1 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 73 / WINTER 2009 FORWARD MOTION The ABC’s of TOD: TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT by Hannah Twaddell When rail transit was privately run and large tracts of land were owned by a few tycoons (often the same fellows who owned the rail- roads), the development of railroad towns went hand in glove with the devel- opment of rail service. Train companies laid down their tracks and towns formed along them (or towns were built first by speculators hoping to entice rail lines their way). The dependence upon rail as the fastest mode of transportation – both long-distance and short – kept develop- ment huddled close to the lines, sur- rounded by open space and farmland. Rail was king for about a century in America, reigning until the 1920s when mass production of automobiles and public investments in highways got underway. After World War II, when Eisenhower put the wheels in motion to build the interstate highway system, new development was drawn to roads like flies to honey. Suburbs, which had for- merly been organized in self-contained, pedestrian-scaled grids around com- muter rail stations, began to spread out along the expanding network of high- ways and arterials. Transit in all but our largest, oldest cities appeared dead as a doornail, along with the high-density, walkable neigh- borhoods required to support it. But a resurrection of sorts is begin- ning to take place. A growing variety of people, from young “creative class” adults to active “WOOFs” (Well-Off- Old-Folks), are rediscovering old towns and urban centers as places where they can enjoy everything life has to offer without needing a car. Meanwhile, suburban families are pressuring their elected officials to make their communities easier and safer to navigate by foot or bike, spurred by com- muters seeking relief from rising gas prices and parents seeking ways for their children to get urgently-needed exercise. And making these automobile-oriented communities pedestrian-friendly is the first step, literally and figuratively, toward making transit work. From a planner’s perspective, our nation’s renewed interest in public transit presents a great opportunity to explore and promote development patterns that renew our communities. Perhaps you’ve heard the phrase “transit-oriented devel- opment.” In this issue of the PCJ, I want to provide you with a brief introduction, word-by-word. TRANSIT Transit comes in many forms, includ- ing heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, traditional buses, and bus rapid transit. Different types of transit require different mixes of “the four Ds” – density (e.g. dwelling units per acre and floor area ratio), diversity (mix of activities), design (scale and orientation of streets and buildings), and destination (proxim- ity of locations) – as noted in the follow- ing summary. Heavy Rail (aka subway or metro). The New York City subway and the Chicago “EL” are among America’s earli- est heavy rail systems; examples of post Many of the cities and neighborhoods served by the Washington, D.C., Metro system have used station stops as focal points for mixed-use devel- opment. That’s certainly been the case in Bethes- da, Maryland. W. SENVILLE Transit-oriented develop- ment has a longstanding tradition along Chicago area Metra commuter rail stations. But in recent years, this has become even more noticeable, with new housing and commercial development growing in number. W. SENVILLE
Transcript
1
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 7 3 / W I N T E R 2 0 0 9
F O R WA R D M O T I O N
The ABC’s of TOD: TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT
by Hannah TwaddellWhen rail transit was privatelyrun and large tracts of land wereowned by a few tycoons (often the same fellows who owned the rail-roads), the development of railroadtowns went hand in glove with the devel-opment of rail service. Train companieslaid down their tracks and towns formedalong them (or towns were built first byspeculators hoping to entice rail linestheir way). The dependence upon rail asthe fastest mode of transportation – bothlong-distance and short – kept develop-ment huddled close to the lines, sur-rounded by open space and farmland.
Rail was king for about a century inAmerica, reigning until the 1920s whenmass production of automobiles andpublic investments in highways gotunderway. After World War II, whenEisenhower put the wheels in motion tobuild the interstate highway system, new
development was drawn to roads likeflies to honey. Suburbs, which had for-merly been organized in self-contained,pedestrian-scaled grids around com-muter rail stations, began to spread outalong the expanding network of high-ways and arterials.
Transit in all but our largest, oldestcities appeared dead as a doornail, alongwith the high-density, walkable neigh-borhoods required to support it.
But a resurrection of sorts is begin-ning to take place. A growing variety ofpeople, from young “creative class”adults to active “WOOFs” (Well-Off-Old-Folks), are rediscovering old townsand urban centers as places where theycan enjoy everything life has to offerwithout needing a car.
Meanwhile, suburban families arepressuring their elected officials to maketheir communities easier and safer tonavigate by foot or bike, spurred by com-muters seeking relief from rising gasprices and parents seeking ways for theirchildren to get urgently-needed exercise.And making these automobile-oriented
communities pedestrian-friendly is thefirst step, literally and figuratively,toward making transit work.
From a planner’s perspective, ournation’s renewed interest in public transitpresents a great opportunity to exploreand promote development patterns thatrenew our communities. Perhaps you’veheard the phrase “transit-oriented devel-opment.” In this issue of the PCJ, I wantto provide you with a brief introduction,word-by-word.
TRANSIT
Transit comes in many forms, includ-ing heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail,traditional buses, and bus rapid transit.Different types of transit require differentmixes of “the four Ds” – density (e.g.dwelling units per acre and floor arearatio), diversity (mix of activities),design (scale and orientation of streetsand buildings), and destination (proxim-ity of locations) – as noted in the follow-ing summary.
Heavy Rail (aka subway or metro). The New York City subway and the
Chicago “EL” are among America’s earli-est heavy rail systems; examples of post
Many of the cities and neighborhoods served bythe Washington, D.C., Metro system have usedstation stops as focal points for mixed-use devel-opment. That’s certainly been the case in Bethes-da, Maryland.
W. S
EN
VIL
LE
Transit-oriented develop-ment has a longstandingtradition along Chicagoarea Metra commuter rail stations. But in recentyears, this has becomeeven more noticeable, with new housing andcommercial developmentgrowing in number.
W. S
EN
VIL
LE
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 7 3 / W I N T E R 2 0 0 9
1960 systems include “MARTA” inAtlanta, the Washington D.C. “Metro”and San Francisco’s “BART.” There are nonew heavy rail systems planned in theU.S. or Canada, but some of the existingones are expanding. They serve veryhigh-density, mixed-use areas, runningalong fixed guideways (i.e., tracks) athigh speeds. Stations are typically locat-ed anywhere from half-a-mile to twomiles apart.
Commuter Rail. A variation of heavy rail, commuter rail focuses on pro-
viding high-speed access between sub-urbs and downtown. Examples includethe Long Island Railroad and Chicago’sMetra. The suburban locations are usual-ly fairly high-density, but not necessarilyorganized as mixed-use centers. Forexample, sometimes the station is just aplatform surrounded by parking.
Light Rail (aka streetcar or trolley). Older cities such as Boston and San
Francisco have held onto their light raillines, and newer lines have been built innumerous cities such as Dallas, Portland,and St. Louis. Light rail is all the rage formajor cities – if they haven’t built one yet,they’re considering it. The cars run alongtracks in the street or on separate rights-of-way, and can serve lower densitiesthan heavy rail, but still need to be locat-ed in established urban areas to succeed.
Buses (aka “old stinky” or “new spiffy”). Buses are by far the most
frequently used form of public transit inAmerica, accounting for two-thirds ofour nation’s transit trips. Buses serve allsorts of density levels, from the teemingstreets of Manhattan to the suburbanhighway that leads to your local Wal-Mart. They run on existing roadways,and are thus much more flexible than railsystems – but also less reliable, since theycan easily get stuck in traffic.
Some cities are attracting more mid-dle- and upper-class riders to their bussystems by upgrading the vehicles. Cleanfuels, sparkling interiors, brightly paint-ed vehicles and easy-to-understandroutes, like Boulder’s “Hop, Skip andJump,” are important starting points toerase the often-held stigma that buses areonly for the poor. However, traditionalon-road buses must share the road withautomobile traffic, which often impedesthe frequency, timeliness, and pre-dictability of service – critical elementsfor drawing potential transit riders out oftheir cars. An innovative solution to thisproblem is Bus Rapid Transit, describedbelow.
Bus Rapid Transit (aka “BRT,” “Express bus,” or “busmans”). BRT
is a popular, emerging blend of light railand bus technologies. BRT vehicles,designed to look more like attractive railcars than traditional buses, can run alongfixed guideways or regular highways,offering both flexibility and speed. They
can serve a variety of density levels, andstations can be placed about half-a-mileto one mile apart.
Curitiba, Brazil, is the poster child forBRT-based smart growth. Their systemserves a suburban population base thatwas struggling with heavy freeway con-gestion. BRT has been the genesis forpulling together sprawling suburbandevelopment patterns into higher-densi-ty, mixed-use centers.1
Ferries. Before rail, communities accessible by navigable waterways
2
1 One cautionary note: BRT is not always associatedwith TOD. Since it can be located along highway sys-tems designed for automobiles, using BRT as a tool forgenerating more efficient development patterns mayrequire careful planning and redevelopment. Locatingstops in the median of a huge highway, for instance,may be the expedient, cost-effective thing to do, butthe expanse of traffic-filled asphalt between the sta-tion and roadside destinations may well kill off theopportunity for TOD at that location.
The Portland, Oregon metro area has been a leader in transit-oriented devel-opment, with its light rail network stimulating dozens of housing and mixed-use projects across the region.
PA
YT
ON
CH
UN
G; F
LIC
KR
.CO
M; H
TT
P://
CR
EA
TIV
EC
OM
MO
NS.
OR
G/L
ICE
NSE
S/B
Y/2
.0/D
EE
D.E
N
TH
OM
AS
HO
BB
S
Curitiba, Brazil’s BRT system is served by tubular boarding stations, provid-ing protection from the weather and facilitating rapid boarding.
One of the “SeaBuses” that run between NorthVancouver and Vancouver’s downtown waterfront.For more on Vancouver’s expanding, multi-modaltransit system: www.translink.bc.ca/
KR
IS N
OU
WE
N, H
AW
K P
HO
TO
GR
AP
HY
continued on next page
3
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 7 3 / W I N T E R 2 0 0 9
were prime locations for development –and they still are. Vancouver, Canada,famous for its livable, walkable design,attracts riders from numerous public andprivate ferries to its downtown waterfronttransit station. By maximizing and coor-dinating all types of transit modes withdevelopment programs over the past 20years, the city has decreased daily vehiclevolumes by five percent, while increasingtransit ridership by forty percent.
ORIENTED
The critical thing about making TODwork is to ensure that development actu-ally is oriented around the station. Thatmeans enabling people to walk easilybetween the station and the destinationsit serves. Sounds simple, but it’s amazinghow often we get this wrong. The devil isin the details.
My esteemed, often irreverent, col-league Reid Ewing introduced me toTOD’s evil twin brother, TAD: TransitAdjacent Development. TAD featuresbuildings near transit stops that have nofunctional relationship to transit. Thediversity tends more toward single uses,and the design is anything but walkable.Much more land is dedicated to surfaceparking, for example, which is not usual-ly hospitable to pedestrians. All this adds up to a worst-case scenario: all thedensity without any of the design. Notsurprisingly, it falls a “tad” short in pro-moting transit ridership.
Here are a few basics to keep in mindwhen planning TOD versus TAD:
Locate the transit stop in the center ofthe neighborhood rather than on its periph-ery. Put major trip generators (offices,commercial retail, and high-densityhousing) and public plazas within aquarter-mile (5-minute walk) of the sta-tion. Gradually step down densities out-side the half-mile circle.
Don’t waste an inch of land on surfaceparking. Put it underground or over topof the first floor. Put park-and-ride lotsoutside the immediate station area, butstill within a half-mile (10-minute walk).Maximize the land around transit centers
The ABC’s of TOD …continued from previous page
Station Spacing: 1/8 to 1/4 mile
Optimal Transit Shed: 5 to 10 miles
Service Area: 1/4 to 1/2 mile
Station CharacteristicsAverage Station Area: 140 Square Feet
Supportive Density/IntensityDwelling Units/Acre: 7 to 20+Jobs/Acre: 5 to 200Floor Area Ratio: 1.0 to 1.5
Technology CharacteristicsCapacity: 500 to 1,500 Passengers/Direction/MileAverage Speed (for transit shed):5 to 15 Miles/HourROW requirements: Street RunningHeadways (at supportive density): 15 to 20 Minutes
Bus
Station Spacing: 1/2 to 1 mile
Optimal Transit Shed: 5 to 20 miles
Service Area: 1/4 to 3 miles
Station CharacteristicsAverage Station Area: 140 to 200 Square Feet
Supportive Density/IntensityDwelling Units/Acre: 12 to 35+Jobs/Acre: 30 to 500Floor Area Ratio: >1.0
Technology CharacteristicsCapacity: 2,000 to 10,000 Passengers/Direction/MileAverage Speed (for transit shed): 10 to 15 Miles/HourROW requirements: Semi-ExclusiveHeadways (at supportive density): 15 to 30 Minutes
Bus Rapid
PH
OT
OS
AN
D C
HA
RT
S: R
EN
AIS
SAN
CE
PL
AN
NIN
G G
RO
UP
New light rail lines serving the San Jose area have spurred high-density housing development close to stations. This photo was taken at the end of the Almaden line.
PE
TE
MO
RR
IS
The information in these charts, based on research bythe Renaissance Planning Group, shows the ranges wehave typically found in evaluating these modes oftransportation.
P L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N E R S J O U R N A L / N U M B E R 7 3 / W I N T E R 2 0 0 9
for a dense array of activities to whichpeople can easily walk.
No transit station is an island. Plan outthe entire transit corridor, complement-ing the spacing and design of stationswith appropriate development patterns.The stations can feature different densi-ties and diversities of development, butthey must all have one thing in common:walkability.
Incorporate all the elements that pro-mote walking. This includes: compactblocks; safe and attractive walkways
(don’t forget shelter from rain and sun);continuous street fronts (no gaping holesbetween buildings like surface parkinglots); well-marked, pedestrian-scaled sig-nage and doorways; street furniture(movable benches, trash cans, etc.) andpublic art; and appropriate amenitiessuch as public restrooms. Visit the Pro-ject for Public Spaces website (www.pps.org) for an extensive, research-basedinventory of the good, the bad, and theugly details that make or break a pedes-trian-friendly place.
DEVELOPMENT
Transit goes TO nowhere without theD. No transit system will do well if itattempts to serve development that isn’tsuited to the given market. A new transitstation won’t invite development all byitself. The development market, especial-ly for retail, is not dependent upon tran-sit accessibility, it’s dependent upon theright amount of customers within theright proximity. Lenders, investors, anddevelopers want, first and foremost, thebest possible “location, location, loca-tion” for the market they are seeking toattract.
When it comes to planning the loca-tion, density, and mix of proposed sta-tions and transit villages, planners needto work closely with developers tounderstand their market. If it doesn’tmake sense from a market perspective toput in certain types of retail, don’t forcethe developer to do it. Nothing is moredepressing than a new transit village withshuttered stores.
One final, but important, point abouttransit-oriented development – it typical-ly increases property values. Researchfindings point to an average 10 to 20 per-cent increase in value for developmentlocated close to a transit station2 – onemore reason why TOD has become anincreasingly popular acronym in citiesacross the U.S. and Canada, and aroundthe world. ◆
Hannah Twaddell is aPrincipal Planner in theCharlottesville, Virginia,office of Renaissance Plan-ning Group. Her articles ontransportation planningtopics appear regularly inthe Planning Commission-ers Journal.
4
Service Area: 1/4 to 5 miles
Station Spacing: 1 to 2 miles
Optimal Transit Shed: 5 to 50 miles
Station CharacteristicsAverage Station Area: 600 to 2,000 Square Feet
Supportive Density/IntensityDwelling Units/Acre: 9 to 35+Jobs/Acre: 75 to 500Floor Area Ratio: >2.0
Technology CharacteristicsCapacity: 3,000 to 18,000 Passengers/Direction/MileAverage Speed (for transit shed):15 to 30 Miles/HourROW requirements: Semi-Exclusive or Exclusive with Dedicated GuidewayHeadways (at supportive density): 10 to 20 Minutes
Light Rail
Station Spacing: 5 to 15 miles
Optimal Transit Shed: 5 to 100 miles
Service Area: 1/2 to 5 miles
Station CharacteristicsAverage Station Area: 2,000 to 5,000 Square Feet
Supportive Density/IntensityDwelling Units/Acre: 12 to 60+Jobs/Acre: 20 to 500Floor Area Ratio: >2.0
Technology CharacteristicsCapacity: 2,000 to 20,000 Passengers/Direction/MileAverage Speed (for transit shed):35 to 55 Miles/HourROW requirements: Exclusive with Dedicated RailwayHeadways (at supportive density): 20 to 30 Minutes
Commuter Rail
2 See “Transit Oriented Development,” in the VictoriaTransport Institute’s excellent online TDM Encyclo-pedia: <www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm45.htm>; the articlealso contains much additional useful information onTODs. Even higher premiums for housing and com-mercial development were found in Californiaresearch done by Robert Cervero, reported in “TenPrinciples for Successful Development Around Tran-sit,” Urban Land Institute, 2003, p. 7.
License Fee to Print or Make Up to 20 Copies of Article
Please note that if you initially paid for the right to print one copy of this article(and/or store on one computer) and you now want to print or make additionalcopies of this article (up to 20 copies) you need to return this form to us with anadditional payment. The license fee depends on the length of the article. Use thefollowing table for calculating the license fee for each article:*
* Partial page is considered a page when determining article length (e.g., fee for 2½ page articlewould be $8.00). Call us for fee if you want to make more than 20 copies of an article.
You can either enclose a check (payable to: Champlain Planning Press, Inc.) or use your creditcard (Visa, Master Card, or American Express).
List article(s) you are enclosing payment for (you can use one form if you want additional copiesof more than one article; list each article, using reverse if necessary):
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Your name & address: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Your e-mail address: _______________________________________________
Please return this form with your payment. Mail to:
