Appendix A: A Review of Best Practices - U.S. Case Studies

Transcription

Appendix A
A Review of Best Practices U.S. Case Studies
Boston, MA
Charlotte, NC
Cleveland, OH
Dallas, TX
Denver, CO
Los Angeles, CA
New Jersey
Portland, OR
San Francisco, CA
Washington, D.C.
This page left intentionally blank.
Boston
Case Studies
Background
Boston has had operating public transit service since 1850, leading to 80 percent of jobs, 56 percent
of homes, and 51 percent of schools located within one-quarter mile of a transit station today. Despite the economic downturn, the Metropolitan Boston Transit Authority (MBTA) had four jointdevelopment TOD projects under construction and 14 in the permitting process in 2011.1 2
Additionally, the MBTA has recently implemented an upgraded Bus-Rapid Transit (BRT) system
known as Silver Line. The BRT system is more cost effective than a rail system, and has a promising
future with initial ridership numbers comparable to rail transit. Furthermore, construction of the
Silver Line has catalyzed significant land development investment and redevelopment opportunities
in southeastern Boston where attracting development has historically been challenging.3
The SIlver Line plays a very important role in providing
rapid transir connection between downtown Boston and
the Logan International Airport. The picture above depicts a Silver Line vehicle operating in an exclusive
right-of-way of approximately one mile.
(http://www.fta.dot.gov)
Major TOD Planning Initiatives
Mass Housing: $100 million for mixed-income housing, specifically geared towards affordable
housing near transit, available through the program, Priority Development Fund.4
Commercial Area Transit Node Housing Program: Bond to assist first time homebuyers purchase
property in close proximity to a transit node.5
MassWorks TOD Infrastructure and Housing Support Program: Sponsored by the Massachusetts
Department of Housing and Community Development, this program provides grants for pedestrian
and bicycle, housing, and parking for mixed use projects that are located within a quarter-mile from
a transit station or ferry terminal.6
Chapter 40R Housing and Smart Growth Incentives: This state program allocates direct funding to
cities that create zoning districts to specifically encourage compact housing near transit, requiring
20% be used for affordable housing.7
Florida TOD Guidebook
A-1
December 2012
Case Studies
Boston
Chapter 40R
Characteristics: Districts must be overlay and not base zoning. [...] The district must provide a
minimum allowable density of eight units per acre for single-family homes, 12 units per acre for
two and three family buildings, and/or 20 units per acre for multi-family dwellings. Smart growth
zoning districts must provide a range of housing opportunities for a diverse population including
households with children.
Source: http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/mod-40R.html
Chapter 40 S Smart Growth Cost Reimbursement: Supplementary to Chapter 40R to ensure receiving municipalities can accommodate increases in growth and density that occur from the Chapter
40R program.8
Zoning Codes and Regulations
Article 80 zoning code: Requires transportation mitigation plans for developments of 50,000 square
feet or more.9
Chapter 40R Smart Growth Incentive Zoning: State pays municipalities along the Fairmount/Indigo
Line to adopt smart growth overlay zoning districts in downtowns, commercial centers, and around
transit stations to create opportunities for new housing.10
December 2012
A-2
Boston
Case Studies
Financial Assistance, Grants, Tax Programs
National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Main
Street Program: Produced $40 million in new
residential and commercial construction, 120
façade improvements, and 313 new businessesstrategically utilized near transit stations.11
Tax foreclosures: Boston aggressively markets
foreclosed properties, using incentives to leverage the property in promoting TOD.12
Public Infrastructure Investments
Fairmount Line: Newest major public transportation investment with four new stations
along an existing commuter line, focusing on
providing better service to southeastern
Boston.13
Photo of the grand opening of Northbound Interstate 93
on March 2003. Boston’s Big Dig is the biggest U.S.
public infrastructure project; officially known as the Central Artery/Tunnel Project.
Image Source: www.cnbc.com
The Big Dig: Boston took on the most ambitious
and expensive road project in U.S. history by
tunneling the city’s central transportation artery
underground, creating 30 waterfront-adjacent
acres of open space, parks, and opportunities for
TOD.14
South Station restoration project: Built in 1898
and almost demolished in 1974, the station underwent a major restoration, championed by the
existing progressive political leadership. Today
it serves as Boston’s central transportation hub,
serving commuter rail, subway, bus, regional
passenger trains.15
Historic South Station, New England’ second largest
transportation center, after Logan International Airport.
Image Source: www.en.wikipedia.org
Public/Private Partnerships
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) has some land agreements with developers usually in the form of property management, below market rate leasing, long term ground
leases, and land contributions for parking. Additionally, MBTA has allowed developers to improve
pedestrian connections and streetscape enhancements on MBTA property, promoting ridership and
visually marketing the developer’s TOD investments.16 1718
A-3
December 2012
Case Studies
Boston
Parking
1973 EPA Parking Freeze: Allowed the city to
freeze parking requirements for new development, attempting to reduce air pollution. The
freeze caused high parking costs, effectively reducing automobile transportation in the
city.After the parking freeze, new MBTA
Boston stations were built without parking, prioritizing pedestrians over the automobile.19
Parking requirements have been reduced from
1:1 to .7, giving an incentive to TOD developers.20
The MBTA has fostered the construction of developer-financed parking garages through public/private partnerships by entering a
cost-sharing agreement on maintenance.21
Initiatives for swapping marginally valued
MBTA land in exchange for a developer to construct a parking garage that will serve the developer’s project.22
Boston Bus Rapid Transit TOD
A Mayoral task force report emphasized revitalization needs on Washington Street Corridor.24
The Washington Gateway Main Streets Program: (1997) created to encourage revitalization along the Washington Street Corridor to
capitalize on opportunities the Silver Bus Rapid
Transit Line would provide.25
South Boston Waterfront Public Realm Plan:
(1999) created to encourage revitalization along
the South Boston Waterfront with extended
service by the Silver Rapid Bus Transit Line.26
Background
The South End of Boston has traditionally been
a low-income neighborhood, especially in the
mid-twentieth century. Plagued with a stagnant
economy, the Metropolitan Boston Transit Authority (MBTA) removed the elevated orange
rail line in 1987 due to extremely poor ridership
numbers, but promised to eventually replace it
with a high frequency alternative.
Article 27P South Boston Waterfront Interim
Planning Overlay District27
FTA Full Funding Grant Agreement for $330
million with MBTA for the Silver Line South
Station Transitway (2004).28
Three underground stations and their tunnels,
built exclusively for the BRT Silver Line Fleet
(Courthouse Station, Boston World Trade Center Station, and South Station).29 Currently, efforts are being made towards Silver Line Phase
III to link the two tunnels.30
Headhouse leading
up from underground Courthouse
station.
Courtesy MBTA
Image
source:
www.nbrti.org
December 2012
Poor economic conditions persisted in the
Washington Street Corridor, a historical downtown Boston thoroughfare, which led to many
vacant, crime-ridden, and blighted properties in
the 1990s. Finally, in 1997, the Mayor’s task
force report stated the main priority was to renovate the Washington Street Corridor with upgraded streetscapes and introduce Silver Line,
a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. 23
A-4
Boston
Case Studies
Endnotes
Reconnecting America, Center for Transit Oriented Development. (2007, April). Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near
Transit. Retrieved 2010 2, June, from Reconnecting America: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports/137
1
2
Lawrence, B. (2011, May 25). Transit Realty Associates. (C. Hutton, Interviewer)
Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., Tsai, Y., Arrington, G., et al. (2004). TCRP Report 102 Transit-oriented development in the United
States: experiences, challenges, and prospects. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
3
TOD resources. (n.d.). Retrieved October 6, 2010, from Mass Housing:
https://www.masshousing.com/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=250&mode=2&in_hi_userid=2&cached=true
4
5, 6
Anderson, A., & Forbes, S. (2011). 2010 Inventory of TOD programs. Washington, D.C.: Reconnecting America.
Chapter 40R and 40S explained: reaping the benefits of compact development. (2004). Retrieved January 12, 2011, from State of Massachusetts:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ehedterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Community+Development&L2=Community+Planning&sid=Ehed&b=terminalcontent&f=dhcd_cd_ch40r_ch40r&csid=Ehed
7, 8
9
State of Massachusetts. (n.d.). Transit Oriented Development. Retrieved January 2, 2011, from State of Massachusetts Smart Growth/Smart
Eneragy Toolkit: http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/mod-tod.html
10
Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., Tsai, Y., Arrington, G., et al. (2004). TCRP Report 102 Transit-oriented development in the
United States: experiences, challenges, and prospects. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board.
11, 12
13
Reconnecting America, Center for Transit Oriented Development. (2007, April). Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near
Transit. Retrieved 2010 2, June, from Reconnecting America: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/reports/137
14, 15, 16
17
LaCoste, F. (2011, May 24). Transit Realty Associates. (C. Hutton, Interviewer)
18
19
20
LaCoste, F. (2011, May 24). Transit Realty Associates. (C. Hutton, Interviewer)
21, 22
Jerram, L. C., & Vincent, W. (2008, April). Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Oriented Development: Case Studies on Transit Oriented Development
Around Bus Rapid Transit Systems in North America and Austraila. Retrieved October 2, 2010, from Breakthrough Technologies Institute:
http://www.crcog.org/publications/TransportationDocs/NBHBusway/2010/BRT-TOD-Report.pdf
23
24
25
26
Chase, D., Gazillo, S., Schimek, P., Smith, K., & Watkins, K. (2007, June 1). Silver Line Waterfront Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 2007 Project Evaluation. Retrieved July 9, 2010, from Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FINALBOSTONBRTREPORT062507.pdf
Article 27P South Boston Waterfront Interim Planning Overlay District. (2010, September 15). Retrieved February 2, 2011, from Boston Redevelopment Authority: http://www.bostonredevelopmentauthority.org/pdf/ZoningCode/Article27p.pdf
27
28
Darido, G., Schimek, P., & Schneck, D. (2005, September). Boston Silver Line Washington Street Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Demonstration Project
Evaluation. Retrieved July 7, 2010, from National Bus Rapid Institute: http://www.nbrti.org/media/evaluations/Boston_Silver_Line_final_report.pdf
29
Chase, D., Gazillo, S., Schimek, P., Smith, K., & Watkins, K. (2007, June 1). Silver Line Waterfront Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) 2007 Project Evaluation. Retrieved July 9, 2010, from Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FINALBOSTONBRTREPORT062507.pdf
30
A-5
December 2012
Charlotte
Case Studies
Background
Charlotte is the largest metropolitan city in North Carolina, with population increasing 42 percent
over the last twenty years. The city has recently invested in a light rail transit system to mitigate
congestion issues resulting from the low-density, automobile-dependent suburban growth prevalent
in the region. To capitalize on the light rail transit investment, Charlotte has focused on making
stronger land use and transportation connections through proactive station area, neighborhood, and
community planning initiatives that have been fundamental in successful revitalization projects
and exceeding expectations in transit ridership.1
CATS Station Types Report: The Charlotte Area
Transit System (CATS) and the CharlotteMecklenburg Planning Commission developed
a transit station types report that outlines the
functionality thresholds of different station
types in respect to placemaking, transportation,
and land development.
Transit Station Area Principles: Adopted by the
City of Charlotte in 2001, emphasizes importance of three major categories: land use and development, mobility, and community design.
These categories also have supporting elements
such as mixture of uses, land use intensities,
pedestrian and bicycle design, street networks,
parking, site design, streetscapes, and open
space.2
General Development Policies (GDP): Used in
providing direction to land development and rezoning decisions, and specifically integrating
land use and transportation planning.3
Center City 2010 Vision: A major planning
study which researched how to make Charlotte
more “viable, memorable, and livable” through
better land use, growth, city form, open space,
parks and recreation, transportation, street networks, parking, and neighborhood planning.4
Center City 2020 Plan: (in progress) An update
to the 2010 plan.5
A-6
The Station Types are a piece of a much larger
effort to develop a regional rapid transit system
in Charlotte. The Centers and Corridors Plan,
the 2025 Integrated Transit/Land Use Plan, and
the Charlotte Area Transit System Plan serve
as guides for future land use and development
in the region.
Source: CATS Systems Plans, Land Use Program: Station Types Report, Jan. 2005
December 2012
Case Studies
Charlotte
Centers, Corridors, Wedges Growth Framework: Overall vision for future growth and development,
providing general guidance for the development of future area plans.6
South End/Uptown Rail Corridor Plan: Created to guide policy decisions about the rail corridor
and its adjacent properties.7
South Corridor Station Area Plans: Located within the existing 9.6-mile light rail transit network,
the south corridor includes station areas: Uptown, South End, New Bern, Scaleybark, Woodlawn,
Tyvola & Archdale, Arrowood, and Sharon & I-485.8
South End Transit Station Area Plan: Vision plan that preceded light rail transit construction in
2005, providing a template for growth and redevelopment around transit stations along the rail corridor. Additionally, the plan provided transportation, streetscape, land use, public space, pedestrian
and bicycle, and public infrastructure strategies.9
Northlake Area Plan: Outlines TOD strategies for Eastfield, a planned station area along the north
corridor.10
University City Area Plan: Located in Northeast Corridor, plan outlines goals and recommendations
regarding land use, zoning, demographics, urban design character, and transportation networks;
and includes station area planning for Rocky River, City Boulevard, Harris/North Tryon, and Unversity City station.11
University City Area Plan Vision and Goals
University City will be transformed into a distinct and vibrant people-oriented place that is urban
in scale and design. It will be energized by the highly successful Northeast Corridor Light Rail
Transit line that will operate along the North Tryon corridor and will be a popular and accessible
destination for people of all ages, income levels and backgrounds, offering diverse and unique
choices for living, shopping, working, learning and enjoying leisure time.
Source: University City Area Plan, Executive Summary, adopted by Charlotte City Council October 22, 2007
December 2012
A-7
Charlotte
Case Studies
Elizabeth Area Plan: Outlines growth and development policies for concept plan, including
land use/rezoning strategies for transit station
areas, surrounding neighborhoods, and general
corridors. Also lists implementation approaches
for the public and private sectors.12
Brevard Street Land Use & Urban Design Plan:
Outlines strategies to create a “memorable, livable, and viable” street to catalyze vibrant
place-making. This study succeeds a previous
study, “Memorable Streets-Brevard Street Connectivity Study”, which looked at ways to foster
connectivity on Brevard Street in 2005. The report includes extensive analysis on exiting land
development conditions. Considering the existing conditions, the plan delineates streetscape
design guidelines, parking strategies, and transportation linkage and connectivity strategies.
Additionally, the plan outlines urban design
guidelines such as building setbacks, building
heights, and urban form.13
Second Ward Neighborhood Plan: A physical
masterplan for the area, outlining specific types
of parking, civic uses, parks and open space,
public transit, streetscapes, architecture, and
land use that is conducive to the overall vision
for the community. Plan also includes strategies
for infrastructure investments, creative financing, project phasing, and land development implementation.14
Transit Oriented Development District: Designation intended to foster compact mix of intense
residential, office, retail, institutional, and civic
development in areas around transit stations or
areas designated in transit corridors. The code
is further broken up into subcategories of residential TOD, employment TOD, and mixed use
TOD. Residential TOD requires a minimum
density of 20 du per acre within ¼ mile of a
transit station, or a minimum 15 du per acre
A-8
within a ¼ mile and ½ mile of a transit station.
Employment TOD requires high intensity office
with a minimum FAR of.75 within ¼ mile of a
transit station, or a minimum FAR of .5 between
¼ and ½ mile of a transit station. The mixed use
TOD zoning uses a combination of both residential and employment TOD requirements.15
Transit Supportive Overlay District: Designed
to encourage transition of transit adjacent property to more transit supportive uses within ½
mile of a transit station. The overlay accommodates both existing development, but also encouraging transition to more compact,
transit-supportive mixture of development by
mandating an additional set of standards for the
designated areas. The district requires minimum
setbacks of 16 feet, maximum parking requirements, minimum 12 du per acre residential densities, and a minimum of .50 FAR for mixed use
or commercial development.16
Pedestrian Overlay District: Created to support
pedestrian traffic in dense urban areas, ideally
fostering economic vitality in designated corridors. Additionally, the district encourages high
quality design, mixed-use development, and
public transit ridership.17
Uptown Mixed Use District: Adopted to encourage uses that will reinforce principles of the
Center City Charlotte Urban Design Plan, such
as high-density residential development, retail,
professional business, hotels, and markets. The
district delineates minimum setbacks of 12 feet
from the back of existing or proposed curb,
minimum sidewalk widths of 6 feet, and 6-foot
wide planting strip along all streets, and firstfloor retail. Additionally, the code outlines requirements that enhance streetscapes with street
trees, lighting, screening, and seating. The code
also requires variation in building facades every
60 feet, and eases parking requirements for
building under 2,500 square feet.18
December 2012
Case Studies
Charlotte
Financial Assistance, Grants, Programs
Transit Station Area Joint Development: Outlines partnership opportunities for financing infrastructure, affordable housing, and land
acquisitions. 19
CATS LYNX Blue Line: 9.6-miles of light rail
service, operating from South Boulevard to Uptown Charlotte. The line has 15 transit stations,
including 7 park-and-rides.24
House Charlotte Program: Provides housing
down payment assistance for homes located in
“transitional areas”, which include some transit-adjacent neighborhoods.20
CATS Bus Service: Operates more than 70
routes, including 12 express routes that have
minimal stops from the suburbs to the uptown
area.25
City Bond Financing: The Charlotte Housing
Authority provides bond financing for multifamily housing development projects.21
Façade Improvement Grant Program: Assists
commercial property owners improve building
frontage appearance, deterring blight and degradation of property, and often used as a revitalization catalyst strategy in communities in
transition.22
Brownfield Grant Program: Funding has been
used to clean up environmental hazards on transit supportive property, additionally funding
sidewalks, landscape improvements, and bicycle lanes.23
CATS light rail transit vehicle (LYNX).
Source: South Corridor Station Area Plans, Introduction
The images above show an example of how commercial properties are improved through the Facade Improvement
Grant Program. The old office/warehouse building (left image) was developed into a new office and retail suites. Some
of this Program’s design guidelines include: bike parking, murals, decorative lighting, improving pedestrian amenities,
adding tree islands, and improving accessibility, among others.
(http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nbs/ed/financialprograms/facade/Pages/Projects.aspx)
December 2012
A-9
Charlotte
Case Studies
Endnotes
1
Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit. (2007, April). Retrieved August 1, 2010, from Reconnecting America:
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/rtpfullreport.pdf
City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County Government. (2001, November). Retrieved September 21, 2011, from Transit Station Area Principles:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/planning/AreaPlanning/TransitStationAreaPlans/Documents/TransitStaionAreaPrinciples.pdf
2
3
General Development Policies. (2003-2007, November). Retrieved October 10, 2011, from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/planning/AreaPlanning/Plans/GDP/Documents/GDP.pdf
4
City Center 2010 Vision Plan. (2000, May 8). Retrieved October 10, 2011, from City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County Government:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/planning/AreaPlanning/UrbanDesign/Documents/2010VisionPlan.pdf
5
Center City 2020 Vision Plan. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2011, from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department:
http://www.centercity2020.info/
6
Centers, Corridors, Wedges Growth Framework. (2010, August 23). Retrieved October 6, 2011, from City of Charlotte, Meckenburg County Government: http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Land%20Use%20Planning/CentersCorridorsWedges/CentersCorridorsWedges(Adopted).pdf
South End/Uptown Rail Corridor Plan Volume 1: Concept Plan. (1998,
http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Land%20Use%20Planning/South_End_Uptown_Rail.pdf
7
June).
Retrieved
October
12,
2011,
from
City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County Government. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2011, from South Corridor Station Area Plans:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/planning/AreaPlanning/TransitStationAreaPlans/SouthCorridor/Pages/home.aspx
8
South End Transit Station Area Plan. (2005, June). Retrieved October 7, 2011, from Charotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/planning/AreaPlanning/TransitStationAreaPlans/SouthCorridor/Documents/SouthEndStationAreaPlanFinal082220
05x.pdf
9
Northlake Area Plan. (2008). Retrieved October 4, 2011, from City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County Government: http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Land%20Use%20Planning/Northlake_Area_Plan/Northlake_Plan.pdf#page=34
10
University City Area Plan. (2007, October 22). Retrieved October 7, 2011, from City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County Government:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/planning/AreaPlanning/Plans/Pages/UniversityCityAreaPlan.aspx
11
12
Elizabeth Area Plan. (2011, May 12). Retrieved October 9, 2011, from City of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County Government:
http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Land%20Use%20Planning/ElizabethAreaPlan/Draft_Plan_Part1.pdf
Brevard Street Land Use & Urban Design Plan. (2008, March 24). Retrieved October 7, 2011, from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/planning/AreaPlanning/Plans/Documents/BrevardStreetPlan.pdf
13
Second Ward Neighborhood Plan. (2002, September). Retrieved October 11, 2011, from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/planning/AreaPlanning/Plans/SecondWardNeighborhoodPlan/Pages/home.aspx
14
15
Part 12: Transit Oriented Development District. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2011, from Charlotte Mecklenburg Zoning Code:
http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Rezoning/TOD-TS-PED/ZoningOrd_TOD.pdf
16
Part 9: Transit Supportive Overlay District. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2011, from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Zoning Code:
http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Rezoning/TOD-TS-PED/ZoningOrd_TS.pdf
Part 8: Pedestrian Overlay District. (2011, July 18). Retrieved October 11, 2011, from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Zoning Administration:
http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/ZoningOrdinance/ZoningOrdCityChapter10.pdf
17
Part 9: Uptown Mixed Use District. (n.d.). Retrieved October 11, 2011, from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Zoning Code: http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/ZoningOrdinance/ZoningOrdCityChapter09.pdf
18
19
Charlotte Region Transit Area Joint Development Principles and Policy Guidelines. (2003, April). Retrieved October 12, 2011, from CharlotteMecklenburg Planning Department: http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/planning/Documents/JDPandPFinal.pdf
House Charlotte Program. (n.d.). Retrieved October 13, 2011, from The City of Charlotte and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership Inc.:
http://www.cmhp.org/Homeownership-Program/HouseCharlotte-Program.cfm
20
21
22
Bond Financing. (n.d.). Retrieved October 13, 2011, from Charlotte Housing Authority: http://www.cha-nc.org/realestate/bond_financing.asp
Facade Improvement Grant. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2011, from Charlotte-Macklenburg Neighborhood & Business Services:
A-10
December 2012
Case Studies
Charlotte
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nbs/ed/financialprograms/facade/Pages/default.aspx
23
Brownfield Grant Program. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2011, from Charlotte-Mecklenburg Neighborhood & Business Services:
http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/nbs/ed/financialprograms/brownfields/Pages/PropertiesProjects.aspx
LYNX Blue Line. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2011, from Charlotte Area Transit System: http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/lynx/Pages/default.aspx
24
CATS Bus Service. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2011, from Charlotte Area Transit System: http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/cats/Bus/Pages/default.aspx
25
December 2012
A-11
Cleveland
Case Studies
Background
Cleveland has struggled with dwindling population, low-density sprawl, urban blight, and the loss
of major manufacturer employers since the 1950’s. This has led to significant real estate decline in
downtown Cleveland. Recently however, major investments associated with a new Bus-Rapid Transit System (BRT) have catalyzed real estate investment back into downtown Cleveland.1
Euclid Corridor Transportation Project/RTA
HealthLine: Construction of 9.2 miles of dedicated bus-rapid transit (BRT) that connects the
Cleveland Clinic, downtown, and University
Circle. The project has initiated major downtown revitalization efforts, as well as infill development along the corridor.2
Citywide Plan: A vision focused on implementing transit-oriented development in the downtown with the new BRT system, emphasizing
connectivity, and accessibility to transit.3
RTA TOD Guidelines: Outlines existing success
and potential for future development around
BRT stations. Additionally, the guidelines state
RTA is to work with community stakeholders
on station and service designs, and encourage
TOD-supportive zoning by offering technical
assistance on developing such regulations, as
well as seek joint development opportunities.4
Transit Waiting Environments: Program designed to encourage ridership through bus stop
and streetscape improvements.5
Midtown Mixed Use District: Transit and pedestrian-oriented development overlay, which encourages a mixture of land uses including
residential, retail, office commercial and light
industrial along the Euclid Corridor Transportation Project.6
Cleveland’s HealthLine connects the city’s main employment centers and has helped to spur new development
along the corridor. By the time the system opened, over
$4.3 billion had been invested or pledged for rehabilitation
of old buildings and major expansions along the route.
Image Source: ITDP, http://dc.streetsblog.org
Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
[...] It seeks to create great neighborhoods by
creating “connections” between people and
places and opportunities. [...] The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan proposes
to achieve its goals of sustainability through
actions such as the following:
Create high-density, mixed-use districts that
promote travel by transit, walking and bicycling,
Amend building and zoning codes and add
incentves to encourage “green building”,
Design safe routes for walking and bicycling,
accessible to all residents,
Reduce use of energy and water in City facilities and vehicles,
Clean contaminated “brownfield” sites and
promote beneficial re-use.
Source: Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
(www.planning.city.cleveland.oh.us)
A-12
December 2012
Case Studies
Cleveland
Pedestrian Retail Overlay District: Zoning overlay used to preserve the pedestrian-oriented character of historic neighborhoods, specifically to minimize conflicts with automobile traffic.7
Live-Work Overlay District: Zoning code designed to foster combinations of residential and employment land uses in designated areas.8
Planned Unit Development Overlay District: Zoning that has greater flexibility with mixed land
uses than traditional zoning requirements.9
Residential Tax Abatement: 15-year, 100% property tax abatement for housing redeveloped through
conversion of non-residential space.10
Tax Increment Financing: Supports public infrastructure projects.11
Storefront Renovation Program: Offers rebates for commercial building rehabilitation and façade
improvements.12
Euclid Corridor/HealthLine BRT: 9.2 miles of dedicated bus-rapid transit roadway with 40 transit
stops.13
The Euclid Corridor project had the support of a key public-private organization; the non-profit
Community Development Corporations (CDC) has development interest representatives from chapters in Downtown, MidTown, and University Circle Areas. The CDCs assist developers with securing tax breaks, facilitates renovation programs, develops TOD-friendly building guidelines, and
is a liaison among property owners, developers, and city and transit officials.
December 2012
A-13
Cleveland
Case Studies
Endnotes
1
Euclid Corridor Transportation Project: RTA HealthLine Fact Sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved August 22, 2011, from Cleveland Regional Transit Authority:
http://www.rtahealthline.com/project-overview.asp
2
3
2020 Citywide Plan. (n.d.). Retrieved July 13, 2010, from City of Cleveland: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/cwp/contents.html
Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines. (2007, February). Retrieved August 22, 2011, from Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority:
http://www.riderta.com/pdf/tod/GCRTA_TOD_Guidelines.pdf
4
5
Transit Waiting Environments. (n.d.). Retrieved August 24, 2011, from Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority: http://www.riderta.com/twe/
Chapter 344, Midtown Mixed-Use District. (2010, December 31). Retrieved August 22, 2011, from City of Cleveland Zoning Code:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/clevelandcodes/cco_part3_344.html
6
Chapter 343 Business Districts: 343.23 Pedestrian Retail Overlay District. (2010, December 31). Retrieved August 23, 2011, from City of Cleveland
Zoning Code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/clevelandcodes/cco_part3_343.html
7
Chapter 346 Live-Work Overlay District. (2010, December 31). Retrieved August 24, 2010, from City of Cleveland Zoning Code:
8
Chapter 334 Planned Unit Development Overlay District. (2010, December 31). Retrieved August 25, 2011, from City of Cleveland Zoning Code:
9
Residential
Tax
Abatement
Program.
(n.d.).
Retrieved
July
8,
2010,
from
City
http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/CommunityDevelopment/TaxAbatement
10
of
Cleveland:
Tax
Increment
Financing/Tax
Abatement.
(n.d.).
Retrieved August
25,
2011,
from
City
of
Cleveland:
http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/portal/page/portal/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/EconomicDevelopment/EconomicDevelopmentTechnology/Tax%20Increment%20Financing
11
Storefront
Rennovation
Program.
(n.d.).
Retrieved
August
25,
2011,
from
City
of
http://www.city.cleveland.oh.us/CityofCleveland/Home/Government/CityAgencies/CommunityDevelopment/StorefrontRenovation
12
Cleveland:
Euclid Corridor Transportation Project: RTA HealthLine Fact Sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved August 22, 2011, from Cleveland Regional Transit Authority:
http://www.rtahealthline.com/project-overview.asp

13
A-14
December 2012
Dallas
Case Studies
Background
The Dallas metropolitan area has experienced tremendous TOD growth in the last few decades.
With population growth and congestion on the rise, a few Dallas suburban communities are looking
for livability alternatives to avoid additional repercussions of these growing concerns. Since Dallas
has relatively low densities, similar to other Sunbelt cities, identifying opportunities for TOD was
challenging from the beginning.1
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) is the primary transportation agency that manages and provides
light rail and bus transportation for the Dallas region. Looking to increase ridership, DART has
conducted major efforts to seek partnerships with the public and private sector to promote TOD
around their stations, mostly in the form of smart, compact multi-family housing and complimentary
commercial development. Despite regional low-intensity development, DART has proved to be a
model for successful suburban TODs, as they have successfully met the challenge of providing
mobility options for sprawling Dallas suburbs.2, 3, 4
Downtown Carrollton TOD Plan: Identifies opportunities and constraints at the parcel level,
outlines automobile roadway alternatives to accommodate transit, and discusses marketability
of TOD in the downtown.5
Carrollton TOD Transportation and Parking
Plan: Outlines strategies to accommodate parking for transit station areas and alternative
routes for affected automobile traffic.6
Plano Eastside Village TOD Plan: Outlines
strategies to connect development to transit access.7
Downtown Carrollton TOD Plan
Opportunities
Major development, new life-style environments, large land parcels west of IH 35E,
attract reinvestment over time.
Constraints
Unusual confluence of three freight lines,
roadway congestion, presence of small lots
in downtown.
Addison Circle’s “Vision 2020”: Created to determine how and where to guide future growth.8
Dallas TOD Strategy: includes urban revitalization strategies for transit-oriented development,
public/private partnerships, critical mass and
land assembly, environmental sustainability,
etc.9
DART TOD Policy: Defines goals, strategies,
and participation roles with transit-oriented development projects around DART stations.10
DART TOD Guidelines: Identifies station area
types, delineating what elements to consider
with station area design including land use, density, built form, civic space, circulation, etc.11
Source: Carrollton Comprehensive Plan Downtown TOD
(www.cityofcarrollton.com)
DART, the T in Fort Worth, and the Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) are enticing commuters to try
transit the week of June 18-23, 2012. North Texas commuters have the opportunity to “swap a gasoline receipt
for a week of free transit”.
Source: www.dart.org
A-15
December 2012
Case Studies
Dallas
City of Dallas TOD TIF Plan: Outlines existing
TIF districts, current private-market conditions,
and anticipated planned private development.18
DART’s role in TOD is laid out explicitly
in the mission statement:
“To build, establish and operate a safe, efficient, and effective transportation system
that, within the DART Service Area, provides
mobility, improves the quality of life, and
stimulates economic development through
the implementation of the DART Service
Plan.”
Voter-Approved Sales Tax Increase: Dallas residents voted for a one cent sales tax increase to
fund DART in 1984.19
FTA $700 million Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA): Will support a 21-mile northeast/southeast connector line. Carrolton will
receive approximately $360 million dollars for
their portion of the connector line. 20
Source: Transit Oriented Development Guidelines: Promoting TOD Around DART Transit Facilities
(www.dart.org)
Carrolton Transit Center Zoning District Ordinance: Outlines development regulations designated for the specified district.12
Addison “Urban Center” Zoning District Ordinance: States permitted land uses for Addison
Circle TOD.13
Mockingbird Station: Land was zoned mixeduse before project was proposed, thus no landuse change was needed for the project.14
Carrollton General Design Standards: Urban
street standards adopted specifically for the
Transit Center Zoning Districts.15
City of North Richland Hills TOD Code: A suburb of Dallas, North Richland Hills has created
a plan that specifies physical design guidelines,
developed to foster compact growth around the
community’s Station Area, emphasizing the importance of pedestrian circulation, mixed-land
uses, and incorporating major principles of
urban design in these areas.16
Ft. Worth Financial Incentives for Preferred
Development Types: The city targeted specific
preferred development types in Ft. Worth, including TODs and urban villages, to be eligible
for various types of financial incentives such as
tax abatements, tax-increment financing, public
improvement districts, private activity bonds,
land acquisition assistance, mixed-use zoning
assistance, and developer approval assistance.21
Sustainable Development Funding Program:
Funded by the North Central Texas Council of
Governments, the program was created to foster
public/private partnerships in developing
mixed-use land uses, rail access, and address regional air quality.22
Public Infrastructure Investments23
DART: 72 miles of light rail transit that serves
the Dallas metropolitan area as well as a fleet
of 700 low-emission buses serving 13 suburban
cities of Dallas. 24
Trinity Railway Express: Offers commuter rail
service between Dallas and Ft. Worth.25
Carrollton Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone:
Created to fund public infrastructure improvements, specifically for TOD projects.17
December 2012
A-16
Dallas
Case Studies
Endnotes
1
Ohland, G. (2004). The Dallas Case Study: Mockingbird Station and Addison Circle. In H. Dittmar, & G. Ohland (Eds.), The New Transit Town:
Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (pp. 156-173). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Transit-Oriented Development Policy. (1989, October 24). Retrieved June 13, 2010, from Dallas Area Rapid Transit: http://www.dart.org/economicdevelopment/DARTTODPolicy2008.pdf
2
3
4
Hutton, C. (2011). Transit-oriented development case study policy analysis: A comparative study of programs and policies across the United States.
University of Florida Graduate Thesis . Gainesville, Florida, United States: University of Florida Press.
Downtown Carrollton Transit-Oriented Development Plan. (2008, February 5). Retrieved June 10, 2010, from City of Carrollton: http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=522
5
Carrollton TOD Transportation and Parking Study. (2007, October 30). Retrieved June 7, 2010, from City of Carrollton TOD: http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=521
6
7
Turner, F. F. (2006, August 16). Downtown Plano: creating a transit village. Retrieved December 5, 2010, from Reconnecting America Center for
Transit Oriented Development: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/display_asset/bestpractice211?docid=206
Ohland, G. (2004). The Dallas Case Study: Mockingbird Station and Addison Circle. In H. Dittmar, & G. Ohland (Eds.), The New Transit Town:
Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (pp. 156-173). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
8
A New Paradigm: Strategies for Revitalizing Dallas’ Distressed Neighborhoods. (2010). Retrieved July 12, 2011, from City of Dallas Economic
Development: Transit-Oriented Development: http://www.dallas-ecodev.org/SiteContent/66/documents/Redevelopment/A-New-Paradigm.pdf
9
Transit-Oriented Development Policy. (1989, October 24). Retrieved June 13, 2010, from Dallas Area Rapid Transit: http://www.dart.org/economicdevelopment/DARTTODPolicy2008.pdf
10
Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines. (2008, August). Retrieved June 13, 2010, from Dallas Area Rapid Transit: http://www.dart.org/economicdevelopment/DARTTODGuidelines2008.pdf
11
Ordinance No. 2965 Transit Center District Regulations. (2005, April 14). Retrieved June 8, 2010, from City of Carrollton Transit-Oriented Development: http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=528
12
Town of Addison Urban Center District Zoning Regulations. (1995). Retrieved July 13, 2011, from Municode:
http://library.municode.com/HTML/10124/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZO_ARTXIXUCURCEDIRE.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZO_ARTXIXUCURCEDIRE_S1PUDI
13
14
Transit Center Zoning District: General Design Standards. (2007, February). Retrieved June 10, 2010, from City of Carrollton: http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=201
15
City of North Richland Hills TOD Code. (2009, August 24). Retrieved July 2011, 12, from City of North Richland Hills: http://www.nrhtx.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=576
16
17
Carrollton Transit Center Zoning District.
http://www.cityofcarrollton.com/index.aspx?page=72
(2005).
Retrieved
January
2,
2011,
from
City
of
Carrollton:
TOD Tax Increment Financing District Project Plan & Reinvestment Zone Financing Plan. (2010, November 10). Retrieved July 12, 2011, from
City of Dallas Economic Development: http://www.dallas-ecodev.org/SiteContent/66/documents/Incentives/TIFs/TOD/TOD_TIF_plan.pdf
18
19
About Us. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2010, from Dallas Area Rapid Transit: http://www.dart.org/about/history.asp
20
Planning and Development Financial Incentives. (2010). Retrieved December 10, 2010, from City of Fort Worth: http://www.fortworthgov.org/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Planning_and_Design/2010CompPlan/23FinancialIncentives_2010.pdf
21
Sustainable Development Funding Program. (n.d.). Retrieved June 6, 2010, from North Central Texas Council of Governments:
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/sustdev/landuse/funding/
22
23
Expansion Projects. (2010). Retrieved December 2010, from Dallas Area Rapid Transit: http://www.dart.org/about/expansion/2030plan.asp
24
DART Expansion Plans. (2011). Retrieved July 13, 2011, from Dallas Area Rapid Transit: http://www.dart.org/about/expansion/otherprojects.asp
25
Trinity Railway Express. (n.d.). Retrieved June 11, 2010, from Dallas Area Rapid Transit: http://www.dart.org/riding/tre.asp
A-17
December 2012
Denver
Case Studies
Background
According to the Texas Transportation Institute, Denver is ranked fifth worst peak-hour congested
city in the U.S. Most peak-hour congestion is the commuting regimen of regional rural community
residents driving to employment centers in Denver.1 The region has taken a transit corridor planning
approach, correlating TOD efforts to complement the unprecedented public transportation investments currently underway.2
In 2005, the Denver Regional Transit District (RTD) joined other local and regional government
bodies in planning for TOD by creating FasTracks, a multi-billion dollar transit expansion plan
consisting of 122 miles of light rail and commuter rail, 18 miles of Bus Rapid Transit, and 60 new
transit stations.3
Major Planning Initiatives
Metro Vision 2020: Regional plan for the Denver metropolitan area, addressing open space
guidelines, multi-modal transportation, urban
center growth patterns, etc.4
Blueprint Denver: Divides city into “areas of
stability” and “areas of change”, demonstrating
where specific types of development should
occur based on existing land use and transportation connections.5
City of Denver Transit-Oriented Development
Strategic Plan: Defines TOD typologies in the
region to develop strategies for station area
planning, parking management, mixed-income
development, funding mechanisms, and planning and zoning policies.6
Denver Region Transportation Plan: Outlines
challenges, visions, and strategies.7
Downtown MultiModal Access Plan: Outlines
current conditions and recommendations for
congestion, parking, existing transit service, and
bicycle and pedestrian circulation.8
Downtown MultiModal Access Plan
Goal #1
The system should form a comprehensive
network that conveniently connects all subareas within Downtown to each other and
to the various surrounding neighborhoods.
Goal #5
The system should complement current and
future high-capacity transit services with
enhancements that benefit both pedestrians
and transit users and address the need for
“seamless connectivity between modes.”
Source: Downtown MultiModal Access Plan
guidelines and standards that promote safe and
efficient pedestrian access to RTD transit stations.10
Urban Centers Element, Metro Vision Growth
and Development Plan: Outlines policies and
guidelines to define Urban Centers.11
Connecting the West Corridor: A TOD implementation plan for the western transit corridor
in the Denver region.12
Zoning Codes, Guidelines, & Regulations
FasTracks Strategic Plan for Transit-Oriented
Development: Outlines the role of FasTracks in
facilitating TOD projects in the Denver Region.9
RTD Transit Access Guidelines: Provides
A-18
Denver Form Based Zoning Code 13
Downtown Streetscape Plan: Guidelines and
standards for downtown streetscapes including
December 2012
Case Studies
Denver
delineating streetscapes into block zones, outlining what types of activity need to be planned
for on various locations along the block. The
plan also includes streetscape sections to illustrate physical streetscape dimensions of different hierarchical scenarios.14
1.4 billion Federal funding dollars to expand
FasTrack rail infrastructure.22
Station Area & Urban Center Planning Funds:
The Denver Regional Council of Governments
(DRCOG) is aiming to locate 50 percent of new
housing units within urban centers as one of
their regional sustainability goals. DRCOG has
committed $3.5 million in funding to “assist
local governments in developing station areas
and urban centers that further Metro Vision
goals while meeting the needs of local communities”.23
In 2004, a voter-approved sales tax increase of
0.4% became the primary funding source of the
FasTracks plan.16
Awarded 10 million from the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
(TIGER) grant.24
Denver TOD Fund: Catalyzed by a $2.2 million
MacArthur Foundation grant, partnerships
emerged between the City of Denver, The
Urban Land Conservancy, and Enterprise Community Partners to foster affordable rental TOD
housing by strategic land acquisition purchases
along transit corridors before development
speculation increases land costs.1718
Federal Transit Administration awarded Denver’s Regional Transportation District 308 million dollars through a Full Funding Grant
Agreement (FFGA) to assist funding the West
Corridor Project.25
T-MU-30 Transit Mixed-Use District: district
designed to promote a rich mix of land uses that
support transit ridership through high intensity
development. 15
Denver Livability Partnership: Awarded $2.9
million dollars from HUD and DOT. 19
Metro Mayors Caucus TOD Fund: $50 million
dollar partnership between the Metro Mayors
Caucus and the Colorado Housing and Finance
Authority to assist funding select affordable
multi-family housing projects along transit corridors. The fund includes $53 million in Private
Activity Bonds.20 21
Denver Livability Partnership: Grants used to
provide affordable housing, and improve access
to multi-modal connectivity along Denver’s
transit corridors.26
FasTracks is the regional 6.9 billion dollar transit plan including 122 miles of heavy and light
rail and 18 miles of Bus Rapid Transit.27
T-Rex project: $1.7 billion dollar project that included both double-tracked light rail and high-
Lane configuration under the T-REX project: widened major interstates to as much as 7-lanes in each direction and
added 19 miles of double-track light rail throughout the metropolitan area. Source: www.en.wikipedia.org
December 2012
A-19
Denver
Case Studies
way roadway/corridor expansion.28
Modernization and massive expansion of the
historic Union Train Station including:29
8 at-grade rail tracks for commuter rail and light
rail,
Regional Bus Hub Facility,
Access to the free 16th Street Mall Shuttle Bus,
Access to the Downtown Circulator,
Variety of designed public spaces.
Union Street Station: Public Private partnership
between RTD and private development company, Union Station Neighborhood Company.30
Union Station is Denver’s historic train station in the LoDo
district. The station and surrouning 19.5 acres will soon
become the hub of FasTracks rail network.
Source: www.en.wikipedia.org
Implementation
Local governments have collaborated with the Regional Transportation District (RTD) to capitalize
development potential along the numerous proposed and existing rail corridors. RTD has planned
and partially implemented FasTracks, a 6.7 billion dollar mass transit system consisting of light
rail, heavy commuter rail, and bus-rapid transit.31 Funding for FasTracks has been a combination
of tax revenue, federal funding, public-private partnerships, and grants. The various funding sources
have been dispersed at intermediate stages of the project; consequently forcing FasTracks to be implemented in phases as funding becomes available. 32
Despite having to postpone construction on a few transit lines and station areas, Denver is currently
laying extensive groundwork for TOD as the Fastracks project moves forward.33 The new formbased zoning code contains mixed-use zoning districts, specifically designed to accommodate
TOD.34
A-20
December 2012
Case Studies
Denver
Endnotes
Texas A&M University Texas Transportation Institute. (2009). 2009 Urban Mobility Report. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from Congestion Data
for Your City: http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/
1
2
3
(2011). Retrieved September 5, 2010, from Fastracks: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_26
Metrovision 2020. (2010). Retrieved November 1,
http://www.drcog.org/documents/2020_Metro_Vision_Plan-1.pdf
4
2010,
from
Denver
Regional
Council
of
Governments:
Blueprint Denver: An intergrated land use and transportation plan. (n.d.). Retrieved July 18, 2010, from City of Denver Community Planning and
Development: http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/646/documents/BlueprintDenver.pdf
5
TOD Strategic Plan. (2010). Retrieved November 1, 2010, from Denver Regional Council of Governments: http://www.drcog.org/documents/TODStrategicPlan_FINAL.pdf
6
Denver Region Transportation Plan. (2008). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from City of Denver Public Works: http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/688/documents/DenverSTP_8-5x11.pdf
7
8
Downtown Multi-modal Access Plan. (2005). Retrieved July 13, 2011, from City of Denver
http://denvergov.org/Portals/515/documents/DMAP%2012%2014%202005%20Final%20Draft%2072dpi.pdf
Policy
and
Planning:
2010 Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Plan. (2010). Retrieved September 5, 2010, from Fastracks: http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/media/uploads/main/TODStrategicPlan-final_090210.pdf
9
10
11
Urban Centers Element. (n.d.). Retrieved July 21, 2011, from
http://drcog.org/documents/MVGDS_AdoptedAug08_Ch5UrbanCenters.pdf
Station
Area
&
Urban
Center
Planning
Funds:
Connecting the West Corridor Communities: An Implementation Strategy for TOD along the Denver Region’s West Corridor. (2011). Retrieved
July 24, 2011, from Center for Transit Oriented Development: http://westcorridor.org/
12
13
Denver
Planning
&
Zoning.
(2010).
Retrieved
http://denvergov.org/zoning/ZoningCodeMap/tabid/432507/Default.aspx
December
28,
2010,
from
City
of
Denver:
Downtown Streetscape Plan. (2004, June 15). Retrieved July 13, 2011, from City of Denver Policy and Planning:
http://denvergov.org/Portals/515/documents/DMAP-StreetscapePlan-June2004.pdf
14
Summary of Former CHapter 59. (n.d.). Retrieved July 19, 2011, from City of Denver Zoning Code: http://www.denvergov.com/cpd/Zoning/DenverZoningCode/FormerChapter59ZoneDistrictDescriptions/tabid/430455/Default.aspx
15
16
17
Cox-Blair, C. (2011, June 2). Program Director, Reconnecting America. (C. Hutton, Interviewer)
Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund. (n.d.). Retrieved June 3, 2010, from Denver Office of Strategic Pratnerships:
http://www.denvergov.org/DenverOfficeofStrategicPartnerships/Partnerships/DenverTransitOrientedDevelopmentFund/tabid/436574/Default.aspx
18
19
The Denver Livability Partnership. (2011). Retrieved July 13, 2011, from City of Denver: The TOD Strategic Plan Update:
http://www.denvergov.org/TOD/TODStrategicImplementation/tabid/438465/Default.aspx
20
Housing and Transit. (n.d.). Retrieved July 20, 2011, from Metro Mayor Caucus: http://www.metromayors.org/Housing.html
Realizing the Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit. (2007, April). Retrieved August 1, 2010, from Reconnecting America:
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/rtpfullreport.pdf
21
22
23
Station Area & Urban Center Planning Funds. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2011, 20, from Denver Regional Council of Governments:
http://www.drcog.org/index.cfm?page=StationAreaUrbanCenterPlanningFunds
24
25
26
The Denver Livability Partnership. (2011). Retrieved July 13, 2011, from City of Denver: The TOD Strategic Plan Update:
http://www.denvergov.org/TOD/TODStrategicImplementation/tabid/438465/Default.aspx
27
28
December 2012
A-21
Denver
Case Studies
29
30
31
32
33
34
Denver
Planning
&
Zoning.
(2010).
Retrieved
http://denvergov.org/zoning/ZoningCodeMap/tabid/432507/Default.aspx
A-22
December
28,
2010,
from
City
of
Denver:
December 2012
Los Angeles
Case Studies
Background
For decades, Los Angeles has been investing in public transit to mitigate severe traffic congestion,
poor air quality, and automotive greenhouse gas emissions. Like most U.S. cities, Los Angeles experienced a mass decentralization movement that catalyzed a significant amount of sprawling suburban development, causing the worst traffic congestion levels in the country.
Since much of the suburban areas are built out already, the city has an additional set of challenges
when trying to link housing to public transit investments. Therefore, instead of specifically focusing
on new development around transit, city officials have concentrated efforts on creating transit-oriented districts instead. The concept of transit-oriented districts is relatively similar to transit-oriented
development (TOD), but strives to capitalize on transit investments by connecting to existing neighborhoods and communities.1
Downtown Design Guide: Outlines physical design and planning guidelines that are transitsupportive, as the entire downtown is within
walking distance to transit stations and service.2
21st Century City Plan: Proposes strategies and
plans for fostering pedestrian and transit connectivity through physical design enhancements.3
Walkability Checklist: Pedestrian environmental
strategies designed to encourage good urban
form and walkability through aesthetic improvements in public right-of-ways and on private property. 4
Maximizing Mobility in Los Angeles: Outlining
strategies to encourage transportation options
other than personal transportation, including
transit, bicycles, car sharing, short-term car
rental, and carpooling. 5
LA Street Classification and Benchmarking System: Discusses pedestrian, multi-modal street,
transportation, and bicycle policies.6
General Plan Framework Land Use Goals, Objectives, & Policies: Issue One emphasizes distribution of land uses and outlines goals to
A-23
reduce VMTs, congestion, and air pollution
through policies that encourage compact, high
intensity development in transit corridors and
station areas. The Framework Element establishes new land use categories with recommended intensities:
Neighborhood District: 15,000 to 20,000 persons with a 1.5 maximum FAR, and 2-story
building height limit;
Community Center: 25,000 to 100,000 persons with 1.5 to 3.0 FAR, and have building
heights ranging from 2-to-6 stories;
Regional Center: 250,000 to 500,000 persons
with 1.5 to 6.0 FAR, and 6-to-20-story building heights;
Downtown Center: highest density center in
region, and serves as a hub for regional transit;
Mixed-Use Boulevards: connect districts to
other districts and centers, have 1.5 to 4.0
FAR, and characterized by 1-to-2-story commercial, up to 3-to-6-story mixed use buildings in between centers.
ssue Two outlines uses, density, and character
goals for land use around transit station areas.7 8
New Community Plan Program: Los Angeles
Planning City Planning Department is studying
land use plans for 35 communities in the LA
December 2012
Case Studies
Los Angeles
Metro area to foster sustainable growth and development that suits the unique character of
each community. 9
pedestrian amenities floor area bonus, targeted
use floor area bonus, and reduced parking requirements. 13
Vermont/Western Transit Oriented District Specific Plan: Outlines incentives for district including child care facility requirements, joint
living and working quarters, park space, and
mixed-uses.14
Transit Oriented District Ordinance: Outlines
allowable property uses, building heights, and
densities. 15
This diagram shows the different zones of development
that the Downtown Design Guide standards address.
Source: www.urbandesignla.com
Commercial Citywide Design Guidelines: Outlines building orientation, site planning, building character and materials, parking,
landscaping, and streetscape urban design
guidelines. 10
Residential Citywide Design Guidelines: Outlines urban form types that foster neighborhood
connectivity, emphasizing views and spatial relationships from a pedestrian’s view shed. 11
Creating Successful Transit-Oriented Districts
in Los Angeles: A citywide toolkit for achieving
regional TOD with existing and future planned
transit.
Metro Joint Development Program: Facilitates
public-private partnerships to encourage suitable transit oriented development around Metro
transit stations. 12
Financial Assistance, Grants, Programs
Housing Trust Fund: Creates affordable rental
housing for low income households by offering
low interest loans for construction.17
Metro TOD Planning Grants: Funding to foster
transit-supportive language to be adopted into
general plans, zoning, and ordinances. 18
Measure R: Voter-approved half cent sales tax
increase that finances new transportation projects, committing a projected $40 billion in
transportation upgrades.19
30/10 Initiative: Ambitious funding proposal
that accelerates construction of 12 expansion
projects in ten years instead of thirty.20
Metro Rail Transit Service: Began service in
1990, and currently operates 79.1 miles of rail
service.21
Avenue 57 Transit Oriented District Specific
Plan: Contains innovative development incentives such as joint living and work quarters,
December 2012
Atwater District Pedestrian Oriented District:
Outlines façade, building setbacks, parking, and
pedestrian access requirements. 16
Metro Bus Commuter Service: Operates 183
bus routes, with 15,967 bus stops.22
A-24
Los Angeles
Case Studies
Endnotes
1
Creating Successful Transit-Oriented Districts in Los Angeles: A Citywide Toolkit for Achieving Regional Goals. (2010, February). Retrieved
August 2010, from Reconnecting America: http://latod.reconnectingamerica.org/welcome
City of Los Angeles Downtown Design Guide. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2011, from City of Los Angeles Urban Design Studio: http://urbandesignla.com/UD_pdf/Downtown_Design_Guide.pdf
2
21st Century City Plan: Greening of Century City. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2011, from City of Los Angeles Urban Design Studio: http://urbandesignla.com/greening.htm
3
Walkability Checklist. (2008, November). Retrieved October 18, 2011, from City of Los Angeles Urban Design Studio:
http://urbandesignla.com/walkability/LA_Walkability_Checklist.pdf
4
Maximizing Mobility in Los Angeles: First and Last Mile Strategies. (2009, December). Retrieved October 18, 2011, from Southern California
Association of Governments:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/PolicyInitiatives/Mobility%20and%20Transportation/Maximizing%20Mobility%20Final%20Report.pdf
5
LA Street Classification and Benchmarking System. (2010, October). Retrieved October 19, 2011, from City of Los Angeles Planning Department:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/PolicyInitiatives/Mobility%20and%20Transportation/LA%20Street%20Classification%20Final%20Report%20October%202010.pdf
6
7
Chapter 3 Land Use Goals, Objectives, and Policies Issue One: Distribution of Land Use. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2011, from City of Los
Angeles General Plan Framework: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/03/031.htm
Chapter 3 Land Use Goals, Objectives, and Policies. Issue Two: Uses, Density, and Character. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2011, from City of
Los Angeles General Plan Framework Element: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/cwd/framwk/chapters/03/03210.htm
8
New Community Plan Program. (2010). Retrieved October 20, 2011, from City of Los Angeles Department of City Planning: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/
9
10
Commercial Citywide Design Guidelines: Pedestrian-Oriented/Commercial & Mixed-Use Projects. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2011, from City
of Los Angeles Planning Department:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/PolicyInitiatives/Urban%20Design/Commercial%20Design%20Guidelines%20High%20Res%206_23_2011.pdf
Residential Citywide Design Guidelines: Multi-Family Residential & Commercial Mixed-Use Projects. (n.d.). Retrieved October 20, 2011, from
City of Los Angeles Planning Department:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/PolicyInitiatives/Urban%20Design/ResidentialDesignGuidelinesHighRes_6_23_2011.pdf
11
Los Angeles Metro Joint Development Policies. (2009, October). Retrieved
http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/joint_development/images/JDP_polices-procedures.pdf
12
October
20,
2011,
from
Metro:
Avenue 57 Transit Oriented District. (2002, August 18). Retrieved October 13, 2011, from City of Los Angeles Planning Department: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/pdf/ave57tod.pdf
13
14
Vermont/Western Transit Oriented District Specific Plan. (2001, March 1). Retrieved October 18, 2011, from The City of Los Angeles Planning
Department: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/specplan/pdf/ave57tod.pdf
City of Los Angeles Transit Oriented Districts. (2005). Retrieved October 14,
http://search.municode.com/html/16274/_DATA/TITLE22/Chapter_22_44_SUPPLEMENTAL_DIS.html#74
15
2011,
from
Municode:
16
Atwater Village Pedestrian Oriented District. (2001, January 14). Retrieved October 21, 2011, from City of Los Angeles Planning Department:
http://cityplanning.lacity.org/complan/othrplan/pdf/atwatertxt.pdf
Affordable Housing Trust Fund. (2001). Retrieved October 21, 2011, from City of Los Angeles Housing Department: http://lahd.lacity.org/lahdinternet/AffordableHousingTrustFund/tabid/126/language/en-US/Default.aspx
17
2012 Transit Oriented Development Planning Grants. (2011). Retrieved October 22, 2011, from Los Angeles Metro: http://www.metro.net/projects/2012-tod/
18
19
Measure R. (2009). Retrieved October 26, 2011, from Los Angeles Metro: http://www.metro.net/projects/measurer/
Metro’s 30/10 Initiative. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2011, from City of Los Angeles Metro: http://www.metro.net/projects_studies/30-10_highway/images/10-2226_ntc_3010_initiative_factsheet_printshop%202.pdf
20
21
Facts at a Glance. (2011). Retrieved October 25, 2011, from Los Angeles Metro: http://www.metro.net/news/pages/facts-glance/#P121_1490
22
Facts at a Glance. (2011). Retrieved October 25, 2011, from Los Angeles Metro: http://www.metro.net/news/pages/facts-glance/#P121_1490
A-25
December 2012
New Jersey
Case Studies
Background
New Jersey has experienced a recent surge of community redevelopment in the form of TOD. This
is primarily due to an increased demand for affordable professional housing near transit lines with
reasonable commute times to New York City. For example, professionals commuting from Hoboken, New Jersey, that have chosen not to live, but still work in Manhattan, save around $800 dollars
a month in comparable housing costs. This market dynamic demand continues the further one lives
from the city, prompting development of transit villages along New Jersey transit corridors.
Given the need for affordable housing accessible to New York City, progressive state led policies
and local political leadership created a multitude of initiatives and programs that incentivize TOD.
Major reinvestments made in the mid 1990s to transit infrastructure, specifically adding additional
stations and routes to shorten commute times, catalyzed TOD initiatives to address demand.1
Smart Growth Scorecard: To help identify projects that are the most smart-growth oriented by
how many modes of transit the development is
accessible by, other than the automobile.2
Smart Commute Initiative: Financially assists
homebuyers purchasing homes located near
transit.5
New Jersey Office of Smart Growth: Provides
technical planning assistance for TOD projects6
The Transit Village Task Force: Representatives
from multiple agencies that frequently meet,
monitor, and asses success of the program to determine where improvements can be made.3
Transit-Oriented Development Opportunities in
Somerset County, New Jersey: Prepared for
Somerset County Planning Board to determine
where TOD is most suitable in the county.7
NJ TRANSIT’s “Planning for Transit-Friendly
Land Use”: Document outlines ideal urban design and site planning principles for pedestrians,
bicycles, and commuter-train access.4
Tri-State Transportation Campaign: Non-profit
program dedicated to reducing automobile dependency, and creating livable communities in
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.8
New Jersey Smart Growth Scorecard, Section V. The Scorecard consists of seven sections, one for each Smart Growth
Criterion. By scoring the project according to each measurement, development proposals can be evaluated.
(www.epa.gov)
A-26
December 2012
Case Studies
New Jersey
City of Hoboken Reexamination Report: Recommends and details updated policies and zoning for transit-supportive design and
redevelopment.9
Mobility and Community Form: NJDOT funded
a study of how transportation and land use are
linked, specifically concentrating on urban
form.10
Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ)
Act funding was appropriated for transit village
initiatives.17
The 1998 Brownfields and Contaminated Site
Remediation Act: Provides funding for site
cleanups and land remediation, and gives provisional power for streamlining redevelopment
review processes for restored sites. This legislation revitalized traditional rail towns blanketed with noxious industrial lands,
transforming them into small scale TOD districts that offer affordable workforce housing
for NYC commuters.18
Mobility and Community Form
Seven Patterns
Circulation
Shopping Streets
Parking
Transit Stops
Neighborhoods
Public Places
Natural Environment
Source: Mobility and Community Form
Transit Oriented Development Plan, Linden
Station Area: Addresses land use, station design
guidelines, rehabilitation, and future land uses
for TOD.11
South Orange, NJ Circulation Plan: Addresses
bicycle and pedestrian improvements within a
designated transit village.12
Transit Village Development District13
North Brunswick Transit-Oriented Mixed Use
Development Overlay14
Transit Village Grant Program: Provides funding for bicycle infrastructure, transit station improvements, traffic calming construction, and
way-finding that are located within a half mile
of a transit station.15
December 2012
Urban Transit Hub Tax Credit: Tax incentive
designed to entice developers to make investments around heavy rail stations.16
Smart Moves for Business Program: NJDOT
provides incentives for participating companies
to set up increased commuter options in exchange for tax credits and program funding.19
The New Jersey Transit Village Initiative Program: Provides grants and technical assistance
to municipalities planning and designing TOD.
The program gives priority access to state funding for urban renewal and transportation improvements, additionally provides coordinated
technical assistance from ten state agencies. As
of 2007, there are 17 transit villages in New Jersey.20 *Governor Christie removed Transit Villages funding in the spending plan for 2012
fiscal year.21
Transportation and Community and System
Preservation Pilot Program: A grant that was
awarded to New Jersey Transit in the amount of
$810,000 to assist 11 municipalities to develop
stronger connections between the communities
and station areas.22
A-27
New Jersey
Case Studies
Ferry-oriented development docking infrastructure and stations23
NJ Transit Newark Penn Station Improvement
Program: $40 million in upgrades to infrastructure, site access, and historic preservation and
building renovation.24
New Jersey Transit is the third largest commuter
rail, bus, and light rail public transportation
service in the country with over 236 bus routes
and 600 miles of rail transportation.25
Newark Penn Station
(www.hallgc.com)
Use condemnation powers to assemble TOD-friendly land for equity agreements instead of collecting property taxes.26
The Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program grant also included
funds to leverage private capital around station areas.27
The city of Rahway advanced $1.5 million for a TOD project, waiving property-tax payments for
10 years in return for 3% of the real-estate proceeds.28
Parking
In 2003, $13 million from New Jersey Transit’s capital fund is designated for the design and construction of parking spaces (thirteen times the entire annual allocation for transit villages).29
Rahway zoning overlay creates maximum parking standards for 1.2 spaces per residential unit.30
Challenges
Major challenges to implementing TOD are land assembly, financial complexity, not enough “seasoned” TOD developers, and public opposition.31
A-28
December 2012
Case Studies
New Jersey
Endnotes
1
New Jersey Smart Growth Scorecard. (2002). Retrieved July 2010, from Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/dced/scorecards/NJFuturenewdevcard.pdf
2
Renne, J. L., & Wells, J. S. (2004). Emerging European-style planning in the USA: Transit-oriented development. World Transport Policy &
Practice , 12-24.
3
Transit Friendly Land Use. (2010). Retrieved July 9, 2010, from NJ Transit: http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=CorpInfoTo
4, 5
6
Transit-Oriented Development Opportunities in Somerset County, New Jersey. (2005, May). Retrieved June 30, 2011, from New York State Metropolitian Planning Organizations: http://www.nysmpos.org/sci/pdf/Somerset%20County%20TOD%20Report_final.pdf
7
8
About the Campaign. (2011). Retrieved June 28, 2011, from Tri-State Transportation Campaign: http://www.tstc.org/
City of Hoboken Reexamination Report. (2010). Retrieved
http://hobokennj.org/docs/communitydev/Hoboken-Reex-2010-Final.pdf
9
June
24,
2011,
from
City
of
Hoboken,
NJ:
10
Mobility and Communities: A Guide to Linking Transportation and Land Use in the Municipal Master Plan. (2006, October). Retrieved June 30,
2011, from New Jersey Department of Transportation: http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/community/mobility/pdf/guidefull.pdf
Transit Oriented Development Plan: Linden Station Area. (2008, June). Retrieved June 30, 2011, from City of Linden, New Jersey: http://www.linden-nj.org/Transit_Village_Plan_6-4-08.pdf
11
South Orange Smart Growth Plan: Circulation Element. (2007, May). Retrieved July 5, 2011, from City of South Orange, New Jersey: http://southorange.org/development/SmartGrowthPlan6-12/CirculationOpenSpaceandCapitalImprovements.pdf
12
13
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use Development Overlay Zoning. (2010, April 30). Retrieved June 28, 2011, from North Brunswick Online:
http://www.northbrunswickonline.com/TOD/TOD_Ord.pdf
14
15
Transit Village Grant Program Handbook. (2010, January). Retrieved June 25, 2011, from New Jersey Department of Transportation:
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/business/localaid/documents/TransitVillageGrantProgramHandbook.pdf
16
17, 18
19
Renne, J. L. (2008). Smart growth and transit oriented development at the state level: Lessons from California, New Jersey, and Western Austrailia.
Journal of Public Transportation , 11, p. 77-108.
20
Governor removes funding for Transit Villages. (2011, July 5). Retrieved July 2011, 6, from New Jersey Future:
http://www.njfuture.org/2011/07/05/governor-eliminates-transit-villages/
21
Transit Cooperative Research Program. (2002). Transit-Oriented Development and Joint Development in the United States: A Literature Review.
Washington DC: Transportation Research Board.
22
23
24
Newark Penn Station Improvements. (2011). Retrieved from NJ Transit Capital Projects: http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=CapProjectDetailsTo&CapitalProjectId=15
25
About Us. (2011). Retrieved May 11, 2011, from New Jersey Transit: http://www.njtransit.com/rg/rg_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=RailSafetyTo
26
27
28, 29, 30
Eliminating Barriers to Transit-Oriented Development. (2010, March). Retrieved July 10, 2010, from New Jersey Transportation Reports:
http://www.nj.gov/transportation/refdata/research/reports/FHWA-NJ-2010-002.pdf
31
December 2012
A-29
Portland
Case Studies
Background
Portland has had a longstanding ideology that development should occur around transit. However,
like the other cities in this study, Portland experienced downtown decline and degradation in the
1950s, which consisted mostly of railroad yards and industrial land uses located along the
Willamette River.1 The city recognized the need for concerted planning efforts to foster downtown
reinvestment. Portland’s transit authority, TriMet, and Portland’s urban renewal agency, Metro (the
regional government), and the Portland Development Commission (PDC) have fostered unparalleled smart growth with progressive policies and programs, implementing many TOD projects
throughout the region.2 3
Major Planning Initiatives
Region 2040: The 2040 Growth Management
Strategy (build up, not out) features a tight
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), focusing
growth in existing built-up areas and requiring
local governments to limit parking and adopt
zoning and comprehensive plan changes that are
consistent with the growth management strategy.4
Urban Growth Boundary: Ensures a 20-year
land supply inside the boundary, and preserves
rural areas outside the UGB. The main objectives are to foster compact urban form, improve
efficiency of public infrastructure, and preserve
agricultural and natural lands outside the
boundary.5
Oregon Land Use Planning Program: In 1973,
Senate Bill 100 passed, requiring statewide land
use planning through partnerships between the
state, local governments, and counties.6
Transportation Planning Rule: Statewide initiative requiring metro areas to set targets, and
adopt actions to reduce automobile dependence.
Requires local governments to implement landuse changes to promote pedestrian-friendly,
compact, mixed-use development.7
Big Look Task Force: Created to study Oregon’s
land use planning system, ensuring a good
statewide planning process.8
Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan: Requires
ODOT to include bike lanes and pedestrian
walkways when roadways are constructed.9
Regional Framework Plan: An update to 2040
Growth Concept Plan, analyzing housing, transportation, and open space.10
The Nature of 2040: The Region’s 50-year Plan for
Managing Growth
Source: http://library.oregonmetro.gov
A-30
December 2012
Case Studies
Portland
Community Investment Strategy: Outlines development and preservation initiatives for the
state, and financing recommendations.11
“We must recognize that we are on the cusp
of a new wave of transportation policy. The
infrastructure challenge of President Eisenhower’s 1950s was to build out our nation
and connect within…in the 1980s and
1990s it was to modernize the program and
better connect roads, transit, rail, air and
other modes. Today, the challenge is to take
transportation out of its box in order to ensure the health, vitality and sustainability of
our metropolitan areas.”
Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Plan:
Comprehensive outline of investments made towards fostering TOD in the region, determining
what strategies may be more effective at future
efforts with TOD. 12
Design Central City: An update to the 1988
Downtown Plan, emphasizing an urban design
approach to the planning, analysis, and implementation components to the plan.13
North Pearl District Plan: Plan focuses using
the following concepts to guide planning and
development for the district: complete community concept, sustainable community concept,
urban design & development concept, and a
multi-modal transportation concept.14
Portland LRT Station Area Best Practices:
Evaluates station area successes and failures to
determine what measures should be taken with
future LRT TOD planning.15
2008-2013 Strategic Plan: Presents strategies
that could be used to decrease regional vehicles
miles traveled and increase alternative transportation commute modes.16
Transit Investment Plan: The TRIMET report
outlines focused investments in regional public
transit modes.17
2035 Regional Transportation Plan: Comprehensive report that outlines strategies for land
use-transportation visions, multi-modal transportation investments, funding mechanisms,
congestion mechanisms, and physical design
concepts related to transportation infrastructure
networks.18
December 2012
Source: Robert Puentes, Brookings Institution, A Bridge to
Somewhere: Rethinking American Transportation for the
21st Century (quoted on 2035 Regional Transportation
Plan)
Planning & Designing for Transit: TRIMET’s
report outlines TOD planning and design tools
such as design guidelines and zoning for pedestrian districts, supportive parking and development concepts, and transit-supportive zoning
and implementation tools.19
Westside Station-Area Planning: TriMet, Metro,
and ODOT funded preparation and adoption of
plans by local governments for the area within
½ mile of LRT stations. Plans included minimum densities, parking maximums, a design
overlay for building orientation to transit, and
prohibition of automobile-oriented uses.20
Planning for New Urban Areas Ordinance: Requires a mixture of housing types to be located
within the urban growth boundary.21
Light Rail Transit Station Overlay Zoning: Encourages mixed-use, residential, and commercial in areas designated as light rail transit
station zones.22
Hillsboro Station Community Planning Areas:
Ordinance established to foster transit-supportive development near light rail stations.23
A-31
Portland
Case Studies
Urban Growth Management Functional Plan:
Metro document that outlines regulatory policies for local governments including requirements for minimum density standards, prohibits
restricting additional units to single family
structures, minimum parking requirements for
various types of development, and affordable
housing requirements.24
Metro TOD Program: Provide incentives such
as planning grants and technical assistance to
achieve desired land development conditions
for TOD. The program works directly with developers to assist in overcoming common obstacles associated with implementing TOD by
providing direct financial assistance to ensure
TOD projects “pencil out”. 25 26
Metro TOD Program financing as reported in their Annual
Report for 2009-2010.
Source: www.library.oregonmetro.gov
TOD Capital Improvement Grant: Funding for
real-estate enhancements in Metro-designated
TOD station areas. Some of the major funding sources for this grant are derived from The Surface
Transportation Program and The Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement funds.27
The Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program: (MTIP) funds the TOD Program that has
a biannual budget of 2.5 million dollars. Those funds are primarily used for site acquisition and
have become valuable bargaining tools when negotiating project terms with developers.28
Transportation & Growth Management Program: Statewide initiative that promotes high-quality
community planning by providing local government grants, Quick Response Teams, and Smart
Development Code Assistance. Over $6.7 million in grants from federal transportation funds were
provided between 1993-2002. 29
TOD Property Tax Exemption Abatement Program: Statewide initiative that allows eligible projects
to be exempt from residential property taxation for up to 10 years. The cities of Portland and Gresham have utilized this program.30
Vertical Housing Program: Encourages mixed-use commercial/residential developments in areas
designated by communities through partial property tax exemption. Allows a maximum property
tax exemption of 80 percent over 10 years.31
TOD Implementation Program: Uses a combination of local and federal transportation funds to
spur the construction of TOD. The level of involvement in 12 TODs has ranged from $50,000 to
$2 million. The primary use of funds has been for site acquisition and TOD easements.32
A-32
December 2012
Case Studies
Portland
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: $38
million is available for regional transportation
projects. Some of the funds will go towards the
MTIP program.33
Portland Mall: In 1978, Portland closed two
major downtown thoroughfares to automobiles,
allowing only public transportation for 22
blocks in the heart of the dense urban city center. In 1994, the mall extended seven blocks
north to connect to the multi-modal transit center at Union Station. Today, the Portland Mall is
internationally recognized as a prominent case
study of how transit can revitalize an urban center.34
Portland Transit Mall’s southbound street, 5th Avenue at
Morrison Street on June 2009. Since Mid-2009, MAX
Light Rail and buses share the thoroughfares of the Portland Mall.
Image Source: www.wikipedia.org
TriMet: Operates regional bus, light rail, and
paratransit services. The bus system operates
approximately 649 vehicles on 79 routes, with
7,000 bus stops. The “Max” light rail system
runs 52 miles of service, with 85 stations.35
Portland Streetcar: Began service in 2001, providing an “inner city circulator” component to
the Transit Mall, as well as surrounding urban
neighborhoods. The streetcar lines share roadway lanes with automobiles for most of its
routes, and has been a major catalyst for infill
development.36
December 2012
The Streetcar Lofts are one of the most recognized residences in Portland. Portland’s Pearl District, a former
abandoned industrial area, has been transformed into a
vibrant mixed-use neighborhood that promotes the use of
transit.
Image Source: Reconnecting America
A-33
Portland
Case Studies
Endnotes
1
2
Arrington, G. (2009). Portland’s TOD evolution: from planning to lifestyle. In C. Curtis, J. L. Renne, & L. Bertolini, Transit oriented development:
making it happen (pp. p. 109-124). Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
3
Hutton, C. (2011). Transit-oriented development case study policy analysis: A comparative study of programs and policies across the United States.
University of Florida Graduate Thesis . Gainesville, Florida, United States: University of Florida Press.
4
Regional
Vision:
2040
Growth
Concept.
(n.d.).
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=29882
5
Retrieved
July
23,
2011,
from
Oregon
Metro:
Urban Growth Boundary. (n.d.). Retrieved July 25, 2011, from Oregon Metro: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=277
Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines. (2010, March 12). Retrieved July 27, 2011, from State of Oregon:
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/docs/goals/compilation_of_statewide_planning_goals.pdf
6
7
Transportation
Planning
Rule.
(1991).
Retrieved
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Rulemaking_TPR_2011.shtml#Introduction
8
July
26,
2011,
from
State
of
Oregon:
Big Look Task Force. (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2011, from 1000 Friends of Orgeon: http://www.friends.org/issues/big_look_new
Oregon
Bicycle
and
Pedestrian
Plan.
(1995).
Retrieved
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/BIKEPED/docs/or_bicycle_ped_plan.pdf
9
Regional
Framework
Plan.
(2011).
Retrieved
http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//rfp.00_cover.toc.intro_011311.pdf
July
July
10
25,
2011,
24,
from
2011,
State
from
of
Oregon:
Orgeon
Metro:
Community Investment Strategy: Building a sustainable, prosperous and equitable region. (2010, August 10). Retrieved July 25, 2011, from
Oregon Metro: http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//aug_2010_metro_coo_recommendations.pdf
11
Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Plan.
http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//tod_final_report.pdf
12
(2011).
Retrieved
July
18,
2011,
from
Orgeon
Metro
TOD
Program:
Design Central City: Volume 1. (2010, July). Retrieved August 12, 2011, from City of Portland Planning and Sustainability: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=53287&a=313708
13
North Pearl District Plan. (2008, December 5). Retrieved August 16, 2011, from City of Portland Bureau of Planning:
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?a=268304&c=34248
14
Portland LRT 10 Station Area Best Practices, Assessments, and Recommendations. (2007, August 25). Retrieved from City of Portland Bureau
of Planning and Sustainability: http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?a=171002&c=47098
15
2008-2013 Strategic Plan . (2008, August). Retrieved August 15, 2011, from Metro: http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files/rto_strategicplan_6-1008.pdf
16
17
Transit Investment Plan. (2011). Retrieved August 18, 2011, from TRIMET: http://trimet.org/tip/index.htm
2035 Regional Transportation Plan. (2010, June). Retrieved August 16, 2011, from Metro: http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//2035_rtp_final_document_as_submitted_to_dlcd_usdot_web.pdf
18
19
Planning & Designing for Transit. (1993, March). Retrieved August 18, 2011, from Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon
(TRIMET): http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/planning&designfortransit.pdf
20
Title 11: Planning for New Urban Areas. (2011, January 13). Retrieved
http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//metro_ordinance_11-1252a_adopted_011311.pdf
21
July
25,
2011,
from
Oregon
Metro:
22
Chapter 33.450 Light Rail Transit Zone. (2004, March 5). Retrieved August 15, 2011, from City od Portland Planning and Zoning Overlay
Districts: http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?&a=53353
Section 136: Station Community Planning Areas. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2011, from Hillsboro Zoning Ordinance No. 1945: http://www.ci.hillsboro.or.us/Planning/HTMLzoneVOL2/Vol2Section136-I-III.aspx
23
Urban
Growth
Functional
Plan.
(1996).
http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//chap307_cleanup_02.eff_011311.pdf
24
Retrieved
August
18,
2011,
from
Metro:
25
Transit-Oriented Development Stratagic Plan/Metro TOD Program. (2011). Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Center for Transit-Oriented Development: http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/2011-portland-tod-final-web.pdf
26
Yake, C. (2011, November). Metro TOD Program. (C. Hutton, Interviewer)
A-34
December 2012
Case Studies
Portland
Transit-Oriented Development Strategic Plan.
http://library.oregonmetro.gov/files//tod_final_report.pdf
27
(2011).
Metropolitan
Transportation
Improvement
Program.
28
Transportation and Growth Management
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/index.shtml
29
Program.
Retrieved
July
(2010-2013).
(n.d.).
Retrieved
18,
2011,
from
Retrieved
July
Orgeon
August
28,
2011,
17,
from
Metro
2011,
State
TOD
Program:
from
Metro:
of
Oregon:
30
Chapter 3.103 Property Tax Exemption for New Transit Supportive Residential or Mixed-Use Development. (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2011,
from City of Portland Auditor’s Office: http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28466
Vertical Housing Program. (2005, November). Retrieved August 14, 2011, from State of Oregon Housing and Community Services: http://www.oregon.gov/OHCS/HFS_Vertical_Housing_Program.shtml
31
Anderson, A., & Forbes, S. (2011, February). 2010 Inventory of TOD Programs: A National Review of State, Regional, and Local Programs that
Fund Transit-Oriented Development Plans and Projects. Retrieved February 7, 2011, from Reconnecting America:
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/2010_inventory_of_tod_programs.pdf
32
33
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding for regional transportation projects. (n.d.). Retrieved August 17, 2011, from Metro:
34
History of the Portland Mall. (n.d.). Retrieved August 22, 2011, from TriMet: http://trimet.org/about/history/portlandmall.htm
Livable Portland: Land Use and Transportation Initiatives. (2010, November). Retrieved August 22, 2011, from TriMet: http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/Livable-Portland.pdf
35
Livable Portland: Land Use and Transportation Initiatives. (2010, November). Retrieved August 22, 2011, from TriMet: http://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/Livable-Portland.pdf
36
December 2012
A-35
San Francisco
Case Studies
Background
Plagued with increasing traffic congestion, population, sprawling development, and unaffordable
housing; California has embraced TOD as a major smart growth mitigation tool. California’s has
invested $14 billion in public transportation in the last 25 years, implementing light rail, heavy rail,
commuter rail, and bus rapid transit systems all over the state.1 With over forty transit agencies
and authorities in the region, many progressive local government entities are striving to fuse connectivity between housing, employment, and the widely accessible transit service. Since the San
Francisco region has some of the densest housing development in the country, successful TOD has
become a reality for some Bay Area neighborhoods, catalyzing additional TOD interest and initiatives in the region. 2
Smart Growth Initiative: In 2000, ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) facilitated
a visioning process with other Bay Area governmental entities, including the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC), to foster
sustainable communities in the Bay Area. That
planning initiative led to policies focused on promoting a better housing balance, open space
preservation, and focusing land development in
existing urban areas in close proximity to transit.3
BART’s Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines: Outlines physical design guidelines for
station areas to inform planners, local governments, elected officials, developers, and citizens
about physical design criteria conducive to
TOD, specifically around BART transit stations.
The guidelines also suggest principles for transit
station and parking design, prioritizing safety to
bicyclists and pedestrians.4
BART Transit-Oriented Development Policy:
Includes goals and land use strategies to foster
TOD around BART stations.5
San Mateo Transit-Oriented Development Opportunity Study: A comprehensive evaluation of
TOD opportunities and constraints, including
action plans for future TOD that would be supported by both Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
and Caltrain transit systems.6
A-36
BART’s Access Guidelines prioritize the different modes
of access as illustrated above, with pedestrians as the
most important and parking as the least.
Source: www.bart.gov
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) Resolution 3434 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Policy for Regional Transit
Expansion Projects: Policy that outlines criteria
needed for transit expansion funding through
the requirement of minimum “thresholds” that
are most likely to foster vibrant TOD.
December 2012
Case Studies
San Francisco
The three key threshold requirements are:7
1. Corridor-level thresholds require minimum development intensities around stations
along new corridors,
2. Local station area plans that address circulation, pedestrian improvements, accessibility, and future land use,
3. Working groups which include city and
county planning staff, stakeholders, transit
agencies, and other key project personnel to
outline project timelines, responsibilities, and
the overall project development process.
Pleasant Hill Specific Plan: Designates allowable uses by parcel, and includes specific implementation strategies for urban design,
parking, and site development.11
Hayward/BART Form-Based Code: Formbased code that includes a TOD overlay district
and FOCUS smart growth and development
principles.12
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)
Program: Provides planning and capital grant
funding to projects that have strong land use and
transportation implications, “to strengthen the
link between transportation, community goals,
and land use”. The program utilizes community-based input to develop transportation projects that strived to revitalize urban
neighborhoods, commercial districts, downtown cores, as well as foster transit neighborhood corridors.8
Bay Area Vision Project/FOCUS Strategy: The
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
developed a regional development and conservation strategy through fostering compact land
use patterns in the Bay Area. FOCUS provides
capital funding to local governments that identify Priority Development Areas, delineating
where future infill and TOD should be located.9
Station Area Planning Manual: MTC created a
manual for local governments and transit agencies that concentrates on station-area place making, complementing the MTC TOD 3434
Resolution Policy, the multi-jurisdictional
FOCUS growth strategy, and the Priority Development Areas planning initiatives. The manual defines TOD place types, station area
planning principles, and TOD building/open
space types.10
December 2012
Oakland S-15 Transit-Oriented Development
Zoning: Code designed to encourage high-density mixed-use around the Fruitvale BART station, and additionally allows residential,
commercial, and a wide variety of civic uses.
The floor area ratio allows a maximum of 4.0
to 1, and residential densities up to 125 units per
acre.13
San Francisco General Plan Urban Design Element: Policies and guidelines that address
physical planning aspects of urban neighborhoods, conservation, city patterns, and transportation.14
San Francisco General Plan Transportation Element: Policies that address multimodal transportation types.15
San Francisco Planning Code, Section 206.4
Residential Transit-Oriented Neighborhood
District: Zoning code that outlines development
regulations such as FAR, setbacks, and density.16
Mountain View Transit Zone: Created to facilitate urban growth and revitalization in industrial/office areas located near transit.17
San Jose Level-of-Service Policy: Allows the
transit-served (light rail and bus) downtown
area to be exempt from minimum automobile
level-of-service standards.18
A-37
San Francisco
Case Studies
Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)
Program: Allocates funding of approximately
$27 million a year to assist in transit adjacent
projects, specifically infill-oriented projects.
The TLC program primarily disperses capital
grants, planning grants, and the Housing Incentive Program (HIP).19
The Housing Incentive Program: The
City/County Association of Governments of
San Mateo County offers grants of $2000 for
every bedroom within a 1/3 mile of transit and
a minimum density of 40 DU per acre to city
and county governments in the Bay Area. Funds
are derived from the Surface Transportation
Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement Program
(CMAQ).20
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) Resolution 3434: Has provided $11.8
billion in funding for capital infrastructure, design and planning work, and land acquisition
through approved corridor thresholds, specifically for transit extension projects.21
BEFORE
AFTER
TLC Program project, Monterey Street streetscape improvements in Santa Clara County.
Source: Appendix A: Case Studies, Ten Years of TLC
www.mtc.ca.gov
TOD Housing Program: The California Department of Transportation sponsors a program that encourages TOD through available grants for the construction of mixed-income housing projects
close to transit. The program also provides low-interest mortgages for gap financing for rental housing developments for 50 units or more, as well as mortgage assistance for the homeownership. The
program criterion requires housing projects to be located within ½ mile of public transit, and 15%
of the units must be affordable.22
Community-Based Planning Grants: The California Department of Transportation annually provides $3 million in state highway dollars for planning that strengthen connections between land
use, transportation, and community goals.23
Bay Area Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Fund: Slated to begin in early 2011, the program
will help assist developers and local governments acquire land for affordable housing located near
transit.24
FOCUS Grant: Program provides capital-funding grants to Bay Area local governments that identify Priority Development Areas through the FOCUS growth management strategy.25
A-38
December 2012
Case Studies
San Francisco
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG): The
California Department of Housing and Community Development manage a program that assists new construction and rehabilitation for
infrastructure that supports high-density affordable and mixed-income housing in locations
designated as infill.26
Bay Area redevelopment agencies have promoted TOD to developers by writing down land
costs and accepting below market rents.34 35
FOCUS Station Area and Land Use Planing
Program: Provides planning grants for areas
within a half-mile of a transit station, and for
station areas in transit extension projects that do
not meet MTC TOD Policy thresholds.27
Public Transportation Infrastructure Investments
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART): Operates 104
miles of heavy rail track transit around the San
Francisco Area.28
Municipal Railway (MUNI): The largest transit
system in the Bay Area, operating historic street
cars, biodiesel and electric hybrid buses and
electric trolleys, light rail transit, paratransit,
and the cable car system.29
MUNI cable car in San Francisco. In ridership, MUNI is
the seventh largest transit system in the United States and
the second largest in the state of California. It is also the
slowest major transit system in America.
Image Source: www.wikipedia.org
Caltrain: 77 miles of commuter rail operated by
Amtrak. 30
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit: Provides public
bus transportation that provides transit service
to thirteen cities and unincorporated areas in
Alameda and Contra Costa counties.31
Public/Private Partnership Efforts
Tax-exempt bonds, low-interest loans, loan
guarantees, grants, and land swapping.32
Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency used TIF
revenue to finance utility infrastructure improvements for Pleasant Hill BART station.33
December 2012
A-39
San Francisco
Case Studies
Endnotes
1
Renne, J. L. (2008). Smart growth and transit oriented development at the state level: Lessons from California, New Jersey, and Western Austrailia.
Journal of Public Transportation , 11, p. 77-108.
2, 3
Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., & Tsai, Y. (2004). Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Experiences, Challenges,
and Prospects. Washington DC: Transportation research Board.
BART transit oriented development guidelines.
http://www.bart.gov/docs/planning/TOD_Guidlines.pdf
4
5
Transit-Oriented Development Policy. (2005,
http://www.bart.gov/docs/planning/TOD_Policy.pdf
(2003).
July
Retrieved
14).
Retrieved
August
June
3,
2,
2010,
2010,
from
Bay
Area
Rapid
Transit:
from
Bay
Area
Rapid
Transit:
Governments of San Mateo County:
http://www.ccag.ca.gov/pdf/rfp/SM%20TOD%20Program/TOD%20Program%20Guidelines%205th%20Cycle.pdf
6
7
MTC Resolution 3434: Transit oriented development policy for regional transit expansion projects. (2005, July 27). Retrieved January 23, 2011,
from Metropolitain Transportation Commission: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdf
8
9
FOCUS. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2011, from The Bay Area Vision Project: http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/index.html
Station Area Planning Manual. (2007, October 18). Retrieved December 1, 2010, from Bay Area Vision: http://www.bayareavision.org/pdaapplication/Station_Area_Planning_Manual_Nov07.pdf
10
San Francisco BART Case Study. (n.d.). Retrieved from Sacramento Urban Land Institute: http://www.ulisacramento.org/documents/tod/5.Project%20Profiles/CaseStudies/SanFrancisco_BART.pdf
11
South Hayward/BART Form-Based Code. (2011, June 15). Retrieved June 17, 2011, from City of Hayward: http://www.haywardca.gov/forums/SHBARTFBC/pdf/2011/2011-6-15%20SOUTH%20HAYWARD%20BART%20FBC.pdf
12
13
S-15 Transit-Oriented Development Zone Regulations. (n.d.). Retrieved November 4, 2010, from (Municode) Oakland, California Planning Code:
http://library.municode.com/HTML/16490/level2/TIT17PL_CH17.97S-TRORDEZORE.html
14
San Francisco General Plan Urban Design Element. (1990, 27 September). Retrieved December 3, 2010, from San Francisco Planning Department:
http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/I5_Urban_Design.htm
San Francisco General Plan Transportation Element. (2005, February 5). Retrieved December 3, 2010, from San Francisco Planning Department:
http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/I4_Transportation.htm
15
16
Sec. 206.4 RTO: Residential, Transit-Oriented Neighborhood District. (2008, April 3). Retrieved December 4, 2010, from San Francisco Planning
Code (American Legal): http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/planning/article2usedistricts?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$anc=JD_206.4
17
Section 36.22B City of Mountain View Transit Zone . (n.d.). Retrieved
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=16508&stateId=5&stateName=California
August
29,
2011,
from
MuniCode:
Chapter 5 Land Use/Transportation. (2012, December 7). Retrieved August 30, 2011, from City of San Jose General Plan Text: http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/gp/2020_text/Pdf_version/2010/GPChp5_2010-12-07.pdf
18
19
Program guidelines for The Transit Oriented Development Housing Incentive Program. (2010, October 15). Retrieved January 20, 2011, from
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County:
http://www.ccag.ca.gov/pdf/rfp/SM%20TOD%20Program/TOD%20Program%20Guidelines%205th%20Cycle.pdf
20
MTC Resolution 3434: Transit oriented development policy for regional transit expansion projects. (2005, July 27). Retrieved January 23, 2011,
from Metropolitain Transportation Commission: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart_growth/tod/TOD_policy.pdf
21
Redevelopment, Economic Development, and Community Development Block Grants & Housing. (1998). Retrieved December 2010, from Contra
Costa County, California: http://www.ccreach.org/ccc_redevelopment/PHB%20Specific%20Plan.pdf
22
San Francisco Bay Area Property Aquisition Fund for equitable transit oriented development. (2011). Retrieved from Great Communities:
http://greatcommunities.org/intranet/library/sites-tools/Bay_Area_TOD_Fund_DrftRprt_SE11310.pdf
23
24
TOD Fund Established for the Bay Area. (2011, March 24). Retrieved April 2011, 7, from Housing Finance News:
http://www.housingfinance.com/news/ahf/032511-ahf-TOD-Fund-Established-for-the-Bay-Area.htm
FOCUS Financial Incentives. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2011, from The Bay Area Vision Project:
http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/incentives.html
25
A-40
December 2012
Case Studies
San Francisco
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program. (n.d.). Retrieved February 2, 2011, from Department of Housing and Community Development:
http://www.hcd.ca.gov/fa/iig
26
Station Area and Land Use Planning Program. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2011, from FOCUS: http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/planninggrants.html
27
28
System Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved March 1, 2011, from Bay Area Rapid Transit: http://www.bart.gov/about/history/facts.aspx
29
About Us. (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2011, from San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency: http://www.sfmta.com/cms/aexec/indxmtexec.htm
2.34 Billion for High-Speed Rail Creates Opportunity for Caltrain. (n.d.). Retrieved June 7, 2011, from Caltrain:
http://www.caltrain.com/about/News_Archive/_2_34_Billion_for_High-speed_Rail_Creates_Opportunity_for_Caltrain.html
30
31
Facts and Figures. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2010, from Alameda-Contra Costa Transit: http://www.actransit.org/about-us/facts-and-figures/
32
San Francisco BART Case Study. (n.d.). Retrieved from Sacramento Urban Land Institute: http://www.ulisacramento.org/documents/tod/5.Project%20Profiles/CaseStudies/SanFrancisco_BART.pdf
33
34
35
Menotti, V. (2011, June 1). BART. (C. Hutton, Interviewer)
December 2012
A-41
Washington DC
Case Studies
Background
The Washington Metro rail system is the only U.S. transit system built specifically to organize
growth and curb congestion. The early visionary staff from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Arlington County, Montgomery County, Virginia, and Maryland realized
the potential land development opportunities that would result from an adjacent, frequent, and easily
accessible transit service. The concerted effort by WMATA and local area governments to encourage
development near metro rail stations early on was crucial to the success of the thriving TOD districts
in D.C., Virginia, and Maryland today.1
The District of Columbia’s Office of Planning continues to plan for smart growth by effectively
connecting residents to the Metro Rail and other modes of future planned transit such as busways,
light rail, and streetcars. Recent District TOD planning efforts have been concentrated where surrounding station land uses can be improved, capitalizing on the District’s significant public transit
investments. 2
General Land Use Plan (GLUP): Determining
where development should occur, emphasizing
areas in the corridor for transit-oriented growth
in Arlington County. Additionally, setbacks,
densities, circulation, and were outlined to bolster the physical elements of the plan.3
Individual Sector Plans: addressed land use,
zoning ordinances, streetscape standards, urban
design, transportation, and open space guidelines with one-quarter mile of each station, ensuring unique form, and efficient function of
each station in Arlington County. This type of
micro-scale planning design at the macro-scale
of transit station planning led to successful completion of station “districts”.4
Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Early Visions: document outlines innovative planning strategies
used in by progressive Arlington County planners the 1960’s when planning for the infamous
corridor. 5
2009 Arlington County Resident Study Report:
study outlines residential demographics and location in respect to commuting modes of travel.6
A-42
Washington DC aerial view.
(www,gbc.org)
The Rosslyn to Courthouse Urban Design
Study: a form-based study used to guide future
redevelopment and reinvestment in the corridor.7
District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan: outlines current TOD planning efforts and highlights transit-supportive policies.8
Trans-Formation Handbook: a design handbook for DC residents to re-create transit-oriented neighborhood centers in Washington
D.C.9
December 2012
Case Studies
Washington DC
Mayoral Task Force on Transit-Oriented Development: Outlines strategies to implement TOD
with respect to zoning, planning, permitting,
public/private partnerships, and transit expansion.10
idential development prompting the county to
implement special zoning districts requiring developers to construct residential units before
building the maximum allowable of office unit
density.17
Central Avenue Transit-Oriented Development
Corridor Development Strategy: Identifies opportunities and constraints associated with developing TOD on land surrounding WMATA
stations along the corridor.11
Ballston Sector Plan: Outlines urban design,
land use, and zoning provisions for the Ballston
station area neighborhood.18
Metrorail Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements Study: Analyzes commutes to
Metrorail stations via trips made by bicyclists
and pedestrians, delineating where there is more
pedestrian and bicycle traffic to accommodate
design-wise at certain stations.12
Station Site and Access Planning Manual:
WMATA outlines physical site planning and design guidelines for station access, parking, dropoffs and pick-up zones, and bus station
circulation models.13
2005 Development-Related Ridership Survey:
Study analyzes how land use types and mixes
such as retail, office, mixed-use, hotel, etc have
an effect on different types of Metrorail stations
regarding ridership.14
Courthouse Sector Plan Summary: Outlines implementation tools and strategies used to create
a vibrant TOD around the Courthouse Station.19
Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Streetscape Standards: Outlines design guidelines for street
trees, street furniture, paving, and sidewalk dimensions.20
Community Benefit Units CBUs: Housing units
owned by nonprofits or individuals but governed by county agreements that guarantee the
units remains affordable up to 30 years.21
FTA Full Funding Grant Agreement (2009):
$900 million for Washington Dulles Airport
Corridor Connection.22
National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 23
Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential District:
Outlines zoning code provisions for commercial
and residential uses within the designated district.15
Section 25-B C-O Rosslyn Commercial Office
Building, Retail, Hotel, and Multi-Family
Dwelling Districts: Zoning code for a portion
of the Rossyln-Ballston Corridor.16
Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor: In the 1980s, new
office development surpassed rates of new resDecember 2012
“The National Capital Transportation Amendment of 1979” (also known as the Stark-Harris
Act) which authorized additional funding ($1.7
billion). On November 15, 1990 by Public Law
101-551, “The National Capital Transportation
Amendments of 1990” which authorized funding of $1.3 billion in federal funds or 62.5 percent matching Federal funds to finance
construction of the remaining 13.5 miles of the
103-mile system. Full funding grant agreements
were executed to complete the final 13.5
miles.24
A-43
Washington DC
Case Studies
Federal Highway Interstate Substitution fund:
$1 billion from District of Columbia’s portion
of the fund towards Metrorail’s initial capital
outlay for the heavy rail system.25
Capital Bonds: Arlington County issued more
than $100 million in capital bonds for Metrorail
capital outlay, and funded the long term financing of the bonds.26
Transportation/Land Use Connections Program: The Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments created a program that disburses
planning and capital grants that reduce congestion.27
Stark Harris Act: The funds available under the
Stark-Harris Act permitted the completion of
89.5 miles of the Metrorail system as provided
under the terms of a Full Funding Grant Agreement executed with WMATA in July 1986.28
Public Transportation Infrastructure Investments
WMATA Heavy Rail System: Services 86 Metro
stations along 106.3 miles of track.29
MetroBus System: Serves 319 routes throughout
the metropolitan area, substantial portion of
fleet is served by hybrid-electric buses.30
DC Streetcar System: Planning and construction
underway for 8 lines and 37 miles of streetcar
tracks to be built in 3 phases, connecting neighborhoods across the metropolitan area. 31
Union Station: A major historic train station
built in 1907 that serves hub for Metrorail, connecting to intercity passenger rail served by Amtrak to suburban parts of Maryland and Virginia.
It is estimated that Union Station serves about
70,000 public transportation passengers per
day.32
A-44
Historic Union Station, 1925.
(www,wikipedia.org)
Silver Spring Transit Center (project under construction): Tthree level multi-modal transit center that will provide additional access to
regional bus, Metrorail, Metrobus, and MARC
Rail transit access.33 The Silver Spring Transit
Center will serve the new Metrorail extension,
the Silver Line, which upon completion will
connect to Tyson’s Corner and Washington
Dulles Airport.34
Most TOD projects in the region were only possible through joint development ventures,
which have proven to be exemplary resource
implementation tools for often-complex TOD
projects. “WMATA defines joint development
as a creative program through which property
interests owned and/or controlled by WMATA
are marketed to office, retail/commercial, recreational/entertainment, and residential developers with the objective of developing
transit-oriented development projects.”35 Additionally, rather than wait for TOD proposals,
WMATA created a real-estate development department to seek, orchestrate, and implement
joint development partnerships as well as land
acquisitions and holdings. WMATA developed
basic TOD guidelines, aiming to increase revenue, attract additional ridership, and expand
the local tax base.36
December 2012
Case Studies
Washington DC
WMATA Joint Development Policies and Guidelines: Outlines joint development partnership rules
and regulations. 37
Bethesda Metro Center: Office, retail, and hotel “downtown center” project that is located above
the Bethesda Metrorail station, which generates 1.6 million in air rights rent for WMATA.38
Silver Spring Joint Development Project: Project planned for “downtown center” mixed-use development on WMATA-owned land to the adjacent Silver Spring Transit Center transportation
hub.39
Long-term ground leases: leases with developers on WMATA-owned land that provides the transit
authority with base rent, as well as percentage rent that increases the agency’s financial gains with
well-performing projects.40 Joint development at the White Flint Station includes a long-term lease
that will include 32-acres leased to LCOR Development Group who are constructing plans for
930,000 square feet of office, 202,000 square feet of retail space, and 1,275 residential units.41
The Goals of WMATA’s
Joint Development Program:
1. Promote Transit-Oriented Development
2. Attract new riders to the transit system
3. Where appropriate to station setting,
market dynamics, and local policy, support
the establishemnt of employment centers
consistent with TOD design principles and
transit system operating and investment
needs.
4. Implement station access improvements
that support pedestrian, bicycle, bus, ADA,
and automobile access
5. Support other transit agency goals as
they may arise, including affordable housing
6. Create a soure of revenue for WMATA to
operate and maintain the transit system
7. Assist the WMATA local jurisdictions to
recapture a portion of their past financial
contributions and to continue making subsidy payments by expanding the local property tax base and adding value to available
local revenue
Source: WMATA Joint Development Policies and Guidelines, Rev. Nov. 20, 2008
December 2012
A-45
Washington DC
Case Studies
Leach, D. (2004). The Arlington County case study: Rosslyn-Ballston corridor. In H. Dittmar, & G. Ohland (Eds.), The new transit town: Best
practices in transit oriented development (pp. 132-151). Washington D.C.: Island Press.
1
LU-1.3 Transit-Oriented and Corridor Development. (2006). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan: http://planning.dc.gov/OP/Citywide/Comp%20Plan%20Publication%20Files/Volume%201%20PDF%20Files%20and%20Templates/Vol%201%20landuse.pdf
2
3
4
The Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Early Visions. (1989, February 25). Retrieved October 8, 2010, from City of Arlington, VA:
http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/docs/pdf/file67560.pdf
5
6
2009 Arlington County Resident Study Report. (2010, May 15). Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Arlington County, VA:
http://www.commuterpage.com/research/uploads/ACCS038/2009%20AC%20Resident%20Transportation%20PRESENTATION.pdf
7
Rosslyn to Courthouse Urban Design Study. (2003, March 15). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Arlington County Department of Planning:
http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/docs/pdf/rosslyn_courthouse.pdf
LU-1.3 Transit-Oriented and Corridor Development. (2006). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan: http://planning.dc.gov/OP/Citywide/Comp%20Plan%20Publication%20Files/Volume%201%20PDF%20Files%20and%20Templates/Vol%201%20landuse.pdf
8
9
(2002). Trans-Formation: Recreating Transit-Oriented Neighborhood Centers in Washington D.C. Washington DC: DC Office of Planning.
10
(2002). Mayoral Task Force on Transit-Oriented Development. Washington D.C.: Government of the District of Columbia Office of Planning.
Central Avenue Transit-Oriented Development Corridor Development Strategy. (2006, June 15). Retrieved July 13, 2011, from Maryland Department of Transportation: http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Planning/Plans_Programs_Reports/Historical_Documents/Central_Avenue_Final.pdf
11
Metrorail Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Improvements Study. (2010, October). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from PlanIt Metro:
http://planitmetro.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Metrorail-Bicycle-Pedestrian-Access-Improvements-Study-_Final.pdf
12
13
Station Site and Access Planning Manual. (2008, May). Retrieved July 13, 2011, from Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/Station%20Access/SSAPM.pdf
2005 Development-Related Ridership Survey Final Report. (2005). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/2005_Development-Related_Ridership_Survey.pdf
14
11-6 Mixed Use Commercial/Residential Zoning District. (n.d.). Retrieved July 13, 2011, from District of Columbia Office of Zoning:
http://www.dcoz.dc.gov/info/reg.shtm
15
Section 25-B C-O Rosslyn Commercial Office Building, Retail, Hotel, and Multi-Family Dwelling Districts. (2007, May 5). Retrieved July 13,
2011, from Arlington County Zoing Code: http://www.arlingtonva.us/Departments/CPHD/planning/zoning/pdfs/Ordinance_Section25b.pdf
16
17
Ballston Sector Plan: Urban Design, Zoning, and Land Use. (n.d.). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Arlington County Planning Department:
http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/docs/pdf/file67526.pdf
18
Courthouse Station Section Plan Summary. (n.d.). Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Arlington County Department of Planning: http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/docs/pdf/file67552.pdf
19
20
Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor Streetscape Standards. (2007, June). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Arlington County Department of Planning:
http://www.arlingtonva.us/departments/CPHD/planning/docs/pdf/RB_Streetscape_060507.pdf
21
22
Dulles Metrorail Project Timeline. (2010). Retrieved September 2010, 1, from Dulles Metro: http://www.dullesmetro.com/about/timeline.cfm
23
Washington DC Metrorail Construction. (n.d.). Retrieved
http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/data/grants_financing_1115.html
September
3,
2010,
from
Federal
Transit
Administration:
24
September
3,
2010,
from
Federal
Transit
Administration:
25
September
3,
2010,
from
Federal
Transit
Administration:
A-46
December 2012
Case Studies
Washington DC
26
Technical Assistance Grants. (2007). Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments:
http://www.mwcog.org/transportation/activities/tlc/program/default.asp
27
28
September
3,
2010,
from
Federal
Transit
Administration:
29
Metrorail Facts. (2010). Retrieved July
http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf
12,
2011,
from
Washington
Metropolitan
Area
Transit
Authority:
30
Metrorail Facts. (2010). Retrieved July
http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf
12,
2011,
from
Washington
Metropolitan
Area
Transit
Authority:
DC Streetcar System Concept Plan. (2011). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from DC Streetcar: http://www.dcstreetcar.com/streetcar-system-conceptplan.html
31
Union Station, Washington, D.C. (2008, November ). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from AmtraK Government Affairs: http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/factsheets/DC08.pdf
32
Silver Spring Transit Center. (2011). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority: http://www.wmata.com/business/joint_development_opportunities/tod/project.cfm?I=17
33
Dulles Metrorail Project Overview.
http://www.dullesmetro.com/about/index.cfm
34
(2011).
Retrieved
July
11,
2011,
from
Dulles
Corridor
Metro
Project:
35
36
WMATA Joint Development Policies and Guidelines. (2007). Retrieved October 9, 2010, from Washington Area Metropolitan Transit Authority:
http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/business/Guidelines%20Revision11-20-08.pdf
37
38
39
Silver Sping Joint Development Project. (2011). Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authirity:
http://www.wmata.com/business/joint_development_opportunities/tod/project.cfm?I=16
40
White Flint Station Access Plan Final Report. (2010, February). Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:
http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/White%20Flint%20Final%20100224%20(for%20web).pdf
41
December 2012
A-47