Step 1, Section 1 of the Handbook, defining your transit corridor is an impor-
tant task in the Handbook’s process as well as the Calculator’s. The process of corridor identifi-
cation is outlined in more detail in the following Handbook substeps:
• Step 1.2.1: Define Your Transit Corridor.
• Step 2.2: Define and Select Study Corridor(s) and Transit Modes.
C-Step 2: Identify CBG

Once you have defined the boundaries of your transit corridor, identify the CBG for your
study area manually through the use of relevant maps and reports; this is best accomplished
using any GIS software package (for example, see Figure H-1). This will make the data collection,
processing, and metrics calculation steps easier.
A suggested approach is to select CBG features (such as zone centroids) that intersect with
and fall within the corridor area. For this study, a 1-mile buffer around the corridor was used
for transit lines outside of the CBD. It is important to note that the current version of the Cal-
culator is solely calibrated for corridors outside of CBDs. The user should decide what buffer is
appropriate for their particular corridor.
Figure H-1. Example of a study corridor buffer (in green) overlaid upon census block group boundaries (in blue).

C-Step 3: Insert FIPS Code ID Numbers for Corridor CBGs

Copy the list of FIPS codes (GEOID10) for the census block group features that were selected
from the users preferred corridor method, as outlined in Step 2 (for example, from a GIS pro-
gram) and paste them into the (1) Inputs worksheet (see Figure H-3). Note that the Calculator
uses the national FIPS coding system, as shown in Figure H-2.
C-Step 4: Determine Metrics to Be Used

The Livability Calculator provides data for the entire United States for 10 of the 12 metrics.
The Calculator is designed to work with either the 10 metrics provided, or all 12 (of which two
will need to be generated by the user).
The additional two metrics are as follows:
• The Transit Corridor Ridership Balance (RB) metric (available in certain corridors).
• The Corridor Pedestrian Collisions per 100,000 Daily Pedestrians metric (data available in the
Calculator for immediate use for California only).
Appendix F provides guidance on how to calculate all 12 metrics. See Figure H-3 for where to
input these two additional metrics into the Calculator.
C-Step 5: View Your Corridor’s Detailed Livability Performance

in the Metric Scores Worksheet
The (2) Metric Scores worksheet displays your corridor’s mean values for each livability
metric, while also providing a graphical visualization of each metric’s performance. Each chart
shows how the individual metrics perform relative to the mean metric scores for the three
typologies: Emerging (red), Transitioning (yellow), and Integrated (green). Each chart dis-
plays the z-score normalized values for each metric, based on the mean and standard deviation
values for the transit corridors studied in the creation of the Handbook (see Figure H-4). Use
this worksheet to confirm that the Calculator is producing metric values for your corridor by
comparing the values shown in this worksheet to those shown prior to entering your CBGs in
C-Step 3.
2-digit state FIPS code: 11 234 567890 1

(12 digits total)
BLOCK
STATE COUNTY TRACT
GROUP
1-digit state FIPS code: 1 234 567890 1

(11 digits total)
BLOCK
STATE COUNTY TRACT
GROUP
Note: No spaces should be placed between FIPS digits.
Figure H-2. FIPS code format.

Figure H-3. Enter your corridor FIPS codes into the (1) Input Worksheet.
View the Livability Principle Performance by each of its metrics on the (2) Metric Scores worksheet. Each graph shows how the individual metrics perform relative to the mean metric scores for the
three typology categories: Emerging (red), Transitioning (yellow), and Integrated (green). Use this worksheet to confirm the Calculator is producing metric values for your corridor.
Figure H-4. Metric Scores worksheet.

C-Step 6: View and Evaluate Transit Corridor Livability Performance

on the (3) Livability Performance Worksheet
The Livability Graph worksheet shows the user how their study area corridor compares to the
three corridor types. The so-called “RADAR” graph (titled “Performance of Input Corridor”)
maps the mean values for each of the Livability Principles of the input CBG as a polygon with a
black outline and no fill (see Figure H-5). The shape of this polygon allows for a visual interpre-
tation of the performance of the study corridor, allowing users to see how it performs on each of
the Transit Corridor Livability Principles and in relation to each other. Values that fall within the
red zone (in the center) are considered Emerging, values within the yellow zone are considered
Transitioning, and values within the green zone are considered Integrated.
Users can also use the (3) Livability Performance worksheet to help identify their corridor’s
strengths and needs. Identify metric scores that fall above and below the average scores for the
best-matching typology category for your corridor. Those that fall below can be considered
needs, and those that fall above can be considered strengths.
C-Step 7: View Individual Metric Performance and Select Strategies

in the (4) Strategy Selection Worksheet
Once the transit corridor’s livability performance has been calculated, and users are able
to determine the livability strengths and needs of their corridor, the Calculator facilitates an
Evaluate your corridor’s typology category using the Livability Performance Graph in the (3) Livability Performance
worksheet. The Livability Performance Graph enables the user to compare the livability performance of the
user-specified corridor inputs to the three corridor types. This worksheet also provides the aggregate scores (mean
values) for each Livability Principle (based on CBGs inserted into the (1) Inputs worksheet).
Figure H-5. Livability Performance Graph.

Alongside a visualization of transit corridor livability performance, as shown in the (3) Livability Performance worksheet, the (4) Strategies Selection
worksheet allows the user to explore Transit Corridor Livability Goals and strategies. The user can select strategies relevant to particular principles and metrics,
based on their experiences and knowledge of their corridor/place of interest. Metrics are colored to indicate performance, allowing the user to identify and
address areas of need as indicated by red- and yellow-colored factors.
Figure H-6. Goals-Strategies Selection worksheet.
interactive strategy priority selection process on the (4) Strategy Selection worksheet (see
Figure H-6).
Examine those factors within red- and yellow-colored boxes and consider the goals and asso-
ciated strategies that might help address these areas of need. Focusing on these needs can help
improve the livability of the corridor overall.
C-Step 8: View Selected Strategy Information

in the (5) Strategy Summary worksheet
Once strategies have been selected in the (4) Strategy Selection worksheet, the user can view a
summary table of the selected strategies in the (5) Strategy Summary worksheet. This table lists
the goals and principles that are linked to each selected strategy, and the relevant page number
in the Handbook is provided (see Figure H-7). Clicking on the Handbook page number will
open the Handbook file to the relevant page, allowing the user to learn more about the selected
strategy.

Based on user selected goals, this worksheet provides a comprehensive read-out of strategies selected on the previous (4) Strategy Selection worksheet. The
(5) Strategy Summary worksheet lists the goals and principles that are linked to each selected strategy, and the relevant Handbook page number is provided.
Clicking on the Handbook page number will open the Handbook file to the relevant page, allowing the user to learn more about the selected strategy.
Figure H-7. The (5) Strategy Summary worksheet.

References
Arizona State University, School of Planning. 2007. Phoenix Camelback Corridor: Transit-Oriented Development
Final Report. Arizona State University, School of Planning. Tempe, AZ. http://www.reconnectingamerica.
org/assets/Images/camelbackcorridorfinalreport.pdf. (As of April 15, 2016.)
Arlington County Government. Undated. “Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor.” Arlington County, Arlington, VA.
http://projects.arlingtonva.us/planning/smart-growth/rosslyn-ballston-corridor/ (As of May 17, 2016).
Bartholomew, K. 2007. “Land use-transportation scenario planning: promise and reality.” Transportation, Vol. 34,
No. 4, pp. 397–441.
Bizjak, T. 2004. “City hitches hopes to light rail—Rancho Cordova plans development hubs.” The Sacramento Bee.
Sacramento, CA. July 2, 2004, p. B1.
Blair, C. 2011. Transit Corridors and TOD: Connecting the Dots. May 18, 2011. Denver Region Council of Govern-
ments, Denver, CO.
California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2010. “Regional Housing Needs Assessment
(RHNA).” http://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-policy-development/housing-element/hn_phn_regional.php
(As of May 19, 2016).
California Planning Roundtable. 2013. Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance. California Planning Roundtable.
Los Angeles, CA.
Camiros Consultants. 2014. “Milwaukee Avenue Corridor: Land Use and Development Scenarios.” Village of
Niles. Village of Niles, IL. http://www.vniles.com/DocumentCenter/View/1519. (As of April 18, 2016.)
Carter, S. P., S. L. Carter, and A. Dannenberg. 2003. “Zoning out Crime and Improving Community Health in
Sarasota, Florida,” American Journal of Public Health Vol. 93, pp. 1442–5.
Center for Community Change. Undated. “What Are Housing Trust Funds?” The Housing Trust Fund Project.
http://housingtrustfundproject.org/. (As of November 19, 2011.)
Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2013. Pennywise Pound Fuelish: New Measures of Housing and Transportation
Affordability. http://www.infrastructureusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/cnt_liveablecommunities.pdf.
(As of July 29, 2013.)
Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2009. TOD 201: Mixed-Income Housing Near Transit: Increasing
Affordability with Location Efficiency - Reconnecting America. Federal Transit Administration. Washington, D.C.
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/resource-center/browse-research/2009/tod-201-mixed-income-housing-
near-transit-increasing-affordability-with-location-efficiency/. (As of July 29, 2013.)
Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2010. Creating Successful Transit-Oriented Districts in Los Angeles:
A Citywide Toolkit for Achieving Regional Goals. Center for Transit-Oriented Development. Los Angeles, CA.
http://latod.reconnectingamerica.org/final_report. (As of April 18, 2016.)
Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2011. Transit and Regional Economic Development. Center for Transit-
Oriented Development. Oakland, CA. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/TransitandRegional
ED2011.pdf. (As of July 29, 2013.)
Central Corridor Funders Collaborative. 2011. Creating Shared Value Together: an Environmental Scan of Central
Corridor Anchor Institutions. Metropolitan Council. Minneapolis, MN. http://www.funderscollaborative.org/
sites/default/files/Central%20Corridor%20Anchor%20Environmental%20Scan%20%28Final%29.pdf.
(As of March 18, 2016.)
Cervero, R. 1998. Transit Villages in California: Progress, Prospects, and Policy Reforms. University of California,
Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Berkeley, CA.
Cervero, R. 2006. “Office Development, Rail Transit and Commuting Choices.” Journal of Public Transportation,
Vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 41–55.
128

References 129
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. 2014. “CMAP: Achieve Greater Livability through Land Use and
Housing.” Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/about/2040/livable-
communities/land-use-housing. (As of July 20, 2016.)
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. 2013. Public Participation Plan: 2013. http://www.cmap.illinois.
gov/documents/10180/27099/Public+Participation+Plan+Update+2013.pdf/3c761441-0762-41b4-b1f7-
f6fdb589e770. (As of April 18, 2016.)
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. 2008. Jobs-Housing Balance: CMAP Regional Snapshot Report. Chicago
Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Chicago, IL. http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/35654/
JOBS-HOUSING_SNAPSHOT_lowres.pdf/16a08a2e-ff56-47ff-94b7-74b513c27e38 (As of August 25, 2015.)
Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. 2010. Go to 2040 Regional Plan: Achieve Greater Livability through
Land Use and Housing. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Chicago, IL. http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/
documents/10180/17842/long_plan_FINAL_100610_web.pdf/1e1ff482-7013-4f5f-90d5-90d395087a53.
(As of April 18, 2016.)
Citizens for Modern Transit. 2013. Grand Station Transit-Oriented Development Report. Citizens for Modern
Transit. St. Louis, MO.
City and County of Denver. “Transit-Oriented Development: Transit Corridors.” Undated. http://www.denvergov.
org/tod/TransitOrientedDevelopment/TransitCorridors/tabid/441678/Default.aspx. (As of April 18, 2016.)
City of Bellevue, WA. Undated. Downtown Sub Area Plan. City of Bellevue. Bellevue, WA. http://www.ci.bellevue.
wa.us/pdf/Transportation/DTP_Downtown_Bellevue_Subarea_Plan.pdf. (As of April 18, 2016.)
City of Bloomington. 2013. Bloomington Central Station Development Plan. City of Bloomington. Bloomington, IL.
https://www.bloomingtonmn.gov/bloomington-central-station-preliminary-development-plan. (As of
April 18, 2016.)
City of Dallas, Dallas Office of Economic Development . 2010. “Skillman Corridor/LBJ Station.” Dallas Office of
Economic Development. http://www.dallas-ecodev.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/skillman_profile.pdf.
(As of July 20, 2016.)
City of Dallas, Dallas Office of Economic Development. 2013. Design District: Design Tax Increment Financ-
ing District. City of Dallas. Dallas, TX. http://www.dallas-ecodev.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Design
District_plan.pdf. (As of April 18, 2016.)
City of Hillsboro. 2010. Downtown Hillsboro Urban Renewal Plan. City of Hillsboro. Hillsboro, OR. http://www.
downtowndevelopment.com/pdf/Hills_Dntn%20Hillsboro%20UR%20PLAN%20FINAL_052010.pdf. (As
of April 18, 2016.)
City of Minneapolis. 2011. Hiawatha LRT Neighborhood Station Area Study. City of Minneapolis. Minneapolis, MN.
City of North Las Vegas and PlaceWorks. 2006. North Fifth Street Transit Supportive Concept Plan. City of North
Las Vegas. North Las Vegas, NV.
Clarke, R. Undated. The Theory of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. http://www3.cutr.usf.edu/
security/documents\CPTED\Theory of CPTED.pdf. (As of December 1, 2010.)
Clower, T., M. Bomba, O. Wilson-Chavez, and M. Gray. 2014. “Development Impacts of the Dallas Area Rapid
Transit Light Rail System.” Dallas Area Rapid Transit. Dallas, TX.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Undated. “Transit-Oriented Development Model Bylaw.” Smart Growth/
Smart Energy Toolkit Bylaw. http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/bylaws/TOD-Bylaw.pdf.
(As of April 18, 2016.)
Daisa, J. 2006. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach: An ITE Recommended
Practice. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Washington, D.C.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit District. 2008. Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
District. Dallas, TX.
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. 2003. Linking Transit, Communities and Development. Delaware
Valley Regional Planning Commission. Philadelphia, PA.
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. 2007. Creating a Regional Transit Score Protocol. Delaware Valley
Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA.
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. 2008. Integrating Land Use, Transportation & Economic
Development: Planning Activities and Major Findings. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission.
Philadelphia, PA.
Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. 2009. City of Philadelphia North Broad Street Pedestrian Safety
Audit. Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. Philadelphia, PA.
DW Legacy Design Foundation. 2010. South Grand Boulevard Great Streets Initiative. East West Gateway Council
of Governments. St. Louis, MO.
East-West Gateway Council of Governments. 2013. St. Louis TOD Framework Plan, East-West Gateway Council
of Governments. Saint Louis, MO.
East-West Gateway Council of Governments. 2012. Regional Plan for Sustainable Development Housing Assessment.
East-West Gateway Council of Governments. St. Louis, MO.

Eden Area Livability Initiative. 2015. “EALI Phase II.” https://www.acgov.org/edenareavision/phase2.htm (As of
May 18, 2016).
Emeryville TMA. Undated. “Emery-Go-Round: About Us.” http://www.emerygoround.com/about-us.html
(As of May 19, 2016).
Envision Utah. 2014. A Guide to Regional Visioning: Mapping the Course for Successful Community Engaged Scenario
Planning. Envision Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Fan, Y., and A. Guthrie. 2013. Achieving System-Level, Transit-Oriented Jobs-Housing Balance: Perspectives of
Twin Cities Developers and Business Leaders. Metropolitan Council. Minneapolis, MN.
Farrington, D., and B. Welsh. 2002. Effects of Improved Street Lighting on Crime: A Systematic Review. Research
Study 251, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. London, U.K.
Federal Highway Administration. Undated. “Planning Processes: Land Use and Transportation, Blueprint
Sacramento.” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/land_use/case_studies/sacramento_ca/. (As of
June 29, 2015.)
Federal Transit Administration and Housing and Urban Development. 2008. Better Coordination of Transporta-
tion and Housing Programs to Promote Affordable Housing Near Transit. Federal Transit Administration and
Housing and Urban Development. Washington, D.C.
Federal Transit Administration. 2011. Metro Orange Line BRT Project Evaluation. Federal Transit Administration.
Washington, D.C.
Ferrell, C., S. Mathur, and B. Appleyard. 2015. Neighborhood Crime and Transit Station Access Mode Choice—
Phase III of Neighborhood Crime and Travel Behavior. Mineta Transportation Institute. San Jose, CA.
Form-Based Codes Institute. 2016. “Form-Based Codes Defined.” www.formbasedcodes.org/definition.
(As of April 18, 2016.)
Giles-Corti, B., M. Broomhall, C. Collins, K. Ng, K. Douglas, A. Lange, R. Donovan, and M. Knuiman. 2013.
Public Open Space and Physical Activity: How Important is Distance, Attractiveness and Size? Active Living
Research. San Diego, CA.
Gilyard, B. 2010. “School district shopping site near Hiawatha LRT.” Finance and Commerce. July 29, 2010. http://
finance-commerce.com/2010/07/school-district-shopping-site-near-hiawatha-lrt/. (As of March 17, 2016.)
Governor’s Economic Cabinet, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 2005. Keystone Principles for Growth, Investment,
and Resource Conservation. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA.
GTFS Data Exchange. Undated. http://www.gtfs-data-exchange.com/. (As of August 5, 2013.)
Gyorgyfalvy, R. 2010. “Complete Streets: Streets as Public Space.” The Dirt, online journal of the American Society
of Landscape Architects. https://dirt.asla.org/2010/09/11/complete-streets-streets-as-public-space/. (As of
April 18, 2016.)
Haas, P., and L. Fabish. 2013. Measuring the Performance of Livability Programs. Mineta Transportation Institute.
San Jose, CA.
Harnik, B., and P. Welle. 2009. Measuring the Economic Value of a City Park System—The Trust for Public Land.
The Trust for Public Land. San Francisco, CA.
Holtzclaw, J., R. Clear, H. Dittmar, D. Goldstein, and P. Haas. 2002. “Location Efficiency: Neighborhood and
Socio-Economic Characteristics Determine Auto Ownership and Use.” Transportation Planning and
Technology. Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1–27.
Holway, J., C. J. Gabbe, F. Hebbert, J. Lally, R. Matthews, and R. Quay. 2012. Opening Access to Scenario Planning
Tools. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Cambridge, MA.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2015. Traffic Calming. http://www.ite.org/traffic/. (As of April 18, 2016.)
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. 2011. FHWA Scenario Planning Guidebook. John A. Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, MA.
Kanters, M., J. Bocarro, M. Filardo, M. Edwards, T. McKenzie, and M. Floyd. “Shared Use of School Facilities
with Community Organizations and Physical Activity Program Participation: A Cost-Benefit Assessment.”
Presented at the 2013 Active Living Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
Kramer, M., and L. Sobel. 2013. Smart Growth and Economic Success: Benefits for Real Estate Developers, Investors,
Businesses, and Local Governments. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Sustainable Communities.
Washington, D.C.
Lee, J. 2012. “Propensity to Use Public Transportation: The Role of Perception and Neighborhood Type.”
Presented at the 2013 Active Living Research Conference, San Diego, CA.
Lennertz, B. “High Touch/High-Tech Charrettes.” Planning Magazine, October 2013.
Lockwood, I. 1997. “ITE Traffic Calming Definition.” ITE Journal. July 1997.
Loukaitou-Sideris, A. 1999. “Hot Spots of Bus Stop Crime: The Importance of Environmental Attributes.”
APA Journal. Autumn Volume, 1999.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). Undated. Integral Art Program/Policies Guidelines.
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). Boston, MA.

References 131
Mathur, S. 2014. Innovation in Public Transport Finance: Property Value Capture. Ashgate Publishing Limited,
Surrey, England.
McConville, M. 2013. Creating Equitable, Healthy, and Sustainable Communities: Strategies for Advancing Smart
Growth, Environmental Justice, and Equitable Development. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office
of Sustainable Communities and Office of Environmental Justice, Washington, D.C., Vol. 5, No. 2013.
McGraw, J., A. Benedict, and S. Bernstein. 2014. Capturing the Value of Location Efficiency for Twin Cities Households.
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. Minneapolis, MN.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). 2013. Orange Line Opportunity Corridor Report Final Report.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Boston, MA.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). Undated. “Managing Neighborhood Change: Literature
Review|Annotated Bibliography.” Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Boston, MA. http://www.mapc.org/
sites/default/files/MAPC_LitReview_AnnotatedBibliography.pdf. (As of August 24, 2015.)
Metropolitan Council Community Development Committee. 2014. 2014 Annual Livable Communities Fund
Distribution Plan. Metropolitan Council. Minneapolis, MN.
Metropolitan Council. Undated. “Partnership for Regional Opportunity.” http://www.metrocouncil.org/
Communities/Projects/Corridors-of-Opportunity.aspx. (As of March 17, 2015.)
Metropolitan Council, Partnership for Regional Opportunity. 2014. Met Council approves funding for prep
work on future projects along rail corridors. Metropolitan Council, Partnership for Regional Opportunity.
Minneapolis, MN. http://www.corridorsofopportunity.org/Corridors_News/201409. (As of March 17, 2016.)
Metropolitan Council. 2013. TOD Strategic Action Plan. Metropolitan Council. Minneapolis, MN.
Metropolitan Council. 2014a. 2013 Performance Evaluation Report: Report to the Minnesota Legislature. Metropolitan
Council. Minneapolis, MN.
Metropolitan Council. 2014b. Handbook for Transit-Oriented Development Grants. Livable Communities Program,
Metropolitan Council. Minneapolis, MN.
Metropolitan Council. 2014c. Title VI Program: In Compliance with FTA Circular 4702.1b. Metropolitan Council.
Minneapolis, MN.
Metropolitan Council. Undated. “Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA).” http://www.metro
council.org/Communities/Services/Livable-Communities-Grants/Livable-Communities-Demonstration-
Account-%28LCDA%29.aspx?source=child. (As of March 18, 2016.)
Miami Dade County Transit. 2010. Draft Transit Development Plan Annual Update. Miami Dade County Transit.
Miami, FL.
Mintzberg, H., and J. Quinn. 1996. The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Moore, T., P. Thorsnes, and B. Appleyard. 2007. The Transportation/Land Use Connection. American Planning
Association, Planning Advisory Service. Chicago, IL.
Partnership for Regional Opportunity: Corridors of Opportunity. 2016. Affordable Housing and TOD Investment.
http://www.corridorsofopportunity.org/affordable-housing-and-tod-investment (As of March 18, 2016).
Pierce, N., and R. Guskind. 1993. Breakthroughs: Recreating the American City. Center for Urban Policy Research
Press. New Brunswick, NJ.
Porter, C. 2012. TCRP Research Results Digest 105: Assessing and Comparing Environmental Performance of Major
Transit Investments. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington, D.C., 2012.
Powell, B., and E. Stringham. 2005. “The Economics of Inclusionary Zoning Reclaimed: How Effective are Price
Controls?” Florida State University Law Review. Vol. 33, p. 471.
Project for Public Spaces, Inc. 1997. TCRP Report 22: The Role of Transit in Creating Livable Metropolitan
Communities. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Public Agenda with FOCUS St. Louis; East-West Gateway Council of Governments; and the Regional Plan for
Sustainable Development Public Engagement Committee. 2012. Regional Plan for Sustainable Development:
Public Engagement Plan. East-West Gateway Council of Governments. Saint Louis, MO.
Puget Sound Regional Council. 2012. Moving from Data and Analysis to Corridor Action Strategies: Typology, Best
Practices, Outreach, and Final Report. Puget Sound Regional Council, Seattle, WA.
Raimi + Associates and Sargent Town Planning. 2012. Fremont City Center Community Plan. City of Fremont.
Fremont, CA.
Raimi + Associates, Center for Transit-Oriented Development, and Nelson\Nygaard. 2012. Orange Line Bus
Rapid Transit Sustainable Corridor Implementation Plan. Southern California Association of Governments.
Los Angeles, CA.
Reconnecting America and American Public Transportation Association. Undated. “Corridor Planning and
TOD.” http://www.apta.com/resources/hottopics/sustainability/Documents/TOD-203-Corridor-Planning-
and-TOD.pdf. (As of August 5, 2013.)
Reconnecting America and Center for Transit-Oriented Development. 2013. Financing Transit-Oriented Devel-
opment: Policy Options and Strategies. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Oakland, CA.

RITA Office of Research, Development, and Technology. 2011. UTC Spotlight Conference Focuses on Need for
Research to Satisfy Diverse Demands of Livable Communities. Vol. Special Edition: 2010 Spotlight Conference
Follow-up, 2011.
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. 2015a. Livable Roanoke Valley. Roanoke Valley-Alleghany
Regional Commission. Roanoke, VA.
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission. 2015b. Call to Action: Livable Roanoke Valley. Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission. Roanoke, VA.
Ruch, Kerri Pearce and Partnership for Regional Opportunity: Corridors of Opportunity. 2013. “SW LRT com-
munities get public input on station areas.” Partnership for Regional Opportunity: Corridors of Opportunity.
Minneapolis http://www.corridorsofopportunity.org/Corridors_News/sw-lrt-communities-get-public-
input-station-areas. (As of May 17, 2016.)
Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2004. “Tall Order: Choices for Our Future.” Sacramento Area Council
of Governments. Sacramento, CA. http://www.sacog.org/publications/Forum2004Program.pdf (As of
June 29, 2015).
Sam Schwartz Engineering D.P.C. and Farr Associates. 2014. Village of Niles Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan. Village of
Niles. Village of Niles, IL.
Scully, J. 2005. “Development Case Studies: Fruitvale Village I.” Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute. http://
www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/conplan/pdf/fruitvale_transit_village.pdf. (As of March 18, 2016.)
Shoup, L., and R. Ewing. 2013. “The Economic Benefits of Open Space, Recreation and Walkable Community
Design.” Active Living Research. San Diego, CA. http://atfiles.org/files/pdf/Economic-Benefits-Active.pdf.
(As of April 18, 2016.)
Smart Growth America. 2013. Building Better Budgets: A National Examination of the Fiscal Benefits of Smart
Growth Development. Smart Growth America. Washington, D.C.
Smith, W. S. 1999. NCHRP Report 435: Guidebook for Transportation Corridor Studies: A Process for Effective
Decision-Making. TRB, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.
Speck, J. 2013. “A 180 degree Turnaround.” Planning Magazine. June 2013, pp. 20–22.
Spielman, F. 2011. “Parking Increase to Fund New Cermak L Station, Downtown Express Bus Service—Chicago
Sun-Times.” October 13, 2011. http://www.suntimes.com/news/transportation/8199743-418/parking-increase-
to-fund-new-cermak-l-station-downtown-express-bus-service.html. (As of July 28, 2013.)
The Philadelphia City Planning Commission. 2005. Extending the Vision for North Broad Street. The Philadelphia
City Planning Commission. Philadelphia, PA.
TransForm. Undated. “GreenTrip.” http://www.transformca.org/landing-page/greentrip. (As of March 18, 2016.)
Transportation Research Board. 2011. UTC Spotlight Conference Focuses on Need for Research. Vol. Special Edition:
2010 Spotlight Conference Follow-up, 2011.
TriMet, Center for Transit-Oriented Development, and Nelson\Nygaard. 2011. Transit-Oriented Development
Strategic Plan/Metro TOD Program. TriMet. Portland, OR.
TriMet. 2010. Livable Portland: Land Use and Transportation Initiatives. TriMet. Portland, OR.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Undated. “Partnership for Sustainable Communities.” http://
www.sustainablecommunities.gov/aboutUs.html. (As of July 27, 2013.)
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. “Planning Processes: Land Use and
Transportation, Blueprint Sacramento.” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/land_use/case_studies/
sacramento_ca/. (As of June 29, 2015.)
Urban Land Institute, Rose Center of Minneapolis. 2010. Implementing a Vision for Transit-Oriented Development.
Urban Land Institute. Minneapolis, MN.
Urban Land Institute-Los Angeles. 2013. 2013 Transit Corridors Report. Urban Land Institute. Los Angeles, CA.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2009. Affordable Housing in Transit-Oriented Development: Key Practices
Could Enhance Recent Collaborative Efforts between DOT-FTA and HUD. U.S. Government Accountability
Office. Washington, D.C.
Valdez, R. 2014. “PSRC: Expand the Housing Trust Fund for Transit Communities.” Smart Growth America.
Washington, D.C. December 9, 2014. http://www.smartgrowthseattle.org/psrc-expand-housing-trust-fund/.
(As of August 28, 2015.)
Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2012. “Roadway Connectivity: Creating More Connected Roadway and Pathway
Networks.” http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm116.htm. (As of August 5, 2013.)
Village of Niles. 2006. Milwaukee Avenue Plan. Village of Niles. Village of Niles, IL.
Vuchic, V. 2007. Urban Transit: Systems and Technology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Zelinka, A., and D. Brennan. 2001. SafeScape: Creating Safer, More Livable Communities Through Planning and
Design. Planners Press, American Planning Association. Chicago, IL.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
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
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
ISBN 978-0-309-37567-2
90000
9 780309 375672

The National Academies Press: Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The National Academies Press: Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies

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: Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/23630 SHARE

Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies

142 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 187

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 187

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR TCRP RESEARCH REPORT 187

TCRP PROJECT H-45 PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

• Appendix A: Goals and Related Strategies.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

88 Appendix C Coordination and Collaboration Strategies

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

What This Handbook Is (and Is Not) Designed to Do

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

2 Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies

Why Plan for Livability?

Why Plan Transit Corridors?

Defining Transit Corridor Livability

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 1. Comparison of the Partnership’s Livability Principles

Partnership for Sustainable

Promote equitable and affordable housing Mixed-income housing near transit

Enhance economic competitiveness Transit-accessible economic opportunities

Coordinate and leverage federal policies

Vibrant and accessible community, cultural,

Healthy, safe, walkable transit corridor

Transit Corridor Livability Visioning

Corridor-Level Planning and MPO/COG Leadership

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies

Transit Corridor Livability Assessment

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 2. Transit Corridor Livability Principles and their metrics.

Transit Corridor Factor

Vibrant and accessible Place Urban form Corridor density (population/acre)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies

The Transit Corridor Livability Calculator Tool

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Initiate Project (Step 1)

Step 1.1: Organize Stakeholders and Develop

Coordination and Collaboration Strategies for Project Initiation

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Livable Transit Corridors: Methods, Metrics, and Strategies

Effective community engagement includes:

Organize the Stakeholder Team

Steering and Oversight Committee

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.