TOD Portland Summary

7/25/2019 TOD Portland Summary

1/41

Portland, Oregon

(Source: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/TOD-program-AnnualReport-2014.pdf)

PLANNING FOR APOTENTIAL TOD PROJECT

BEGAN IN 1994, WHEN THECITY OF PORTLANDAND THE LOCALNEIGHBOURHOOD

CONVENED MEETINGS TODISCUSS HOW THE SITECOULD BE DEVELOPED.
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/TOD-program-AnnualReport-2014.pdf


2/41

Existing Public Transportation Coverage, Capacity & Fare

TriMet, more formally known as the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, is apublic agency that operates mass transit in a region that spans most of the Portland metropolitan area inthe U.S. state of Oregon. There are 603 buses in TriMet's fleet that operate on 79 routes. [1] In Fiscal Year

2013, the entire system averaged almost 316,700 rides per weekday

(Source: Trimet Annual Report 2014)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TriMet#cite_note-overview-2014-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_metropolitan_areahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Portland,_Oregonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport


3/41



4/41

Type to enter text



5/41

Metro in the Greater Region

Metro Portland is located in the far northeast corner of the state, in theWillamette Valley, at the confluence of the Columbia and WillametteRivers. Due to its location on the border, it is spatially and economicallyconnected to Vancouver, WA on the other side of the Columbia River.However, they share no governments and very little services. As Oregon

has more restrictive development laws and property taxes, but noincome tax, there is a significant

History of metro Regional Government

population that work and shop in Portland and live in Vancouver. Thatsaid, the Metro Portland region has grown significantly over the lasttwenty years despite any effects of this neighbour dynamic.

Metro is an elected regional government, which has been in operationsince 1979. It governs land use and transportation planning for parts ofMultnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties. It was based inprevious versions of metropolitan governments including a metropolitanservice area, and a previous planning commission. It serves as thefederally mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the region. This gives Metro control over transportationplanning funds in the region. However, it broke from traditional MPO structure by adopting an election model rather than anappointed council of government officials. As the MPO, Metro is in charge of the urban growth boundary for the Portland region.Since 1985, Metro has had the ability to collect taxes, since 1990 it has had its own home rule charter, and has had official landuse planning powers since 1992. (Abbot 1991) (Metro 2011)

Metro is the primary reason that Portland is a unique planning environment. Oregon is also well-known for their verticallyconsistent state land use planning structure which includes multi-level planning and urban growth boundaries around everymetropolitan area. This was enacted largely by Land Conservation and Development Act of 1973, SB 100, Oregon Stats.197(Nelson 2009). These are hard growth boundaries that explicitly limit non-agricultural development outside of them. Theymust allow for at least a 20 year supply of growth but each growth boundary can vary in how it allows for this growth to occurdepending on who is governing the boundary. Portlands is particularly strict because it places particular emphasis on upwards,


6/41

This boundary has since been strengthened by the Transportation Planning Rule in 1991 that required explicit connectionsbetween transportation and land use planning, policies requiring a bicycle and pedestrian plan, and the Transportation andGrowth Management Program, which provides grants and assistance to encourage multi-modal and compact growth. Both ofthese elements are reasons for both the possibility of seeing greater effects of transit expansion in the region as well as alimitation to understanding the cause for any changes.

While Metro has more effective growth regulation and influence than many other regional planning organizations in this era, it isstill made up of many individual cities, and has to work within the politics of a wide range of city typologies and ideals.

Furthermore, while it has home rule and land use planning abilities, it does not exercise them to the full extent of executing

Metro Level policies Effecting Growth

the zoning for the entire region. Instead, it provides guidelines along with requirements that it requires municipalities to complywith. From there, it leaves local level zoning to municipalities. Therefore, there is an expectation that there will still be somevariation in the dispersion of growth throughout the region. Metros policies are guided generally by the Regional FrameworkPlan, based on the 2040 Growth Concept (Metro 2011). First adopted in 1995, this plan defines the shape and methods for

encouraging growth in the region. The plan states the preferred growth in the region is within the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB). Addition fundamentals to guide growth outlined are:

A hierarchy of mixed-use, pedestrian friendly centers that are well connected by high capacity transit and corridors

A multi-modal transportation system that ensures continued mobility of more people and goods throughout the region,

consistent with transportation policies

Coordination of land uses and the transportation system, to embrace the regions existing locational advantage as a relatively

uncon- gested hub for trade

A jobs-housing balance in centers and a jobs-housing balance by regional sub areas to account for the housing and

employment outside of the Centers

An urban to rural transition to reduce sprawl, keeping a clear distinction between urban and rural lands and balancing re-

development

Separtion of urbanizable land from rural land by the UGB for the regions 20-year projected need for urban land


7/41

(Source: Figure 1 ,Metro TOD Program final report, http://ctod.org/pdfs/2011PortlandTODweb.pdf)
http://ctod.org/pdfs/2011PortlandTODweb.pdfhttp://ctod.org/pdfs/2011PortlandTODweb.pdf


8/41



9/41



10/41

(Source: According to the number of figure above,

www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/tod_final_report.pdf)

(Source: Page A-2, http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/452524)
http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/452524http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/452524http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/


11/41

(Source: According to the number of figure above,

www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/tod_final_report.pdf)
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/


12/41

People who live in transit-oriented developments drive less and rely more on alternative modes. "Daily VMT" indicates average dailyvehicle miles traveled per capita.

This provides large benefits:

Congestion reduction (30-50% reductions in per capita annual congestion delay are typical between transit-oriented cities andcomparable size automobile-oriented cities).

Road and parking facility cost savings (worth hundreds of dollars annually per capita).

Consumer savings and improved affordability (often totaling thousands of dollars annual per household).

Improved safety (residents of transit-oriented communities have about a quarter of the per-capita traffic fatality rate as residents ofautomobile-dependent sprawl, taking into account all traffic deaths, including pedestrians and transit passengers).

Improved mobility options for non-drivers(non-drivers benefit not only from improved public transit service, but also from improvedwalking and cycling conditions and more compact and mixed land use).

Improved public fitness and health (transit users are four times as likely to achieve the target of 20 minutes or more of walking perday as people who do not use transit on a particular day).

Increased local property values and household wealth(improved accessibility and transportation cost savings tend to becapitalized in higher land values, which appreciates over time).

Energy conservation and emission reductions (residents of transit-oriented communities tend to consume 20-40% lesstransportation energy than they would in more automobile dependent communities).

More dollars circulating in the local economy (expenditures on vehicles and fuel provide less employment and business activitythan expenditures on other consumer goods, and much less than expenditures on transit

service).

(Source: http://www.planetizen.com/node/39133)
http://www.planetizen.com/node/39133


13/41

Economic Prosperity

One key to economic growth is ensuring that workers with a broad range of skill sets have stable access to regionalemployment opportunities. Expansive, integrated transit networks and transit-supportive development provide more diverseeconomic opportunities than individual transit lines, and can therefore support upward mobility and help the region betterweather economic fluctuations. Recent trends indicate that workers increasingly prefer to live near where they work and enjoya higher quality of life that is free from the strains of traffic and congestion, making jobs and housing near transit anincreasingly popular choice. Moreover, connecting dense job clusters by transit has been shown to have a greater impact onboosting transit ridership than increasing residential density.5 Portland already outperforms many regions when it comes tolinking regional job destinations into its transit network. Over a third of the regions jobs are withina half mile of a rail station, exceeding even Philadelphia which has a much larger existing transit system (Figure 6). Whenfrequent bus corridors are added in, 45 percent of regional jobs are readily accessible by quality transit.6

Comparing Portlands job distribution to other regions illustrates the extent to which the region enjoys a relativelymonocentric employment pattern. Figure 8 shows the distribution of jobs in each census block relative to the regions lightrail system and Metros designated centers. Figure 7 shows the job distribution within other regions, such as Atlanta, whichhave experienced more employment growth at the urban edge thus makingit nearly impossible to connect a large share of regional jobs to transit.

Though Portland does outperform most regions due to a continued heavyconcentration of center city employment, over half of the regions jobsremain beyond walking distance of a station or frequent bus line. Many ofthe major suburban job centers are outside walking distance of light railstations and often lack quality last mile transit, biking, and walkingconnections. Enhanced pedestrian/ bicycle connections and future newtransit alignments can help connect some of the regions outlying jobcenters, but the reality is that there will always be some less connected jobcenters, leaving some commuters with limited options beyond driving.

(Source: Page 21 - 22, Metro TOD Program final report, http://ctod.org/pdfs/2011PortlandTODweb.pdf)


14/41

(Source: Figure 8, Metro TOD Program final report, http://ctod.org/pdfs/2011PortlandTODweb.pdf)


15/41

Transit-Oriented Development Program

Metros Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Program works directly with developers and local jurisdictions to create vibrant downtowns,

main streets and station areas by helping to change land use patterns near transit. Federal Metropolitan Transportation Improvement

Program (MTIP) funds are allocated to TriMet, which in turn provides its general funds to Metro. This relieves the TOD ImplementationProgram from the responsibility of meeting federal requirements.

The program attracts private investment in construction of compact and mixed-use buildings that:

Brings people to live and work within walking distance of high quality transit, station communities, and regional and town centers

Creates new market comparables for more compact development

Cultivates developers with expertise in compact and mixed-use building in suburban settings

Increases acceptance of urban style buildings through high quality design

Contributes to placemaking and local identity

Public/private development partnerships are necessary because planning and zoning alone are not enough to make TOD projects financially feasiblein most areas outside of Portlands city center. To overcome market barriers, Metro offers financial incentives to offset the higher costs of compactdevelopment by purchasing TOD easements from developers and, in some cases, acquiring and selling land near transit at a reduced cost. Metrosrole as a financial partner in TOD projects can leverage other public support; local and state agencies have helped to spur development by reducing

entitlement risk, expediting permitting, authorizing tax abatements, making related public improvements and providing project financing.

(Source: Page 13, Livable Portland Regional Governance and Policy, Download: www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/Livable-Portland.pdf )


16/41

The core objectives of station-area planning in Portland have remained fairly constant over the years. They include the

following:

Reinforcing the public s investment in light rail by ensuring (via rezoning) that only transit-friendly development occurs near stations;

Recognizing that station areas are special places and the balance of the region is available for

traditional development; Seizing the opportunity afforded by rail transit to promote TOD as part of a broader growth

management strategy;

Rezoning the influence area around stations to allow only transit- supportive uses;

Focusing public agency investment and planning efforts at stations with the greatest development

opportunity;

Building a broad-based core of support for TOD with electedofficials, local government staff,

land owners, and neighborhoods; and

Setting up a self-sustaining framework to promote TOD once the planning is complete.2

By2040, two-thirds of jobs and 40% of households are to be located in and around centers and corridors served by buses and light-rail transit.4

Over more than two decades, the Portland region has raised the bar of what it expects from TOD, and along with this it has continued to add new

regulatory and financial tools to its TOD implementation toolboxtools that are not generally available in other communities (see Table 17.1).

The breadth of regulations and incentives directed at TOD naturally raises the question of what the region is getting in exchange. Is TOD overly

subsidized and loaded with incentives, as some critics argue? Is TOD something the market would not produce on its own?

Portlands TOD planners answer these questions by saying that financial incentives, such as tax abatements, are provided to push the private

market further than it would otherwise go with respect to features and amenities desired by public policy, achieving higher densities, better urban

design, reduced parking, cleaner air, and greater housing affordability. The cities of Portland and Gresham are currently granting TOD tax

exemptions. The cities of Hillsboro and Beaverton, and Washington County along the Westside light-rail line, however, have opted not to grant

taxabatements. Nonetheless, nearly 8,000 housing units have been permitted in the Westside Station areas in those three communities (see Map

17.1). This includes the National Association of Homebuilders 1999 Planned Community of the Year, Orenco Station.

(Source: Page 356-357, TCRP Report 102, download: onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_102.pdf)
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/


17/41

Promote Walkability

Block sizes are a good proxy for the walkability of aneighbourhood, and small block sizes have ademonstrated correlation with reducing vehicle milestraveled. Figure 4 shows the block size patterns for theregions station areas and corridors. While centralPortland has the smaller block sizes associated withincreased pedestrian connectivity, there are notablewalkable areas throughout the region. However, blocksizes are less consistent, and often not directlyconnected to light rail or bus transit in communities

outside of central Portland, making it morechallenging for nearby households to reduce theirauto use.

A healthy mix of land uses that includes housing,shopping, services, and jobs, has also beencorrelated with reduced vehicle miles traveled.3 Inaddition to promoting walkability, a Metro TODProgram sponsored study found that key retail and

services such as grocery stores, restaurants andshops, or urban living infrastructure (ULI), canincrease residential rents and sales values, therebyenhancing the feasibility of TOD. Figure 7demonstrates graphically this general relationshipbetween ULI and higher property values.

(Source: Page 18 - 20, Metro TOD Program final report, http://ctod.org/pdfs/2011PortlandTODweb.pdf)


18/41

Promote Cycling

Cycling is an elegant, emission-free, healthy and affordable transport option that is highly efficient and consumes little space and

few resources. It combines the convenience of door-to-door travel, the route and schedule flexibility of walking, and the range and speed of

many local transit services. Bicycles and other means of people-powered transport, such as pedicabs, activate streets and greatly increase

the area coverage of transit stations. Cyclists, however, are among the most vulnerable road users, and their bicycles are also vulnerable totheft and vandalism. The key factors encouraging cycling are the provision of safe street conditions, and secure cycle parking and storage.

Objective A: The cycling network is safe and complete. A safe cycling network connecting all buildings and destinations through the

shortest routes available is a basic TOD requirement.

Objective B: Cycle parking and storage is ample and secure. Bicycles do not take up much space but still require secure parking and

storage. Cycling can be an attractive travel option only to the extent that cycle racks is available at destinations, and that bicycles can

be secured within private premises at night and for longer periods.

(Source: Page 20, https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TOD_Standard-v2.1.pdf)
https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TOD_Standard-v2.1.pdfhttps://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TOD_Standard-v2.1.pdf


19/41

Portland boasts that 6% of all trips to work are by bike, the highest percentage of bike commuters in any large U.S. city,

says Dan Anderson of the Portland Bureau of Transportation.

(Source:http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-30/portland-oregon-biking/57722086/1)

Bike sharing allows individuals convenient access to a bike when they need one, without the hassles and costs associatedwith private bicycle ownership. The idea behind bike sharing is to provide free or affordable access to bicycles, specifically forshort-distance trips within city limits. While bike sharing first emerged in cities across Europe, today it is becoming increasingly

popular in the U.S. Some of the early adopters of the bike share system include Denver, CO; Minneapolis, MN; Chicago, IL; andWashington D.C. By successfully integrating a bike share programinto existing transportation systems, cities can ensure that agreater number of residents have access to affordable, efficient, and sustainable transit options.

Benefits Increases overall health and wellness of participants by encouraging physical activity Improves mobility and access for residents Allows for greater connectivity between various transit modes Provides an affordable alternative to other transit systems Boosts retail exposure and home values Reduces parking demands Reduces greenhouse gas emissions Reduces traffic congestion

(Source:http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/transportation/bicycles-and-pedestrians/bike-sharing)
http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/transportation/bicycles-and-pedestrians/bike-sharinghttp://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/Documents/SCI/Report_Guide/Guide-NLC_IntegratingBikeShare_2011.pdfhttp://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-30/portland-oregon-biking/57722086/1


20/41

Policies and Programs

In addition to its land use planning framework, Oregon has a number of policies and programs that impact land use and

transportation investments.

Employee Commute Options Rules

Under the ECO, Employee Commute Option, program, employers in the Portland area with more than 100 employees

reporting to a single work site must provide incentives for employee commute options other than driving alone. The

incentives must have the potential to reduce commute trips to the work site by 10 percent within three years. Annual

employee surveys measure progress toward this goal.

Typical incentives offered by employers include transit subsidies, carpool matching and preferential carpool parking,

bike programs, compressed work weeks and telecommuting. Alternative compliance methods include reducing othervehicle traffic to or within the work site, reducing air pollution emissions from non-auto sources at the work

site, or paying a fixed fee. New development may comply by limiting construction of new parking spaces.

Taxation

Tax policy shapes public and private investment; it has a significant impact on land development and can be used as an

incentive to achieve planning and affordable housing goals. There are several notable aspects of Oregons tax system as

it relates to land use and transportation.


21/41

No sales tax

Oregon is one of five states with no sales tax. Legislative efforts to enact a sales tax have been referred to the ballot and

rejected by Oregon voters on several occasions. From a land use perspective, the absence of a sales tax may reduce the

incentive for local governments to zone for retail uses. The lack of a sales tax also explains

the market demand for large retail centers on

the Oregon-Washington border along I-5 and I-205these centers draw Washington residents interested in tax-free

shopping. Finally, Oregon has not had the benefit of being able to bond against sales tax revenue to support capital

investments in transit or other infrastructure.

Property taxes

The absence of a sales tax has not made Oregon immune to public concern about property taxes. Ballot Measure 5,

adopted in 1990 with a slim majority, amended the Oregon Constitution to establish limits on Oregons property taxes on

real estate. The measure capped property taxes dedicated for school funding at $15.00 per $1,000 of real market value

per year, gradually lowering the cap to $5. Property taxes for other purposes were capped at $10 per $1,000 per year.

Thus the total property tax rate would be 1.5% at the end of the five-year phase-in period. To equalize funding, the

measure also transferred the responsibility for school funding from local government to the state.

To combat the suspicion that local governments would aggressively re-assess properties to make up for Measure 5s

lower tax rate, voters approved Measure 47 in 1997. This measure limited the growth of a propertys assessed value to 3

percent maximum per year. Unless a property is developed or redeveloped, its assessment is frozen at the 1997 level plus3 percent annually, regardless of whether it has sold for a greater market value. This has made local governments almost

exclusively dependent on new development to increase their tax base. It also means that property owners do not pay

higher taxes when property values increase because of public investments such as light rail.

(Source: Page 6-7, Livable Portland Regional Governance and Policy, Download: www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/Livable-Portland.pdf )


22/41

TOD tax abatement

The 1995 Oregon State Legislature amended legislation to enable local jurisdictions to adopt

a property tax abatement program for transit- oriented development (TOD). The legislative purpose is to promote higher-

density residential and mixed-use development near major public transit facilities. The exemptions support TOD projects

and increase their financial feasibilityby reducing operating costs through a ten-year

tax exemption on the improvement value of a property. Property owners continue to pay taxes on the land value during

the exemption period.

Business Energy Tax Credit

The Oregon Legislature created the Business Energy Tax Credit to encourage Oregonians to save energy. The program,

administered by the Oregon Department of Energy, promotes investments in energy conservation, renewable energy

resources, recycling and less-polluting transportation fuels.Any Oregon business may qualify. Oregon non- profit organizations, tribes and public entities also qualify, but must

partner with an Oregon business or resident with an Oregon tax liability. Eligible projects may be in office buildings,

retail stores, apartment buildings or manufacturing plants,

or in transportation. Projects must be located in Oregon, and project owners must apply for the tax credit before they

start the project.

The tax credit is 35 percent of eligible project costs, taken over five years10 percent in the first and second years, and

5 percent in the last three years. If project costs are $20,000 or less, the business may take the tax credit in one year. The

eligible costs for a single project may not exceed $10 million.

(Source: Page 6-7, Livable Portland Regional Governance and Policy, Download: www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/Livable-Portland.pdf )


23/41

Livable Portland The Oregon Story

Transportation projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled may qualify for a tax credit. Three targeted projects are:

Telework, an arrangement in which employees work at locations other than the traditional workplace one or more

days a week. Businesses can get a tax credit for purchasing and installing new or used equipment that allows anemployee to telework. Computers, fax machines, modems, phones, printers, software, copiers and other equipment

necessary for telework are eligible costs for the tax credit. The employee must telework at least 45 days per

calendar year.

Employers that subsidize transit passes for employees or provide vehicles for vanpooling or carpooling are eligible

for the tax credit.

Business owners who buy a hybrid vehicle or one that uses alternative fuel may also be eligible for a tax credit.

Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP)

In 1996, Metro adopted the Urban Growth Management Functional Plan (UGMFP), which mandates that jurisdictions

comply with the goals and policies adopted by the Metro Council. The plan provides tools and establishes requirements

that help meet goals in the 2040 Growth Concept. Among other things, the plan:

Requires minimum density standards of 80 percent of maximum zoned density for all zones that allow residential uses

Stipulates that local governments shall not prohibit the construction of an accessory unit within any detached single family dwelling unit

Sets the minimum number of parking spaces that can be required by local governments for certain types of new development.

Ensures that all cities and counties in the region are providing opportunities for affordable housing for households of all income levels



24/41

Regional Travel Options program ( Marketing Strategy )

Metros Regional Travel Options (RTO) program implements strategies to help diversify peoples trip choices, reduce

pollution and improve mobility. Reducing the number of vehicles on the road cuts vehicle emissions, decreases

congestion, extends the lifecycle of existing roadways and promotes a healthier community.

RTO Strategic Plan

The RTO program is guided by a five-year strategic plan developed in partnership with program stakeholders. The

current plan, which covers 2008 to 2013, sets the following priorities:

Employer outreach

Promote travel options to employers and commuters.

Enhance coordination of employer outreach strategies to maximize investments and avoid duplication.

Traveler information services

Update CarpoolMatchNW.org to enhance the sites usability and reduce administrative costs.

Explore development of a regional multi-modal trip-planning tool to aid travel decision making for all trip

purposes.

Outreach to new residents and people who relocate

Relocation is a key time for people to consider travel options and change travel habits. The RTO program will

identify target market segments among new residents.


25/41

Parking management

Parking management results in positive impacts across land use, managing the transportation system and

supporting the economy. The RTO program will partner with employers, developers and local jurisdictions to

help manage parking through employer outreach and RTO grants.

Potential projects include: designate spaces for carpools and vanpools, install prominent bike parking, assist

employers to discontinue employee parking subsidies, and help implement parking pricing or short term parking

zones that free up parking in business and retail centers while encouraging drivers with long-term parking needs

to try carpooling, transit or other options.

Public-private partnerships

Support public-private partnerships to leverage investments and increase use of travel options in local downtownsand centers.

Update regional Transportation Management Association policy and explore funding options.

Individualized marketing

Apply individualized marketing strategies in select locations to increase travel options use and decrease single-

person car trips.

Drive Less/Save More

Continue implementation of the Drive Less/ Save More regional and statewide advertising and public awareness

campaign.



26/41

Project Evaluation

Selection of projects and decision-making arounddistribution of funding to individual projects is a keycomponent of program effectiveness. The program uses aspreadsheet model as a primary tool to assess applicantproject cost effective-ness and financial need. The model isnot the sole consideration used by staff todeveloprecommendations for project funding, but program historyshows that model outputs have been the most importantguide in determining actual funding allocations to privatedevelopers and also provides a key data source formeasuring program success. Results from the model are

considered along with other criteria and presented as partof staff s recommendation to the programs SteeringCommittee and Metro Council when approving projectsand funding amounts.

Metros model is currently set up to make two primarycalculations, the lower of which serves as a maximumproject subsidy:

1.A calculation of the total cost premium associated withachieving higher density and/or mixed-use development.These include, but are not limited to, the cost of structured or tuck-under parking; costs related to elementsof mixed-usedevelopment, such as firewall separation; and higher construction costs associated with taller buildings (e.g., elevators,structuralsystems, fire sprinkler systems, or more expensive building materials).


27/41

2.A calculation of the benefit associated with additional transit use, and specifically the incremental transit revenueassociated with a projectshigher density and/or mix of uses. The model calculates a maximum project subsidy based onthe net present value of additional transit revenueassociated with increased ridership over a 30-year period. Specifically, themodel computes: The estimated number of new transit trips made per day (induced ridership)

The cost per trip (Metros investment divided by induced trips) The net present value dollar amount of transit fares over 30 years as aresult of the project (capitalized fare

box revenue)Both of the above calculations require comparison of a proposed project to abaselineproject, defined as a project that would be delivered in the private market with no assistance. The baselineproject is typically based on recent market- rate development that has occurred nearby.

(Source: Page 6, Metro TOD Program final report, http://ctod.org/pdfs/2011PortlandTODweb.pdf)

(Source: Page 376, TRPC Report 102)

TOOLS FOR FUNDING AND FINANCING TOD INFRASTRUCTURE

Direct fees, including user and utility fees and congestion pricing. Debt tools, including private debt, bond financing, and federal and state infrastructure debt

mechanisms.


28/41

Credit assistance, including federal andstate credit assistance tools and the TransportationInfrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA).

Equity, including public-private partnerships

and infrastructure investment funds.

Value capture, including developer feesand exactions, special districts, tax incrementfinancing, and

joint development.

Grants and other philanthropic sources,including federal transportation and community andeconomic development grants and foundation grantsand investments.

Emerging tools, including structured funds,land banks, redfields to greenfields, and a nationalinfrastructure bank.

(Source: Page v, www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/2013-0122-TOD-infrastructure-financing-report.pdf)

The Importance of Preserving Affordable Housing Near Transit
http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/2013-0122-TOD-infrastructure-financing-report.pdf


29/41

(Source: Page 10, http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdf)
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdfhttp://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdf


30/41

Regions across the United States are expanding public transportation

systems to allow more residential choices, improve access to

employment centers, reduce traffic congestion and lower levels of

greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation accounts for nearly one-

third of our countrys energy consumption. Increasing the number of

dense, walkable, transit-connected neighborhoods promises shorter

commutes, fewer traffic problems, improved air quality and a cleaner

environment. Efficiently located housing, combined with energy

efficiency and water conservation, contribute towards limiting the

effects of climate change.

For low-income families, the ability to live in an affordable home

near good public transportation translates into improved access to

healthcare, education and employment opportunities, and reduced

commuting costs. On average, working families spend 57 percent of

their incomes on housing and transportation. Locating afford- ablehousing near transit can significantly reduce this financial burden.

Families who live near transit spend just 9 percent of their income on

transportation, while those who live in auto-dependent

neighborhoods spend an average of 25 percent of income on

transportation.

Preserving affordable rental housing near transit preserves

opportunities for low-income families and seniors to live an

affordable lifestyle and access employment, education, retail andcommunity opportunities. As areas around quality public transit

become more desirable, and the potential for displacement of low-

income individuals and families becomes a real concern, the

importance of developing and implementing affordable housing

preservation tools and strategies will be critical to ensuring that low-(Source: Page 4 - 5, http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdfhttp://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdf


31/41

income people can benefit from significant public investment in transit.

Communities familiar with the challenge of preserving affordable housing in general need to retool strategies in light of opportunities and

threats specific to preservation of affordable housing near transit. These include:

Preventing market-rate conversions in rising neighborhoods Preventing loss of stock due to physical distress, where transit investments create new opportunities for recapitalization and/or

ownership change

Targeting unsubsidized stock at risk of losing affordability as market rents rise Capitalizing on market opportunities to make housing greener and healthier Redeploying subsidy resources to preserve affordable units in mixed-income redevelopment settings Tapping inclusionary zoning incentives to subsidize operations, finance repairs or add to the affordable housing stock

(Source: Page 9, http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdf)

(Source: Page 19 - 26, https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TOD_Standard-v2.1.pdf)
http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdfhttp://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/preservingaffordablehousingneartransit2010.pdfhttps://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TOD_Standard-v2.1.pdfhttps://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TOD_Standard-v2.1.pdf


32/41

WALK

Principle 1

Objective A: The pedestrian network is safe and complete

Objective B: The pedestrian realm is active and vibrant

Objective C: The pedestrian realm is temperate and comfortable

CYCLE

Principle 2

Objective A: The cycling network is safe and complete

Objective B: Cycle parking and storage is ample and secure

CONNECT

Principle 3

Objective A: Walking and cycling routes are short, direct and varied

Objective B: Walking and cycling routes are shorter than motor vehicle

routes

TRANSIT

Principle 4

Objective A: High-quality transit is accessible by foot

(Source: Page 19 - 26, https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TOD_Standard-v2.1.pdf)
https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TOD_Standard-v2.1.pdfhttps://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TOD_Standard-v2.1.pdf


33/41

MIX

Principle 5

Objective A: Trip lengths are reduced by the provision of diverse and complementary uses

Objective B: Lower-income groups have short commutes

DENSIFY

Principle 6

Objective A: Residential and job densities support high-quality transit and local services

COMPACT

Principle 7

Objective A: The development is in an existing urban area

Objective B: Traveling through the city is convenient

SHIFT

Principle 8

Objective A: The land occupied by motor vehicles is minimized


34/41

(Source: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/TOD-program-AnnualReport-2014.pdf)

(Source: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/11053_tod_brochure_feb2014.pdf)
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/11053_tod_brochure_feb2014.pdfhttp://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/11053_tod_brochure_feb2014.pdfhttp://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/TOD-program-AnnualReport-2014.pdfhttp://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/TOD-program-AnnualReport-2014.pdf


35/41

Case Study: Pearl District (Portland, Oregon)

Over the last 25 years, Portlands Pearl District has transformed from an underutilized warehouse and industrialdistrict into a vibrant mixed-use community. While the Pearl District was originally aLegacy Industrial area, it is considered a major infill site because redevelopment occurred with the district under a

single master developer rather than incrementally as individual smaller parcels became available. While rare, thisstrategy enabled the city and developer to pursue a unique development strategy that incorporated civic amenities,affordability and a long term phasing plan. Located immediately north of Downtown Portland, the PearlDistrict spans70 acres and boasts approximately 5,200 new housing units and 3.6 million square feet of new commercial

development.The success of the Pearl District is due to a series of redevelopment plans, large-scale developeragreements, and a streetcar system that connects a high-density residential area to the Citys employment centers.Formerly a bustling railway roundhouse and staging area, the Pearl District began to decline after the Spokane,

Portland & Seattle Railway left in 1970. In the early 1980s, the City of Portland began focusing its planning efforts intoredeveloping the Pearl District. After an urban design study in the early 1980s, the City Council adopted the 1988Central City redevelopment plan, including a provision to establish a streetcar-circulator loop connecting both sides ofthe Willamette River and all of the Central City districts.

In 1997, the City of Portland began construction on a 2.4-mile streetcar line to connect the Pearl District to majoremployment centers like the Downtown and Portland State University. Funding for the $54 million streetcar projectcame from a variety of federal, state, and local resources. Just over half of the cost was covered by bonds backed byparking revenues.The City secured a $900,000 Federal Housing and Urban Development grant that supplemented

local funding. An additional $9.6 million dollars came from the implementation of a local improvement district thatsurrounded the route alignment. The streetcar opened for service in 2001.


36/41

Around the same time, the City of Portland struck a deal with Hoyt Street Properties (HSP) to commence a $600million, 34-acre redevelopment project in the Pearl District. As part of the development agreement, the City ofPortland agreed to fund important public improvements, like the streetcar and a neighborhood park, while HSPcommitted to building higher-density residential and commercial uses (131 units/acre, up from 15 to 87 units/acre).

The developer later stated that the higher densities would not have been feasible without the improvedaccess provided by the streetcar27, which exceeded ridership projections by over 300 percent and increasedpedestrian and retail activity dramatically.28

By 2001, developers were building projects at an increased residential density of 143 dwelling units per acre,and by 2003, almost all large lot single-family, commercial and industrial parcels had been redeveloped. 29

Land values increased 250 percent from 1990 to 2005. 30As of 2008, $3.5 billion dollars of newdevelopment31 had occurred adjacent to the streetcar alignment, establishing the Pearl District as asuccessful, mixed-use urban community.

(Source: https://www.walkscore.com/OR/Portland/Pearl_District)

(Source: Page 54 - 55, www.ctod.org/pdfs/20130528_DntnsGreenfieldsEtc.FINAL.pdf)
http://www.ctod.org/pdfs/20130528_DntnsGreenfieldsEtc.FINAL.pdfhttps://www.walkscore.com/OR/Portland/Pearl_Districthttps://www.walkscore.com/OR/Portland/Pearl_Districthttp://www.ctod.org/pdfs/20130528_DntnsGreenfieldsEtc.FINAL.pdf


37/41

Case Study: Portland Streetcar

PORTLAND STREETCAR

The creation of the Pearl District is the most dramatic transformation of downtown Portland in the last 20 years. An importantpart of the story behind the creation of the The Pearl is an innovative agreement explicitly linking land use density to the

financing and construction of a modern new streetcar line.xvii

The Pearl District encompasses 90 city blocks bounded by I-405 to the west, West Burnside St. to the south, NW Broadway St. tothe east, and the Willamette River to the north. Once home to a large artist community and an incubator for start-up businessesin abandoned warehouses, the Pearl District is now an emerging mixed-use neighborhood of upscale loft housing, parks, artgalleries, boutiques, cafes, and restaurants.

A major key to the transformation of the district was the construction of the Portland Streetcar, the first modern streetcar to beconstructed in the United States. The Streetcar began service in 2001 and runs 2.4 miles through downtown Portland and the heart

of the Pearl District. The Streetcar connects the Pearl District to downtown employment, the cultural/arts district, Portland StateUniversity, and other upscale neighborhoods. Ridership is over 5,000 daily passengers. Most of the route is in a fareless zone.The Streetcar investment was strategically used to leverage large-scale redevelopment of afunctionally obsolete warehouse and industrial district, and brownfields formerly owned by Burlington Northern Railway. In thiscase, the Streetcar has been both a housing and transportation project, as streetcar construction was explicitly linked to high-density development via an innovative developer agreement. As a result of this agreement, the average density of the district isnow 120 housing units per acre, the highest in the entire city. The Pearl District had only a handful of residents in 1990 and 1,300in 2000. At build-out, it will be home to over 10,000 residents in 5,500 housing units, and 21,000 jobs. The area will also have 1million square feet of new commercial and retail space.


38/41

The essential elements of the Master Development

Agreement (1997),between the City and Hoyt StreetProperties (the owners of 40 acres of contaminated railyards in the heart of the district) are:

1. Housing: The housing density requirements are significantly greater than anything built previously. The developer agreed toincrease the minimum density from 15 to 87 units per acre when the City commenced removal of the Lovejoy Viaduct thatcrossed the abandoned rail yards. Second, upon completion of the Portland Streetcar, minimum densities would increase to 109

units/acre. Finally, when construction commenced on the District's first park, density would increase to 131 units/acre.

In addition to meeting density requirements, the developer is also to help meet the Citys housing affordability goals. At least 15percent of all rental units and 10 percent of all for-sale units must be 700 square feet or smaller. At least 15% of the total housingunits must be affordable to families earning up to 50% of the areas median family income (MFI), and 20% of units must beaffordable up to 80% MFI. The developers commitment is predicated on the availability of public financial assistance,recognizing that these units typically require public subsidies. If the developer does not build affordable housing, the City can

purchase up to three one-half blocks of property for that purpose.

2. Parks: The developer agreed to donate 1.5 acres of land for new parks in exchange for the City's commitment to build them. In

addition, the City has the option to acquire up to four acres for public open space.

3. Infrastructure: Transportation improvements were essential to develop the area. The agreement stipulates that the developerwould donate the right of way for all local streets, sidewalks and utilities (six acres) at no cost. The developer also paid $121,000to remove the Lovejoy Viaduct, and $700,000 towards the streetcar.

(Source: Figure4. Portland Streetcar Funding Source, http://www.ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/brookingsValueAddedTIF2009.pdf)

(Source: Page 20,http://www.fltod.com/research/tod_planning_and_fbc_outside_florida/muncipalities/san_francisco/
http://www.fltod.com/research/tod_planning_and_fbc_outside_florida/muncipalities/san_francisco/san_francisco_bay_area_transit_oriented_development_study.pdfhttp://www.ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/brookingsValueAddedTIF2009.pdfhttp://www.fltod.com/research/tod_planning_and_fbc_outside_florida/muncipalities/san_francisco/san_francisco_bay_area_transit_oriented_development_study.pdfhttp://www.ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/brookingsValueAddedTIF2009.pdf


39/41

Comment: This shows a significant change in the land use pattern since the streetcar was introduced in 1997. An emergent of mixed land use

where it used to occupy by industrial buildings.

(Source: Map 5&6 Portland Land Use Near Streetcars North End 1997, http://www.ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/brookingsValueAddedTIF2009.pdf)
http://www.ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/brookingsValueAddedTIF2009.pdfhttp://www.ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/brookingsValueAddedTIF2009.pdf


40/41

(Source: Map 7&8 Portland Property Value Change, http://www.ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/brookingsValueAddedTIF2009.pdf)
http://www.ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/brookingsValueAddedTIF2009.pdfhttp://www.ctod.org/portal/sites/default/files/brookingsValueAddedTIF2009.pdf


41/41

Program Issuesand Opportunities

While Metros TOD Program has demonstrated success at leveraging more intensive development near transit, itsfunding levels have not kept pace with the rapid expansion of the regions rail and frequent bus system. Whereas the

square miles of TOD funding eligible areas have increased more than sevenfold since the programs creation in 1998,program funding has not yet doubled. In order to be more strategic with these limited funds, the following issues need tobe recognized and addressed:

1. Limited funding sources keep the scale of the TOD Program relatively small.2. The TOD market readiness of station communities varies significantlyacross the region.3. Many suburban stations have limited near term market rate development potential, but have substantial land

opportunity.4. Station design and existing transit alignments are not always conducive to TOD, making some stations harder to

develop than others.5. A range of housing options is needed in station areas, including affordable housing, workforce housing, and

market-rate housing.6. Other programs, agencies and policies are needed to complement the TOD program in promoting transit-oriented

development the TOD Program cannot go it alone, especially in weak market areas.

(Source:http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/tod_final_report.pdf)

Note*: For project investment criteria of Metros TOD funds please

visit http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/14071_tod_investment_criteria_aug2012.pdf
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/tod_final_report.pdf

Date post:	28-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	amarin-siri
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times